User talk:Oscar

archive
----> Leave a new message <-----

---

---

User rights

Please sign here if you wish to continue holding user rights here. Thanks, Majorly ^talk 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ga.wikipedia

Hi there. Thanks for taking care of the vandalism there just now. One minor point; when you're deleting the vandalism page, don't forget to clear the default edit summary or the personal attacks remain in the logs. See here. Thanks again :) - Alison ^❤ 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC) (ga.wikipedia sysop)

• yep my bad, will pay attention to this! thx and all the best, oscar 22:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again!! BTW, I translated your userpage there ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 22:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

lol&thx!! now since translate.google.com has no ga:, if people start talking to me in gealic i'll come to you for a translation :-D oscar 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

btw see here i reverted this vandalism too, you may want to do sthg about this? :P all the best, oscar 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

o.o

Hi Oscar,

Het zal wel een complete n00b vraag zijn maar wat betekend botd?

Groetjes,

Huib talk 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

hetzelfde als vvdt ;-) groetjes, oscar 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Selam, Oscar!!!

Hello Oscar. Thanks for your help. Since months, now it is smoothly displayed as Türkmençe thanks to your efforts. Would you please see this where Türkmençe is used as تركمن / Туркмен in 66th row (first part is Turkmen in Arabic letters, second part is Turkmen in Cyrillic alphabet in Russian Language). And, it is used as Türkmen here. Would you please help me to change both versions into Türkmençe. Best regards!!! --Hanberke 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, I have filed this issue to Spacebirdy, too. Don't get it wrong but i thought that you may not response it for a long while. Looking for your assistance. Best Regards --Hanberke 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Waarom?

Waarom heb je me geblokkeerd op WikiNews? Om mij van het hoogste doel af te houden? Geen enkele bewerking mijnerzijds rechtvaardigt een blokkade... Al met al verzoek ik je vriendelijk doch dringend je beslissing te heroverwegen. MMaerkk 12:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

i disagree. the site will be closed and i see no point in not preventing someone with this record to edit there at this point. regards, oscar 12:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiNews is complety separated of Wikipedia. A preventive block isn't fair. My benevolent intentions are nevertheless visible on Wikipedia, my good contributions over there aren't visible in the record. It's a pity, but I can't do anything hereabout, it's your power, not mine. MMaerkk 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Applying english wikipedia rules elsewhere

Hello Mr. Oscar!

My question is : are the policies and guidelines as read in english wikipedia the same as those applied by wikipedias in other languages? If the answer is "yes" (as I believe to be the case), can someone like you or other person in authority recall to romanian users with extended rights to stop removing content which originate from reliable sources and added by specifying these very sources? In fact, it seems that that would be just respecting and applying wikipedia’s own rules…

My name is Remus Octavian Mocanu and I am a romanian living in french speaking province of Quebec, Canada. I am an agnostic and I think my own point of view concerning various religious subjects should be reflected too in romanian wikipedia, all the more as my opinions converge frequently with those expressed in many scientific or encyclopedic sources that qualify themselves as "reliable sources" according wikipedia’s own rules.

I’ve tried to take part in the wikipedia project by editing different pages on romanian language wikipedia, but I frequently met with resistence from people with rights to remove repeatedly text, people having rights like you or more probable with functions inferior than yours but still having more rights than the simple occasional user as myself. Honestly I picked your name up from a list of people with authority without knowing for sure if you’re religious, fundamentalist or not religious at all, and there is still a hope in me that such affiliations actually doesn’t matter so much for an openminded individual when applying a regulation that he is supposed to respect and follow. Actually, what I see here on the english version is that people allow in religious matters both points of view, the traditional and the academic one. I know also that some romanian-speaking people involved in english wikipedia are sympathetic with those that keeps articles about religion "safe" from any "critical historical view" opinion.

I always used material and information from reliable sources, usually scientific books or encyclopedias (I have acces to 10 or more online encyclopedias) and I am ready to subtantiate only with this kind of reliable sources ANY assertion made by me in ANY article text that I ever edited there. If just one such assertion originate in a source that is not perceived as reliable according english wikipedia rules, I am ready to accept as being my fault all dispute.

