User talk:Oxygen305

Removing material

Please stop removing material from articles that is sourced to reliable sources, simply because you don't like it. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful what sources you publish here and keep in mind that he has 2 daugthers and a wife. Thank you for your consideration.--Oxygen305 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response regarding Petzner

You wrote to me:

"Thank you for your input on Joerg Haider.

"I just wanted to point out, that Petzner is no longer head of the party( even though de.wp and bzoe.at is not updated yet. please read the 10-22-2008 http://www.bzoe.at/index.php?content=medien_aktuell

"thank you"

The Austrian reports I cited clearly contradict your statement. Petzner is not party chairman (but only designated to become such) and hence cannot be sacked. Bucher was elected to a different office.
The link you provide is nonspecific. I will not browse through ten or so entries for that date to find the info you are referring to as I think it unlikely that the entry in question would say what you claim as the date, October 22, is exactly the date that Bucher was elected Klubobman - and not party chairman. There currently is no party chairman of the BZÖ. If you think otherwise please provide a clear link to that entry and/or quote it so that I may have a look. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your nice comments here. I was very kind of you and I appreciate it. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haider

What's your problem? The section is STILL where you want it. I'm just making a passing reference to his gay affair in the personal life section. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU keep reverting FROM your own preferred version - which has the section about Stefan at the bottom. READ the article before you revert it! 90.231.2.252 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did and don't like your scandalous attitude, we try not to write any gossip here.--Oxygen305 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not gossip. Haider was a gay. He had a gay relationship. No point trying to hide the fact. Everyone knows about it. It's been all over the world's press. As regards the article, the section that you wanted at the bottom is STILL at the bottom of the article. Why do you keep reverting that? Doesnt make any sense. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jörg Haider. 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. Road Wizard (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read the three-revert rule. There are only a few cases that allow more than 3 reverts in any 24 hour period, the most common of which is if you are preventing some form of obvious vandalism. Before issuing the warning I reviewed the article talk page, your talk page and the other editor's talk page. At no point was there any claim of vandalism, but simply an argument of whether a topic should be mentioned at the top or bottom of the article.

Your assertion that you were just "defending the article against continously changes made by the same person over and over again." is a classic definition of an edit war. If asked, I suspect that the other party will claim to have been defending what they saw as the correct version of the article.

With well over half a dozen reverts each, you should both have been blocked, especially as you were using your edit summaries to hold a conversation with each other. Please reserve conversations to the talk space only and avoid breaching the three revert rule again. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink

Hi Oxygen. Use this: Petzner. Take care. 00:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what i meant. When you tpe in en.WP : petzner it does not link to " Stefan Petzner".

So that's actually, what I had in mind

Thank you

I see. Do you want to create a redirect instead? I can do it for you if you want. Dr.K. (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, at least as long as no other "Petzner" exists on en.WP

Thank you agin for your help.

I have tried to find an explanation on the site but wasn't able to.

--Oxygen305 (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other Petzner that exists. I will check a few things and let you know. Dr.K. (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. It now redirects to the article Stefan Petzner. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. --Oxygen305 (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure. Don't mention it. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are and automated program, I have nothing to say.--Oxygen305 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful Accusation

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Jörg Haider. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you are the vandal not me, and then again who are you to warn me , to threateen me or anything else? I don't even know you, for all I know, you don't read the discussion and now you beeing rude to me.--Oxygen305 (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warning for vandalism isn't relevant, Oxygen hasn't been even close to vandalising any page. The issue is a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. False accusations of vandalism violate WP:NPA JdeJ (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the wrong button. It's not vandalism, but is is a 3RR violation, and a bad one. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jörg Haider. 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. It's obvious that you have strong feelings on this subject, and it might be a good idea for you to step aside from the article for a day or two. At the moment, you're running close to violating several policies, including WP:3RR and WP:OWN. JdeJ (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petzner

Happy to open a talk page section on it, but I think there already is one. In any case, you need to stop reverting and talk. 14 reverts in 24 hours is a major violation of Wikipedia policy. Generally you should confine yourself to 3 reverts (see WP:3RR), and none in the case that you're reverting against something approaching consensus. It is not that you cannot perhaps change people's minds, but you won't do it by simply reverting. On the subject itself, that converstion should probably happen on the Talk page, but you're not going to get very far with the argument that reliable sources and the statements of Petzner himself should be ignored to protect the privacy of Haider's family. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it seems a lot, but please take the time to look at the actually reverts, always the same one. I have to admit I am a hard head but the thing is, I believe we have to protect Joerg, Claudia and anybody who doupts on Petzner's drama from words we can't prove. I think the best idea is just to discuss the wording openly. Thank you for your input. Best regards --Oxygen305 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You came very close to being blocked for 3RR over Haider. If you ever find yourself infinitely reverting an anon in future, please report it rather than continue reverting yourself. Incidentally, your user page is odd, and probably inappropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable critics. If you don't like my user page, please send me some suggestions to better it. Regards--Oxygen305 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect, which is in appropriate. Please see WP:USER for the guidelines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away. The state of the paragraph at this point looks reasonable, and seems well-sourced. I must say that I personally find the whole "boy party" quote much more offensive than the admission (or whatever) by Petzner. In any case, it seems we're both learning our way around the Wikipedia "legal" system, as it were, so good luck. I'm not going to edit Haider's page anymore, it's just too much trouble. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Haider

Regarding your message, I haven't been following the talk page discussions too closely. The edit that I reverted was clearly vandalism; however, not all edits asserting that Haider was homosexual would be considered vandalism. It's a thin line. Since his death is a recent and high-profile event, I doubt that admins would consider protecting the page. If you think it's worth a try, you can try to request protection at WP:RFPP. Otherwise, I expect the consensus will eventually settle on including at least assertions about his sexuality. Hope this is helpful! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but even though I speak German, I can't write it to save my life, and I don't read it very well either. I did glance over the page, and I find it surprising that Petzner isn't mentioned at all. But my German really isn't good enough to participate in that discussion. Sorry! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, thank you for your fast response. can I asume that the same rules apply for de.WP and en.WP ?--Oxygen305 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, not completely - there is no 3RR on de.wp, for instance. But please write at least a complete and somewhat coherent sentence before saving, otherwise you might be reverted. If the page in question is among the frequently vandalized ones, it's usually watched by many people, and that revert will come rather quickly even if the edit itself was not vandalism at all. (On en.wp such an edit will usually "survive" for a longer time, as editors are more thinly spread over several time zones.) Cheers --20 % 14:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]