Wikipedia

User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2016-10

< User:Oshwah


You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from October 2016. Please do not modify this page.

These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes. If you need to respond to a discussion from here, please create a new discussion on my user talk page and with a link to the archived discussion here so I can easily follow, and we'll be able to pick up where we left off no problem.


Were you trying to send me a message? No worries. Just click here to go the correct page.



Rob Cornilles

Rob Cornilles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The most recent IP and his likely account seem to be whitewashing. Would you please take a look? Much appreciated! Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim1138! I've warned the user for edit warring and I'll keep an eye on things. Let me know if things keep going. Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, reverted again! Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that was all before my warning. Hopefully the user either got the message and will follow the rules. Will continue to keep an eye on things; if things continue, let me know :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I was the one who reverted. I saw your request here (Yes, I'm a Talk Page Stalker.) and looked at whether it was worth reverting. It definitely was. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a big 10-4, Gestrid. Let me know if I need to step in ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jim1138 and Oshwah: Actually, I wouldn't mind at least one of you chiming in on Theworldview101's talk page to discuss the sources they're listing. They're asking if they're reliable and unbiased sources. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

107.77.232.0/22

Hi Oshwah,

Could you possibly re-block this IP range... for maybe a month or so... They seem to have returned immediately to vandalizing Mario Party 8 again, after your previous block. Thanks! 73.96.113.22 (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done - blocked for one week. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late, but . . .

  Congratulations on becoming an admin! I hope everything is going well for you. Peter Sam Fan 16:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Peter SamFan! Thanks man! I appreciate the food. If you know me as well as you do, I LOVE burgers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Alice Through the Looking Glass

Hello Oshwah,

I'm Granato31415, and I just noticed your message. I was greatly reducing the summary of 'Alice Through the Looking Glass', because there was an obvious problem; the paragraphs were copied and spread out at least three times. I fixed that problem, but I should make edit summaries in the future for such major changes.

Granato31415 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granato31415 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Granato31415 - No worries, my friend! Thanks for following-up; the lack of edit summary just confused me. If you run into any questions or problems, my talk page is always open to you. Feel free to reach out any time :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Egg on my face

 

Remember when I told you I would wear this? Looks like i'm doing that about now. Better safe than sorry though! -- Dane2007 talk 01:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007 - Worry not! You had legitimate evidence and cause to create the SPI and did so in good faith. Don't be discouraged from filing one just because you were wrong. This information isn't accessible to the public; can't count against you as long as you post legit concerns and evidence :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Concur with your assessment of Mountlake Terrace High School vandalism

Due to a shared IP address, I incorrectly got your recent message re the vandalism of a Mountlake Terrace High School photo caption ("sex drugs & dubstep", whatever the hell that is). I'm going to set up an account as recommended to avoid the ambiguism (is that a word?) -- I don't want someone to think I'm that stupid. But I wanted you to know that I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I don't need a reply on this. 107.77.205.48 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent Change to the Ru Paul Page

The change I made was the actual name of the mini challenge that the contestants played as announced by Ru Paul during the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4004:5370:1012:FA06:A96A:D880 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"I have not changed anything, you have made a mistake. I do not edit anything on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.57.238 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about the warning for this edit from 11 months ago? Adam9007 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hate to say I told them so, but...

...you're doing an awesome job as an admin! Cut it out right now or else I'll...I'll...I'll complain! To the complaint department! I have all the best complaints! 😁 Katietalk 23:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

All complaints usually go to
 
Snidely
who will sneer at them in an appropriate fashion :-) KK is right Oshwah - you are doing an excellent job. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie! It's awesome to talk to you again! I appreciate the compliment. I'm glad to hear that I'm doing well with the expectation of an admin. I mean, factoring in common sense, it's really not that difficult ;-). I hope things are going well for you, and that you do well with the CU/OS buttons! I saw that you're running for them, and it looks like you'll get them no problem. Keep in touch, okay? :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
MarnetteD - My sincere thanks to as well for the compliment. I'm glad to hear I'm doing well. Rest assured, I'll keep it up! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Abdulrahman Abu Daya

