User talk:Tgrebinski

Oasis

I realize that this was pointing to a different place before but it doesn't seem like you are listening to the edit summaries or the alert I put on the Oasis pages.

Oasis is the primary topic with that name. It fits under the criteria Here. If you disagree, that is fine. But then you need to take it up at our Requested Moves page. Way too many pages point to Oasis for changes like this to be made without discussion. I'm an admin who has disammed literally hundreds of thousands of disambiguation pages, so I know what I'm talking about here. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The page Oasis is now protected against being moved without discussion. Please stop your disruptive edits. If you do not agree with the current title, the correct way to approach this is to discuss your concerns with other users on Talk:Oasis, and/or use the Requested Moves process. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and concerns.

I was not the one being disruptive. I felt I made the edits according to the rules set by Wikipedia. I reviewed those rules before I made the edits. Also, I waited almost two years for someone else to make the changes I made. The only disagreement seems to be the designation of Oasis, the geographic interpretation, as the primary usage. Perhaps in a dictionary this would be the appropriate. However, in this type of different encyclopedic type of venue; where access is solely through a search engine, it seems not to be the appropriate.

I looked at the edit history for these pages. It quickly became very clear to me that I am not the only one who feels this way. Perhaps you should try to call up references to my articles. You'll see that they do not come up in the search box. The disambiguation properly placed and referenced was my hope to get equal exposure. We are not getting equal exposure and I believe that many of the other Oasis pages having different usages are not either.

The indexing for the Wikipedia articles using the term Oasis seems deliberately weighted in favor of the geographic use of term. Also, I find it incredibly inappropriate to have the band Oasis listed on a Wikipedia primary usage page that is not a disambiguation page. This is clearly promotional which is against Wikipedia policy.

I successfully chair a similar organization. I do appreciate your explanation here though and, again, I wish you would consider that fact that the rest of the usages are being buried by the way these pages are being indexed. Having the disambiguation page as the first page for any usage of Oasis is the best approach to offer equal weight to all of its usages.

I suggest you read WP:BRD. I did not act because I thought your views were wrong. Rather, I acted because you persisted in trying to implement those views after other editors disagreed with them. When that happens, the proper approach is to engage in discussion, not to carry out an "edit war" or "move war" and see who gets tired of it first. If you start a discussion and the consensus of other editors agrees with you that "Oasis" does not have a primary topic, then that's fine and the page will be moved accordingly; but until that discussion takes place, it stays where it is. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I had been listening but I no longer wish to pursue this. I think that those managing the main Oasis wiki page have an promotional/commercial agenda. For instance, the listing of the Oasis band should not be on this page. Two years ago, I had tried to remove this without success.

I think that Wikipedia should not allow edits without the edits being discussed by others first. Allowing edits without a community discussion causes problems like the ones we've had here. Allowing edits without discussion encourages bad behavior. This is one of the most poorly managed pages I've seen on Wikipedia. I really do not care any longer. I am outta here. I'll just take care of the pages I own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrebinski (talk • contribs)

There are no such things as "the pages I own", Grebinski. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

More here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and failure to disclose same

Hello, Tgrebinski. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page OASIS.MASK, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tgrebinski. 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)