Oska

Archives of this page

• 2004 (1)
• 2004 (2)
• 2005
• 2006 to 2009
• 2010 to 2018

Newsletter subscriptions

• Page to receive subscribed newsletters

Proposed deletion of Hippopotamus service

The article Hippopotamus service has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabine Weyand

I have reported us both at WP:AN/3RR for the recent reverts on Sabine Weyand, and asked for the page to be protected. At least this way we may get somebody else's input! Jheald (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

List of the verified oldest people

If no one else contributes to consensus building, then I believe we may have to take the dispute somewhere else. I'm thinking about posting on AN/I. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think where you placed your RfC on the talk page helped it gain attention. It would have been better placed at the bottom of the talk page where most people look for new discussion. Anyway, I repeat, when you open an RfC it is customary to wait for it to be closed before making related edits. You appear to be rushing matters.

Also, please address further discussion of this matter to me on the talk page of the article. A ping or namecheck there will attract my attention. Oska (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Brexit and the Irish Border:deletions

You have clearly been around here long enough to know that deletion of credible content is the last resort, not the first. I'm at a loss to understand your reasoning, since the material is certainly credible and was widely reported. I have reverted your deletions, this time tagging with template:cn as you should have done. --Red King (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: "One of the three most important areas" is not encylopedic, NPOV language. It is a subjective assessment; different parties will perceive different areas of negotiation as important. I see you added references, good for you, but they still do not support that language. There were three separate negotiation topic groups established, yes, and one of those was for the border but that might just be because it is a difficult and intricate matter to negotiate, not a mark of its importance over other matters. I don't agree that that language should be in the article (which is why I removed it, didn't just ask for a citation). Your reversions have re-introduced interpretative bias into the article. Oska (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciate your logic, thank you for explaining - though I still think that your edit was unhelpful. The media certainly considered these aspects as important. They were listed in May's A50 letter, so certainly not incidental.

I accept that it is a leap of logic to go from a decision to have dedicated negotiating strands on these points to declaring them the most important. How about "most difficult"? --Red King (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: Thank you for these replies. How about "one of three focus areas identified for special negotiation" or something along those lines? I think that better reflects the references. "Most difficult" would still be a subjective interpretation and we could only quote someone saying something like that, not put it down as objective fact. Oska (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, "one of three areas selected for focused negotiation" might be better phrasing. Oska (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Good, I like that. Achieves the same result without the arguable NPOV/SYN transgression. Thanks --Red King (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: I've seen your later edit. Thanks for accommodating my concerns. One last point, just for completeness. Looking at the first source, the agreed terms of reference pdf, under point 3 of "Negotiation Structures" you can see that the Irish border wasn't actually one of the three groups. They were 1) Citizens' rights, 2) Financial Settlement and 3) Other Separation issues. Presumably the Irish border comes under area 3. But they then go on to say "In addition, a dialogue on Ireland / Northern Ireland has been launched under the authority of the Coordinators." The other two sources misinterpret this, it appears, but the first source is the canonical one (as it's the two parties' formally declared terms of reference).

Anyway, I'm just commenting on this for completeness and before I move on. I'm not interested at this time in further editing of this article. Up to you if you want to act on what I've said here. Cheers, Oska (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

US Regime Change RFC

Thank you for your contribution to that RFC survey. I guess you saw the outcome. As a more experienced Wikipedian, I am wondering if you would consider modifying the proposed text according to the specifications of the closing editor and resubmitting it. My writing is apparently too "POV". Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: thanks for alerting me to the outcome of that RFC. I'm sorry but I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia at present. I'm still making edits but mostly only copy-edits of articles I read day to day. I don't think I could take on getting involved in the rather intense wrangling over additions to that article at this time. Oska (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You are mentioned here

FYI. I mentioned and quoted you here: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Oska, for posting from an iPhone while waiting for all-day medical appointments, and not catching up and retracting soon enough. I hope you will accept my apology and corrections here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks. Best wishes with the medical issue. Oska (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

January 24, 1970

• I appreciate that you searched, particularly in the non-English Wikipedias-- an idea that never occurred to me. Mandsford 00:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

For anyone reading my talk page, this was left after discussion on CaradhrasAiguo's talk page, specifically two sections (both started by me): User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Wuhan climate box and User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Do not use an edit note to threaten another editor. Other readers can judge for themselves whether this warning was justified. Oska (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

When you are asked to refrain from posting on another's user talk, you should heed that request, per WP:TPG. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:23, 19 March 2020 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Oska reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: ). Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting article expansion help

Hi,

Recently initiated Draft:Yasmine Mohammed as stub article. Pl. do have a look at the article and if interests you then join in expanding the same with suitable references.

Thanks and regards.

Bookku (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Please respect WP:BRD & bring your concerns about content to the talkpage of said-article. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit comments reverting my edit (twice) have only used emotive language and not given any good justification for your reverts. You are welcome to better explain your reasons for reversion here, as they have not been satisfactory so far. Oska (talk)

Go to the talkpage & tell us what your concern is. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn this is silly whacking this notice on my talk page. For other readers, this stems from this Talk:Ivermectin#Wikipedia_should_not_be_used_for_crusades where I complained about undue weight being given to Covid-19 in the lead paragraph of Ivermectin. Oska (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's just a courtesy notice, given to people who edit wrt COVID-19. Nothing special. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's dumb. And I've just looked through my contribution history and the only other edits I can find that are in any way Covid related are from February 2020 where I did two non-controversial additions to COVID-19 pandemic on cruise ships. So I've actually shown little interest in editing articles on Covid. Oska (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn you have shut down and then deleted my questioning the appropriateness of this notice on your talk page. I never delete anything from my talk page and I find it dubious behaviour from people who do. Furthermore, I find it very disappointing that you are not prepared to justify your actions when asked to do so. Oska (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Alexbrn (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Value Judgment words on Wikipedia

I did some research on value judgment like 'controversial' and found some really useful policies. Check the bottom of the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tether_(cryptocurrency) if you're interested. DaxMoon (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey bud. We are having another value judgment discussion over on the tether talk page. Trying to get to the bottom of the right thing to do rather than emotive argument I hope. You enunciated the value judgment really well before. If you would like to chime in please do. Thank you!DaxMoon (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Watch out

Just wanted to ask you to put MEDRS talk page and WP:VILLAGE on your watchlists. Thanks. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe WP:CANVASS too! Alexbrn (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Yeah, this one too. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Turby wind turbine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Turby wind turbine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turby wind turbine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 12:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• These legal threats were made here. If you explicitly withdraw them in your unblock request, you can be unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I clearly made no 'legal threat'. I'm going to need you to properly explain how you are interpreting what I said as such. Oska (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your very header was "Hope you're happy to get subpoenaed", and then you talked about "restoring libelous statements to a Biography of a Living Person". My italics. Did you follow my link to the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats? See especially the sections "Perceived legal threats" and "Rationale for the policy". All you have to do is explicitly assure me below, or the reviewing admin (by using the unblock template I indicated above), that you have no intention of taking legal action, and you will be unblocked. Saying "I clearly made no 'legal threat'" isn't quite the same thing. Bishonen | tålk 13:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC).

Category:Australian Ninja Warrior contestants has been nominated for merging

Category:Australian Ninja Warrior contestants has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 13:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)