Shouldn't this go to AfD? Doug Weller talk 16:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've BLPPROD'd it as it has no refs. Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 16:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller! Good to talk to you again! Hope things are going well. Shoot I'd almost say A7 myself... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Things are indeed going well, hope you can say the same! Only 10 weeks until Christmas and then just one week until the end of my term as an Arb! Doug Weller talk 18:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller - I am doing well! Life is good, life is happy ;-). HA, you say that with excitement; maybe I'll wait for a few years before considering running for ArbCom :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week Facilitator's Award

  Editor of the Week Facilitator's Award
Back in April, you were nominated for the Editor of the Week award. This award may only be given to non-administrators, however. You would have received the award today had you not been an administrator. To keep with the spirit of the award and the nomination, I hereby award you this Editor of the Week Facilitator's Award. (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Peter SamFan submitted the following nomination to Editor of the Week:

I nominate Oshwah (talk · contribs · count · logs) to be Editor of the Week because of his diligent anti-vandal work (check his contributions.) He does a lot of WikiGnome work, and he does not want any recognition for his contributions.

Thanks for your contributions!   Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well darn! If only I hadn't run for that damn mop! L235, Peter SamFan, and everyone else.... thank you. I like doing anti-vandal work and I'm honored to continue to do so. I expect no "thanks" for that work (LOL I usually expect the opposite) -- fear not! There's no need to worry about retention on my part. I've been doing it since I was only 16 years old and I don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon ;-). Thanks for the award, and thank you for being great editors yourselves :-). Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I could go on and on, but I'll make it simple: "Wow! I can't believe my nomination was accepted! Congratulations on "not" receiving the Editor of the Week Award." Peter Sam Fan 15:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

16, wow Oshwah. I created this account at 14 but didn't start editing properly until I was 16. Disproves a lot of what people have to say about young editors, we're not all bad :-) Patient Zerotalk 14:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Patient Zero - Almost 10 years, baby! Woooo!!! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
That is something to be proud of - 10 years is a long time to be editing! :-) Congratulations Oshwah, we ought to celebrate the anniversary. Patient Zerotalk 09:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

IP keeps adding & removing photos on year pages

124.106.244.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Removes (apparently indiscriminately) and adds photos on year pages. Currently working on 1925. Gets blocked and changes IPs. Removed Alan Shepard, the first US Astronaut from 1923 three times #3! Need a range block? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138! Good to run into you again! I'm looking into this -- stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long to follow-up with you, Jim1138. Busy day today :-). The IP has been blocked by Widr. Please let me know if you run into any more issues and need my assistance. I'll be happy to help! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I requested the block after after skipping a number of opportunities that Huggle popped up. This one on Elisabeth Moss was one of the more annoying ones. I think the editor will change IPs again. I think this was the third. I'll let you know. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A few examples of similar edits by 124.106.xxx.xxx IPs w/ "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit"

Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

German strategy in the mesopotamian war.

Can you explain the german strategy in the mesopotamian war in 25-30 words please??115.117.142.112 (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIAV

Hi, Oshwah! You previously blocked Orochmen, so I thought this latest report about them, if it hasn't already been handled by the time you see this, may be of interest to you. Obviously, I'm not coming to you because I'm trying to get you to pick our side or anything like that (the side of IJBall and me), just stating the facts, basically. I'm growing tired of this user's games, and I'm sure IJBall is as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amaury! I'm not seeing a registered account under Orochmen - can you verify that this account is correct? I'll be happy to look into anything if needed... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Typo. User:Orchomen. It's all been handled now, though. Although we're now dealing with block evasion which seems to be slowing down as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, figured as much. No problem. If more issues occur with block evasion, let me know :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The other editor will not attempt civility despite your request for us to do so

Thank you for stepping-in and giving us guidance. I attempted to follow your advice and I have proceeded to reach out to all editors involved in a civil manner, asking them to weigh in on the content dispute. However the user named "TheTimesAreAChanging" seems to be having none of it. He is continuing to be disruptive. I am trying to follow your advice, but he is now blatantly disregarding it and now making personal attacks, as he did here: [1]

