User talk:OxfordLaw

Welcome

Hello OxfordLaw and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Anti-Arabism, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Uromastyx has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Uromastyx was changed by OxfordLaw (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.86678 on 2016-07-21T20:08:19+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Uromastyx, you may be blocked from editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Neymar, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What vandalism? I am using official sources. Many other editors have made the exact same edits. One person is trying to chance consensus here.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I was wondering what's going on with this account, Hogdg (talk · contribs) and Bpkhy69 (talk · contribs). Are they the same user, or working in concert? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I have no idea. I am just trying to improve the page about Saudi Arabia as I believe that it was and remains insufficient. It is a interesting county with beautiful landscapes and a very old history. It seems that there is a lot of bias against the country due to its system of governance and its rules. Given the country's geopolitical role, I believe that a lot of articles related to Saudi Arabia need to be improved and seen from different angles rather than the usual simplistic one.

Anyway why are you asking?--OxfordLaw (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of fine topics needing improvement. It is an inescapable fact that these three accounts (I haven't yet looked for more) appear to be either operated by the same person, or different people working together. Outside of school projects it's, well, unusual. I also noticed that after I left a bunch of warnings at one account about violating copyright policy, that account stopped editing and another account sprang to life. I wanted to know whether I need to look more closely, or if there's some plausible explanation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are completely free to investigate the matter more closely. However I will tell you that I have nothing to do with those users or individuals and from what I saw the user Bpkhy69 did not break any rules while I was editing the Saudi Arabia page.--OxfordLaw (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As you'll see from both parts of this diff, they've uploaded a bunch of copyrighted photos, which have been or will be deleted. This one included ;) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know about that. A shame as it is a good photo. Anyway I will replace it with the photo of a kabsa dish or find another photo showing some Saudi Arabian cuisine. Nice talking to you and have a nice day.--OxfordLaw (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "OxfordLaw", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it seems to be that of an organization, Oxford Law School. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Any comment about this?331dot (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. 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:

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

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Image spam

Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. --Moxy (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir, what is the problem exactly? The photos are all related to the text and sourced. Moreover the number of photos in the page about Saudi Arabia does not exceed the photos of other countries pages, for instance that of Iran. I will take this matter to the highest place in Wikipedia as simply deleting hours of hard work and sourced material, I find very provoking.--OxfordLaw (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

Main page: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

Yes, you can copy parts of one Wikipedia article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary. Original content contributed by users can be freely used if the original author is properly attributed. If you have copied text but forgotten to use the edit summary, this can be easily corrected: You can make a dummy edit by making an inconsequential change to the article—such as adding a blank line to the end of the article—and link to the source article in edit summary then. A note such as "content copied from [[source article]] on 1 January 2012" works fine.

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

This is a minor edit Watch this page

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Publish changes Show preview Show changes Cancel

It is also recommended to make a note on the talk page of the source article that copying has occurred, because the source article cannot be deleted as long as content from it is used. The template {{copied}} can be used for this as well as on the destination article's talk page.--Moxy (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir, can you help me do that? Also this is only relevant on the section about the Nabataeans. I have indeed used parts of the introduction from this page below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans

But the material is sourced and above the very same text there is a direct link to that page.

Can you please help me do what you believe I should do not to get hours of hard work deleted?

I would really appreciate this.

Thank you in advance.--OxfordLaw (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi OxfordLaw. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. However, I need to point out that our article Saudi Arabia is already at 13778 words without your additions, well over the recommended 10000-word article size limit, so it's not a good idea to add any more stuff there. To do so will make the article impossible to load for people on slow Internet connections or on older mobile devices, When our articles get too big, we split them and provide people with a wikilink to the sub-article. I am restoring Moxy's revision 16:22, April 1, 2017. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear, I am using an incredibly slow internet connection and I have no problems loading the page. The country page of Saudi Arabia does not differ much from other country pages of countries of a similar size. That should not cause any trouble as I have not added a lot of text at all. Barely a new section about the Nabataeans who surprisingly where omitted and a very short section about tourism. I cannot believe that adding so little material is now a huge concern while nobody complained about the size of the article previously. Adding 6-7 more photos in a article with very few photos (compared to the likes of Turkey, Iran, Egypt or even other much smaller regional neighboring countries) should not be a case of concern.

I cannot stop thinking that there is some kind of bias involved as I do not understand why people would want to delete useful sourced material and thus vast counties of hours of hard work of other people. I really don't want to create any trouble but simply improve a page that is in much need of improvement but I will take this matter to the highest level possible as if deleted, as such action will show a lack of consistency by Wikipedia admins (see my examples of other country pages) and unfortunately possible bias as I cannot see any other explanation.

Thank you in advance and I hope that you take what I wrote into consideration.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Saudi Arabia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you have already been warned about edit warring once today. Please take the time to read and understand this message and the material I have posted at the article talk page regarding appropriate article size. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I see the additions were copy and paste it again. Best to step back and read up on the rules.--Moxy (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Emir of Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Saudi Arabia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. 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:

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

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. 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:

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

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at FC Barcelona.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Anakimi_lambaste   23:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not helping make any progress by repeatedly reverting. You already have a poor track-record with such matters. The table actually follows the Manual of Style, and so other clubs too must actually be in the same format as this. Try to understand that just because you find it different in other places, it doesn't mean that format is right. However, you are correct in pointing out that the record number of wins are difficult to notice in this table. It can be fixed simply by adding "Record"/"Shared Record" next to the number of wins. Would you agree? — Anakimi_lambaste   00:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Why was the design changed anyway after being the standard for years upon years just like almost everywhere else on similar club pages? The current design is ugly and graphically flawed. I don't understand why it is preferred. The old design did not give rise to controversy until very recently for some strange reason.

As for your last suggestion, I do agree.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was actually discussed a couple of months ago at Project Football, and the idea was to make all the honours sections on club articles conform to the Manual of Style (as you have noticed, it hasn't happened yet, obviously). So the reason only a couple of clubs have this format is simply because, you have to start from somewhere, and this is one of the first couple of pages where it happened. Can you please explain why you feel the table is flawed? Perhaps it is something that can be improved? — Anakimi_lambaste   06:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However if such a consensus was reached, why is it that only the FC Barcelona and Real Madrid CF pages use the current design? Would it not be a rather easy job to make that design the standard on all pages? Yet despite this, the current design is only used (as far as I can see) on the aforementioned pages.

I believe that the design is flawed mainly because it is difficult to notice the trophies which have been won a record number of times.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello, I'm Bakilas. I noticed that you recently removed content from Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Bakilas (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, OxfordLaw. 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)

The article is about the football club, Futbol Club Barcelona. The disambiguation link is there for other uses

See the link at the top. That's why it's there. DC80 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the Battlebox of the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, you may be blocked from editing. Warning, you broke the 1RR rule of these article. Wikaviani (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen

• Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• OxfordLaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you continue to revert this article without any effort to discuss your changes on the talk page, you are risking a block for edit warring, by me or any other administrator. If you disagree about the use of Al Jazeera, consider posting at WP:RSN. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Note

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)