User talk:Oakwillow

Welcome!

Hello, Oakwillow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go (board game)

Hi Oakwillow,

Please do not make large drastic changes like that to the article Go (board game). The article is currently being polished and will then be nominated for featured article status. So at the current time, please discuss such changes at the talk page. Also, welcome to the Wikiproject Go, any and all help is highly appreciated!

Regards, HermanHiddema (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Nothing that is in a subarticle needs to be included in the main article. There is no point in even having a subarticle if the main article is going to duplicate everything that is in the subarticle. Oakwillow (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Go (board game)#Trimming the article. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Go (board game), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Go (board game) was changed by Oakwillow (u) (t) deleting 12470 characters on 2008-04-25T16:37:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More trimming is needed. Oakwillow (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Kitani dojo

A tag has been placed on Kitani dojo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has redirected the page to a section of another article that covers the subject. Oakwillow (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Go (board game), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Go (board game) was changed by Oakwillow (u) (t) deleting 14287 characters on 2008-04-28T04:57:40+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Oakwillow (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly deleting material from Go (board game)

You have repeatedly been deleting material from Go (board game), despite requests to stop doing so and discuss your edits on the talk page. If you continue to do so, I will contact an administrator to have you blocked from editing. You have been warned. Discuss your changes on the talk page first. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly improving an article is not grounds for blocking. Oakwillow (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but repeatedly ignoring polite and friendly requests to cooperate on something, instead deleting material outright, may well be grounds for that. All I was asking was for you to discuss your edits with your fellow editors. If you do not see the point of that, then perhaps the wiki format is not for you. It is supposed to be about cooperation. HermanHiddema (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other editors who agree that the sections need to be trimmed. The appropriate response is to edit back in material that you feel essential, and not just revert the edits. Oakwillow (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were so broad, and removed so much material not available in other articles, that reverting was the only logical option. I ask again: Please discuss. Give reasons why certain material needs to be trimmed and other material doesn't. Right now you're just saying that the article needs trimming and apparently feel that it should be obvious why the choices you make are the right ones. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are beating a dead horse. The way articles get written is they grow to 30-40kB, then subarticles get created, with the subarticles summarized in the main article, so that the article can continue to grow, but never exceeds 30-40kB in size. I did a very simple step of looking for subarticles and deleting everything but the summary of the subarticle from the main article. If some of the material on the subject was not in the subarticle, that is the fault of the editors who wrote the article, not me, and if anything was lost it can easily be retrieved, but not by reverting my edits, but by moving the lost material into the subarticle, where it should have been in the first place. Think about it. You have an article called "History of go", but to find the history of go you can not read "history of go", you have to read "go" because half of the history is not in the history article. Makes no sense at all. Done properly, if you want to find out about the history of go you read "history of go" and when you look at the "go" article you find only things that you already know about the history of go from the article history of go. Clearly you felt that it was the other way around, that the real history of go was in the article "go" and the "history of go" article was not important. That's backwards from the way things work. Oakwillow (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss this further until you start talking constructively. See Talk:Go (board game) and please reply there. HermanHiddema (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. Cheers. Oakwillow (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it, did you reply to my latest comment (made two minutes before the one above)? HermanHiddema (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be cross posting. Please focus on ways that the article can be improved while at the same time using a summary style by moving material from the main article to subarticles. I am sure that you are just as passionate about the game as all of us. Oakwillow (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Article size. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no warning required. It is not an edit war. Oakwillow (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have now made inappropriate edits at Wikipedia:Article size, which I find a very disappointing development, given the ongoing discussion at Talk:Go (board game). If the Wikipedia guidelines do not support your side of the argument, unilaterally changing the guidelines is a very inappropriate response. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about that. Will answer you there. Oakwillow (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you intended to or not, you continued edit warring after the above 3rr warning. This is not acceptable, and as a result you are blocked. Whether your edits are right or not doesn't matter, you're edit warring. Wizardman 13:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It is User:Bobblehead that is edit warring. Block them. Oakwillow (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting on Wikipedia:Article size, per the edit warring policy. If a revert is needed, I am sure someone else will do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reverting. I am maintaining the proper version of the article until a new change is agreed to. It is completely unacceptable for User:North Shoreman to engage in edit warring. Block them, not me. Oakwillow (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken in the thought that you are maintaining the proper version, see Wikipedia talk:Article size for my explanation on that. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Oakwillow: it doesn't make a difference whether you are maintaining a proper version or not, but you certainly were reverting. I have warned all three editors who were edit warring on that policy page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one time, and that was the next day. Whoever blocked me was awful fast on the trigger finger, and for no reason. If anything they should have blocked the other two editors (as well). They were the ones who didn't even read the talk page and just hit undo. Twice. I read the talk page and hit undo once. The next day. Oakwillow (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Article size

Oakwillow is probably 199.125.109.xxx... I'd put money on it. I'm here because this Anon is demanding major trimming on a reasonable article. I left a note on HH's page but if there are other editors that have been dealing with 199 or Oakwillow we'd do well to work collectively. I didn't realize this editor has been using socks but this seems to be the case. What a pain!!! Itsmejudith has suggested an Arbcom and given me a name. I really don't know how to approach this but I'm fed up with a year's worth of hassling over miscellany. A censure of some sort seems to be in order. Mrshaba (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on Mrshaba's talk page, but just because Oakwillow and the IP address have the same user, it doesn't mean they are at odds with WP:SOCK. He'd only be at odds with the policy if he used the multiple accounts to make it appear that there is more support for something or to circumvent another policy. Unless some evidence is presented where Oakwillow was using the IP address disruptively in conjunction with the Oakwillow account, then it's not really something that can be check usered or at odds with WP:SOCK. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or unless Oakwillow and the IP are banned Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) of the infamous Extra-Long Article Committee, using socks to evade a ban. Where is this IP that has been mentioned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire. Mrshaba (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant where has the IP been posting; I don't see this IP anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Sadi Carnot's history. There's definitely a similarity. I'm familiar with 199's writing style so I'll look into Sadi's talk posts more. 199 is a dynamic address but the user frequents energy stuff... Solar energy, Nuclear power, Hydrogen economy, Photovoltaics, Electric car etc. Although less themed 199 edits Cannibis (drug), E-mail spam, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Contra Dance and articles involving page name disputes. Mrshaba (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just found it as well: [1] Checkuser time; this has been my suspicion all along here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Sadi Carnot has had a recent sockpuppet discovered or had a prior RFCU run against them where the CU kept notes, then there really isn't a way to show that Sadi is Oakwillow/IP address are the same via RFCU. RFCU only works on edits within the last month or so. However, if there is suspicion of them being the same, WP:SSP may be the direction to go as that is based on behavioral evidence rather than them sharing the same IP address/range. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's a sockpuppet template at User:Sadi Carnot, doesn't that mean there was likely a checkuser? Where does one look for it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sadi Carnot doesn't exist. So no official one was done. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain WTF this has to do with this article? I'm moving it to my talk page. Please continue it there. Oakwillow (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Case

I started a sock puppet case against you. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Apteva. Mrshaba (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing Go

Please join discussion here. Thank you. Coastside (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]