In the spirit of your decision, I take it that we are supposed to treat the past as water under the bridge, but the disruptive user continues to hold onto his grudge as evidenced above. Asking for your help. Thank you for your time.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oneshotofwhiskey! I made some additional statements at the 3RR noticeboard. Give it a read, and let me know if you have any questions. You're more than welcome to message me any time and ask me them :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent close of AN3 complaint

Hello Oshwah. I'm surprised to see that this thread has been closed. As you note, the article is under DS, a fact which Times..changing denies in the face of repeated warnings. This morning I awoke to find a new series of personal attacks from that user on my talk page. These included the bizarre misrepresentation that I inserted a "mug shot" of Mr. D'Souza in the article. I don't see any equivalence between the two editors on the AN3 thread. I'm certainly not going to invest the effort to take Times... to Arbcom Enforcement. After all the purpose of DS is to enable Admins to act in cases exactly such as this one, where there is obvious and egregious disruption. This behavior goes way beyond edit-warring, and given the DS and personal attacks on various editors, I suggest you consider a block or TBAN at least until after the US elections. Please have a look at this if you wish to consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SPECIFICO, and thank you for messaging me with your thoughts and concerns. I'll be happy to explain my rationale to you regarding the closure of the AN3 thread, as well as the reason behind the closure result (no blocks or use of discretionary sanctions). The reason I closed the AN3 thread was because the root of the issue (edit warring) was addressed. Taking a step back and looking at everything from a neutral "big picture" perspective as an uninvolved admin, I noted that the root of the edit warring was over a content dispute and that both parties broke 3RR without question. The reason that I did not impose any blocks was due to the fact that both editors appeared to have ceased edit warring and were no longer doing so at that moment in time (remember that blocks should always reflect a preventative measure, not a punitive measure, whenever possible). Discretionary sanctions could not be imposed upon either editor due to the fact that neither one of them were given notice or otherwise officially made aware that the article is under these sanctions. Per this arbitration policy, discretionary sanctions cannot be imposed unless the editor has been first made aware of the policy and that it applies to the article involved. Even then, they should only be applied due to disruption that has occurred after the editor was made aware. The best solution to the issue reported was to protect the article to prevent further edit warring, notify both parties of the article and the discretionary sanctions policy, and put both parties on a final warning basis regarding any further disruption or changes to that article without consensus between those involved.
If the community feels that a discussion should be held regarding this dispute and that sanctions are needed, the community is certainly free to do so. The proper way to start this discussion is to create a new thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and come to a consensus (if applicable). This is the place where this discussion should be held, not on AN3 (that's for handling edit warring issues), which is another reason as to why I closed the thread. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to respond and ask. I'll be happy to answer them and explain anything further if needed. Thanks again for messaging me with your thoughts, and I hope I answered and addressed your questions and concerns :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the DS warning was placed on that editor's talk page twice. First by me, although in cut-and-pasting it I forgot to remove a reference to another article in some additional text I added after the required template. TimesAreChanging reverted my notice/warning, calling it "spam". A second warning was placed there by another editor. [2] [3] [4] The personal attacks continued at AN3 and on my talk page after the second warning template. Also, Times' removal of my AN3 comment violates TPO and in this context is also blockable disruptive behavior. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
SPECIFICO - Sure, and I agree that the behavior is disruptive and that perhaps a discussion should be held regarding both users at ANI regarding the issue in its entirety (which is what I encourage you to do) - lets get the community involved and discuss on ANI. This way, more uninvolved editors and administrators can provide input and come to a good consensus and decision together. That's the best solution moving forward regarding these editors. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The purpose of DS in this very sensitive topic area is to empower Admins to act in cases of obvious disruption. The nonsense about me putting a "mug shot" in the D'Souza article is alone reason for a block. The reason for DS is to mitigate the inertia that prevents normal content editors from investing the time and effort required to assemble ANI complaints -- in cases of obvious disruption. BTW, didn't that editor exceed 1RR after he had been warned with the ARBAP2 DS template? That's grounds for an immediate preventive block. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