As mentioned above, in my opinion this resistance has religious (or ethnic-nationalistic, or clannish maybe) roots, and as an example I take the article "judaism" ("iudaism" in romanian) in the romanian wikipedia (but on subjects about islam (e.g. "Quran" article ("Coran" in romanian)) and even christianism the text is sometimes also quickly reversed if the added information is perceived by some people with extended rights as somehow unacceptable, although this information too originate in reliable books, scientific articles or just paid encyclopedias): on these above-mentioned articles and some others concerning religious matters, a group of users with extended rights don’t allow other users like me to add content which express views and informations like those found in the section called "critical historical view" on english wikipedia, altough ALL that information is cited from reliable authors, scientific literature or encycliopedias like britannica, americana, the encyclopedias from Oxford Reference Online, the Macmillan Encyclopedias, the encyclopedias from Gale Virtual Reference or encyclopedias from Cengage Learning Online, etc.

I guess the history of those changes in articles is still stored there and anyone can see who made what... Unfortunately there, there is no one to judge and take actions to force the respect of the rules: one person actively involved there till recently, told me last year in a private email that the problem originate in powerful individuals coming from the wikipedia's high hierarchy, that allow people to keep "safe" from any intervention some religious and ethnic-related subjects. I don't like and I don't believe any conspiration theory, but the resounding silence resembling a kind of omerta, makes me now think twice about this eventuality, although for the fact that there is no one there to enforce the respect of the rules, there is still a more simple and probable explanation: there should be no wonder with people ellected from a population which expresses strong religiosity in proportions even bigger than U.S. population, but which moreover has a long tradition of hijacking functions for personal or private group interests, to be so reluctant to accept diversity of opinions, even when these opinions are science's own.

I had the same problem one year ago, when I abandoned disgusted any work there, with the hope that things evoluate spontaneously, thinking that a free ellection process by itself will do some good in putting more openminded people in administration functions, but now I have to face the evidence that nothing changed, not even the names...

I thank you for just taking the time to read my message, and if you or your colleagues can do something to give a more decent image to wikipedia, all the better.

Best wishes, Remus Octavian Mocanu

Empty pages by Jebel

Hello, Oscar. Indeed I have plans with those empty pages by JEBEL. Since he is one of the rearest contributors of tk wiki, I don't want to intervene him. First of all I will translate proper texts and fill the pages instead of deleting. I will also have some talk with him on the issue. By the way these days I'm very busy. I also have commitments in tk wiktionary. Thanks for reminding... Kind Regards! --Hanberke 04:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

thx for your reply; sounds very fine to me dear hanberke, and good luck with your work ;-) all the best, oscar 23:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Flood flag

Hello Oscar,

your work in combating vandalism and such is much appreciated. However, you're currently flooding recent changes, and were doing so earlier as well. Have you ever considered using the flood flag for repetitious activity? Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

actually i haven't, i'm sorry. also i am done now, shall i set it next time for these "occasions" perhaps? all the best, oscar 14:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one would have certainly have no objections against that. :-)   Regards, Wutsje 14:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

will do then :-D thx for the tip guys ;-) very best, oscar 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"The good and the bad policeman"

Hi, Oscar.
I see that you already know that Bambifan (it was obviously him) was editing on hr.wiki this night 02:00-02:26 CET.
Please see this IP: 68.220.174.246.
This night he made "good" edits 68.220.174.246, reverting the "bad" edits of hr:user:Bambi and hr:Bambifan101rulestheworld, 23:10-23:15 CET. Few hours before the attack, that followed
However, that IP range looks familiar. 68.220.xxx.xxx. Do we have business with same person that plays two roles at the same time, "the good and the bad policeman"?
His final edit was this one [1]: asking one user to create the article about - Dumbo. Kubura 01:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• dear kubura: imho yes, i wanted to cu the accounts but then noted there are two checkusers already. may i relay you to them please? all the best, oscar 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)