User talk:Osw1

Welcome

Hello, Osw1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Oasis Academy Brightstowe have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 00:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bristol Free School, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at St Ursula's School, you may be blocked from editing. If you want to build a shrine to a closed school then don't use Wikipedia, take a look at Wikia. Bob Re-born (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. this disruption/WP:OR/unsourced editing must stop now or you will be blocked Widefox; talk 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osw1

(moved from User talk:Widefox) Widefox; talk 14:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Widefox, I have been trying to add contributions to Death and Funeral of Margaret Thatcher including including additional tributes paid by the international community to the late Baroness. I will not be accused of vandalism when I am an immensely strong supporter of Margaret Thatcher and her policies and saddened by her recent death. Will you please stop blocking my additions to the page? I am happy to hear what you have to say. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Osw1 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a long-term pattern of adding unsourced content that you've been warned about at repeatedly. You've received a final warning. Despite that you just repeat it, also risking being blocked for WP:3RR. Stop now. Its simple, find a reference (or references), then add it. Widefox; talk 14:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Widefox; talk 14:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox, I am not in an Edit War I have no idea what you by such a phrase. I am in no war or confrontation and I am simply contributing to the page. I am unsure how to request Page Protection but I doubt that would be helpful. My contributions are completely correct and backed up by factual reference but I do not see why I must include a reference for every single contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added byOsw1 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing is good, if in doubt for any of these things. You could discuss at the talk page for instance. There are many options, including reading whats been written to you. But they all involve change, and so far I'm not getting the impression you're listening. FYI, please sign your comments on talk pages. Widefox; talk 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message on my talk page

(moved from User talk:Widefox)

Widefox, I do not see the need for such forms of rude comments which you have posted. You have sent a message to me asking me to refrain from certain postings and made accusations that I was vandalising a page. I have made my position clear on your accusation and I have never placed false or incorrect information on this website. This is a purely factual website and so I would not behave like a firebrand or a yahoo hooligan and aim to disrupt the context or intricacies of the divers articles on this website. I must protest in the strong possible terms at the continuing use of hyperboles in the respect of the present situation and not placing the situation into a proper perspective which is culminating in this communications atrophy. My edit of the "Others" section on the article in question which is the subject of recent scrutiny, resulted in a point of sensible bifurcation though this has now confusingly and without clear explanation or reason been reversed. I am confused by the reversal as the content was completely in order. I am in continuous reply to your comments as your personal involvement in the case of which I am accused of malfeasance of a technical and editorial nature is an involvement which is appertaining to the continuation of the case and comments on the potential inhibition of my personal exercise of the editing and writing function so to avoid possible unsupported, unwarranted and erroneous edits of the various pages able to be so edited. I am in agreement on the subject that such edits should not be accepted or authorised but my personal discordant with your various judgements is evidently displayed in my arguments. Nevertheless I countenance and encourage the immediate relaxation of the continuing and prevailing arguments and request that you put the current situation into a global perspective and recognise the details of the case at present being discussed. The edits made are completely and entirely in line with factual basis and are not unsubstantiated or made in an attempt as your previous suggestions may have led some to conclude to precipitate a confliction of the article in present discussion or the various contributors to the article or other articles written and available for further edit and visiting. The edits made are to promote the various tributes made to the late Baroness Thatcher and ensure that they are circulated. I aim to consider re-editing the page tomorrow and I would not welcome a ban on editing as my intentions are purely motivated in a sense of promotion of information.

Pls discuss here from now on. Drama over. Widefox; talk 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox seeing as I do not often talk on wikipedia I am worried that if I discuss on my page you will not realise that I have sent a message. Therefore I am certain that this is the most simple means of discussion to resolve the issue at hand.

I hope you understand my point and I raise the issue that your continuing opposition to the edits which I have made, which in my opinion are completely within the context of the article and the rules as set down, as a I have previously stated, is preventing the enrichment of the article through my valid contributions. The article disregards your personal political positions and stand points however provides for the circulation and promotion of the information on the sad death and the forthcoming funeral of the late great Lady Thatcher. I urge you to consider a reappraisal of your position and to estimate the profound impact of your unsubstantiated invalid oppositions to the contributions I have made and the unscrupulous nature of the outcome. I believe that I should be allowed to re-edit the page to include the edits which I made and that I can do so without the necessity of including references on each and every edit and without your direct antithesis. I await your reply and if you wish for the discussion to take place on my talk page then please say how that is possible with you being made aware of the message being sent. Osw1 (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Osw1[reply]

If you wish then we can discuss it here. Have you received this message Osw1 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have undone your edits, I'm the one that's taken the most time to explain (before it is too late). How do you expect others to react when they get this impression you don't care for the guides we've explained and which we all have to edit by? Widefox; talk 16:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you recognise that I have already acknowledged my acceptance and recognition of the useful comments and advice given on the subject of edits and contributions. I welcome the supporting assistance to avoid the ultimate termination of the editing and writing function which is incontrovertibly a resort and option reserved for the most destructive and complacent of contributors. I welcome your reply as it is most constructive.