User talk:Oxr033

Welcome!

Hello, Oxr033, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hagia Sophia

Hi, re your recent editing to the Hagia Sophia article, the correct method to raise concerns is to raise the issue of the talk page of the article. I see you are new to Wikipedia, so I would like to point out that edit warring is not acceptable and can lead to an editor being blocked from editing. I trust that there won't be a repeat of this. Please read the pages linked from the welcome notice I've left at the top of your talk page, as they will give you a better idea re what Wikipedia is and is not. Any questions, please ask. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia

Don't worry too much about making errors. There is lots to learn! As long as your intentions are good and you learn from your errors you'll be fine. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choudary

"I think we're all shocked" is the kind of waffle that is being omitted. If you look at the top of the section you will see that the statements of the Queen, Politicians, Church leaders atc that are "non-notable" have all been reduced to a single sentence.

Choudary saying "I think we're all shocked" is a non-statement. He thinks we are all shocked. He is not say saying I am shocked. What he makes clear, repeatedly, is that he doesn't condemn the attack. The fact that he doesn't condemn it is significant. Making a statement like thinking we are all shocked is of no significance what so ever. Don't imagine that this is being somehow unbalanced towards Choudary. It is what he refuses to say that makes his position clear. This is why the head of Ibrahim College took him to task.

Amandajm (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"directly". I have just discovered your insertion of that word. Please do not insert words that add a coloured slant to the reporting. Choudary was given multiple opportunities to condemn the action and refused to. If you have seen the whole interview, then you are aware of this. Amandajm (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choudory is not being neutral. His "I think we're all shocked" is the most non-comittal thing that he could possibly say.

He then says that he blames Government policy, but significantly repeats the words of the assailant as the justification. So when he says that he blames the Govt, he is repeating what the assassin said, and he makes this very clear by repeating precisely the assassins words.

Note that he doesn't use the assassins words in order to say This is the assassins opinion. He repeats the words (including the condemnation of the Government) as a justification for the action. He doesn't condemn the "radicalisation" of young Muslims, because he himself is very much part of that process, and sees it as a "means to and end".

As for him being "neutral", what he is being is "cautious". If the Government had anywhere to which they could deport him they would do it. But he was born in England. They could throw him in gaol, but there are very good political reasons not to. If he had lived in Britain in the 17th century, his head would be sitting on a spike on London Bridge by now.

You don't get to be the leading radical cleric in England without learning how to mince words cleverly, and take in naive people who imagine that "I think we're all shocked" is a position of neutrality.

Amandajm (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put in this whole quote:"I'm not in the business of condemnation or condoning. I think if anyone needs to be condemned it is the British government and their foreign policy."

Observe that it is a classic example of "double-speak". He claims that he is not in the business of condemning or condoning, and the immediately informs his listeners who their condemnation should be directed against. Right?

If you only look at the first sentence, then his position appears neutral.

He also states that he tells Muslims that they are living in Britain under a covenant i.e. that if they break the law, it is their responsibility.

He then leads the 9/11 celebrations every year. Neutral?

Amandajm (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched Choudary again. He is brilliant. He is asked when it was that he last spoke to Adolabajo and he replies "I last saw him about three years ago." Amandajm (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Woolwich attack

Hi, welcome. I'm sorry, your edits were reverted when I reverted the reversion before you edited. I hope that's clear. You may wish to add them again. Rothorpe (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Your recent editing history at Great Fire of Smyrna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please do not remove valid references from the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Islamic terrorism

We're in good shape using the word, as it says precisely what Friedman says in his article. I didn't read the whole piece but towards to the top of the page he states "The Virtual Afghanistan is the network of hundreds of jihadist Web sites that inspire, train, educate and recruit young Muslims to engage in jihad against America and the West." If you can improve on the wording that'd be great. I'm just a long-time watcher of that article and don't feel to strongly about it. Thanks :) Dawnseeker2000 04:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sinan the Architect2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Sinan the Architect2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Do not edit disruptively to make a point. Your recent edits to SlutWalk are preempting the procedure to delete articles which you enquired about at Talk:Boobquake. It is poor form to ask about deletion procedures and initiate measures unilaterally a few minutes later. Further, declaring articles to be "horseshit" is inappropriate. (FYI, Boobquake is far too well documented to be deleted.)Novangelis (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well documented by who? Feminist blog sites and gossipy news sources? Any actual newspapers involved?Oxr033 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #1 is the New York Times.Novangelis (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Boobquake. That's a 'and finally' type story.Oxr033 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Star and National Post. Non-newspaper sources such as ABC and Vanity Fair are more than sufficient. The requirement is breadth of coverage, not that events are front-page news.Novangelis (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything besides NatPost is a total nonentity of a publication. TheStar. Really? It got 'broad coverage' because it's a quirky, unusual story, and it cheers people up, and gets clicks through thumbnails from gawkers who just want to look at women's cleavage. Like I said. "And finally, in other news, this local cat was rescued from a tree by an 93-year old woman" might get picked up by a few blogs. Next time it does i'll write an article about it with 'see also' including 'cats, women, tree'.Oxr033 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not threaten to disrupt Wikipedia by making non-contributory edits for the purpose of making a point as you have done here.
Do not delete material as you did at SlutWalk under inappropriate minor edits tags and misleading edit summaries ("put in alphabetical").Novangelis (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were all contributory. Oxr033 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Sinan the Architect.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Sinan the Architect.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Revent (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Sinan the Architect.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sinan the Architect.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Auschwitz concentration camp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of [[Nazism]] brought together elements of antisemitism, [[racial hygiene]], [[eugenics]], and [[Socialism] and combined them with [[pan-Germanism]] and territorial expansionism with the goal of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Auschwitz concentration camp. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi Oxr033, When you add Ukpollingreport references to election boxes, would you be kind enough to add them into the header of the boxes rather than for a particular candidate as the given ref will cover them all rather than just the one. I'm afraid I've had to take out some of your refs also as the ref for both St Ives and West Lancashire was already included on the article. Regards - Galloglass 14:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Oxr033. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Oxr033. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination

I don't think this guy was assassinated. Neither me nor anyone I know had ever heard of him until his death. To be assassinated you need to be a prominent person, no disrespect but writing a few columns in WSJ does not merit prominence.Oxr033 (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]