User talk:Oakwillow

Repeatedly improving an article is not grounds for blocking. Oakwillow (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but repeatedly ignoring polite and friendly requests to cooperate on something, instead deleting material outright, may well be grounds for that. All I was asking was for you to discuss your edits with your fellow editors. If you do not see the point of that, then perhaps the wiki format is not for you. It is supposed to be about cooperation. HermanHiddema (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other editors who agree that the sections need to be trimmed. The appropriate response is to edit back in material that you feel essential, and not just revert the edits. Oakwillow (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were so broad, and removed so much material not available in other articles, that reverting was the only logical option. I ask again: Please discuss. Give reasons why certain material needs to be trimmed and other material doesn't. Right now you're just saying that the article needs trimming and apparently feel that it should be obvious why the choices you make are the right ones. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are beating a dead horse. The way articles get written is they grow to 30-40kB, then subarticles get created, with the subarticles summarized in the main article, so that the article can continue to grow, but never exceeds 30-40kB in size. I did a very simple step of looking for subarticles and deleting everything but the summary of the subarticle from the main article. If some of the material on the subject was not in the subarticle, that is the fault of the editors who wrote the article, not me, and if anything was lost it can easily be retrieved, but not by reverting my edits, but by moving the lost material into the subarticle, where it should have been in the first place. Think about it. You have an article called "History of go", but to find the history of go you can not read "history of go", you have to read "go" because half of the history is not in the history article. Makes no sense at all. Done properly, if you want to find out about the history of go you read "history of go" and when you look at the "go" article you find only things that you already know about the history of go from the article history of go. Clearly you felt that it was the other way around, that the real history of go was in the article "go" and the "history of go" article was not important. That's backwards from the way things work. Oakwillow (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss this further until you start talking constructively. See

Talk:Go (board game) and please reply there. HermanHiddema (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Already did. Cheers. Oakwillow (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it, did you reply to my latest comment (made two minutes before the one above)? HermanHiddema (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be cross posting. Please focus on ways that the article can be improved while at the same time using a summary style by moving material from the main article to subarticles. I am sure that you are just as passionate about the game as all of us. Oakwillow (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no warning required. It is not an edit war. Oakwillow (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have now made inappropriate edits at

Talk:Go (board game). If the Wikipedia guidelines do not support your side of the argument, unilaterally changing the guidelines is a very inappropriate response. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You are wrong about that. Will answer you there. Oakwillow (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you intended to or not, you continued edit warring after the above 3rr warning. This is not acceptable, and as a result you are blocked. Whether your edits are right or not doesn't matter, you're edit warring. Wizardman 13:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It is User:Bobblehead that is edit warring. Block them. Oakwillow (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting on

I'm not reverting. I am maintaining the proper version of the article until a new change is agreed to. It is completely unacceptable for User:North Shoreman to engage in edit warring. Block them, not me. Oakwillow (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken in the thought that you are maintaining the proper version, see Wikipedia talk:Article size for my explanation on that. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Oakwillow: it doesn't make a difference whether you are maintaining a proper version or not, but you certainly were reverting. I have warned all three editors who were edit warring on that policy page. — Carl (

CBM · talk) 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, one time, and that was the next day. Whoever blocked me was awful fast on the trigger finger, and for no reason. If anything they should have blocked the other two editors (as well). They were the ones who didn't even read the talk page and just hit undo. Twice. I read the talk page and hit undo once. The next day. Oakwillow (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Article size

Oakwillow is probably 199.125.109.xxx... I'd put money on it. I'm here because this Anon is demanding major trimming on a reasonable article. I left a note on HH's page but if there are other editors that have been dealing with 199 or Oakwillow we'd do well to work collectively. I didn't realize this editor has been using socks but this seems to be the case. What a pain!!! Itsmejudith has suggested an Arbcom and given me a name. I really don't know how to approach this but I'm fed up with a year's worth of hassling over miscellany. A censure of some sort seems to be in order. Mrshaba (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on Mrshaba's talk page, but just because Oakwillow and the IP address have the same user, it doesn't mean they are at odds with

WP:SOCK. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Or unless Oakwillow and the IP are banned Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) of the infamous Extra-Long Article Committee, using socks to evade a ban. Where is this IP that has been mentioned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire. Mrshaba (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant where has the IP been posting; I don't see this IP anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Sadi Carnot's history. There's definitely a similarity. I'm familiar with 199's writing style so I'll look into Sadi's talk posts more. 199 is a dynamic address but the user frequents energy stuff... Solar energy, Nuclear power, Hydrogen economy, Photovoltaics, Electric car etc. Although less themed 199 edits Cannibis (drug), E-mail spam, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Contra Dance and articles involving page name disputes. Mrshaba (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just found it as well: [1] Checkuser time; this has been my suspicion all along here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Sadi Carnot has had a recent sockpuppet discovered or had a prior RFCU run against them where the CU kept notes, then there really isn't a way to show that Sadi is Oakwillow/IP address are the same via RFCU. RFCU only works on edits within the last month or so. However, if there is suspicion of them being the same,

WP:SSP may be the direction to go as that is based on behavioral evidence rather than them sharing the same IP address/range. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, if there's a sockpuppet template at User:Sadi Carnot, doesn't that mean there was likely a checkuser? Where does one look for it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sadi Carnot doesn't exist. So no official one was done. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain WTF this has to do with this article? I'm moving it to my talk page. Please continue it there. Oakwillow (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a sock puppet case against you. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Apteva. Mrshaba (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please join discussion here. Thank you. Coastside (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]