SPECIFICO - Have you started an ANI thread? I'm certainly open to having a discussion; I'd like to get more administrator input and make sure that this issue is handled. I don't want you to feel as if something should be done and I'm choosing not to. I believe that we should wait until these editors make further edits before perusing any action. But other administrators may feel differently; I'd like to get additional input and make sure that appropriate action is taken. Let me know if/when you file the ANI. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I don't have time to invest in this matter at the moment. Your time is valuable too, and I didn't mean to suggest that you or any single Admin has a specific obligation in this matter. My concern was that, once the AN3 complaint was closed, there would be no further attention from other Admins who might have weighed in or had comments on how best to handle this. I know that at least one experienced Amin, @EdJohnston: saw this AN3 complaint. Anyway thanks again for your responses. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. I appreciate you for messaging me your thoughts and for sharing your input regarding this issue; my talk page is always open and you're always welcome to do so. I'll definitely be keeping my eye on this situation and will be making sure that no further disruption occurs. Feel free to message me if disruption occurs since the AN3 closure and action is needed, and I will take care of it. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I just became aware of this discussion. There's really not much point in responding, but SPECIFICO is not accurately conveying the content of my message on his talk page. SPECIFICO refers to "the bizarre misrepresentation that I inserted a 'mug shot' of Mr. D'Souza in the article," but this remark only betrays his ignorance of the content dispute under discussion: While it was Oneshotofwhiskey—not SPECIFICO—that replaced the accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot, SPECIFICO has been playing dumb, pretending that such edits were done in "good faith," whereas I am the extremist in need of a topic ban for arguing that rants about "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)" suggest Oneshotofwhiskey is WP:NOTHERE. During an earlier discussion, I attempted to enlist SPECIFICO's support in explaining to his comrade why the mugshot was inappropriate, but he remained silent on the issue, to the point where Oneshotofwhiskey interpreted SPECIFICO's inaction as tacit approval: "You are assuming that our inclusion of it there was to 'embarrass' him. ... You act as if we (SPECIFICO and I) are insisting on using that photo. We gave in. Learn to take 'yes' for an answer." Oneshotofwhiskey even attempted to canvas SPECIFICO for support when he raised the mugshot on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza a second time. Therefore, I asked "if he [SPECIFICO] thinks using D'Souza's mugshot is appropriate": SPECIFICO's refusal to answer the question—or to criticize any of Oneshotofwhiskey's actions—speaks volumes about his "impartiality."
Case in point: SPECIFICO's "good faith" ally Oneshotofwhiskey leaves comments such as "Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda" and "You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations"; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write "Oneshotofwhiskey's blatant vandalism continues. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Arbitration is now necessary, and probably a topic ban to end the disruption"—and SPECIFICO partially redacts it as a "personal attack." Can you say double standard?
Based on the above, it is hard not to laugh when SPECIFICO accuses me of "personal attacks," but it is true that I described his edits as "sloppy and biased." Which they are, as evidenced by a recent SPECIFICO edit to Dinesh D'Souza: "Critic Roger Ebert wrote, "'Hillary's America' may well be the single dumbest documentary that I have ever seen in my life." As another editor pointed out, Ebert could not have reviewed this 2016 film by D'Souza, because "dead people can't write reviews." Yet by invoking a famous film critic, SPECIFICO's "mistake" only enhances the significance readers will attach to what is otherwise a quite uninformative polemical assertion. I've known SPECIFICO for four years, and all of his edits that I've ever seen are just like that one. Even so, I don't get into edit wars with SPECIFICO, because—unlike Oneshotofwhiskey—he understands how to successfully game the system and POV-push in a subtle, even plausibly deniable way.
No admin should take the "good cop, bad cop" game SPECIFICO is playing with Oneshotofwhiskey seriously.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your time - Post script

I appreciate your time, and thank your valuable advice. However, I humbly disagree with the following critique leveled at me - "You need to understand that proper dispute resolution requires teamwork, collaboration, and consensus. You need to discuss your disagreement on the article's talk page and patiently work with one another and work towards an agreement and solution together." You said this in response to a post where (A) I was objecting to the disruptive editor accusing me for the umptheeth time of socking, and (B) where I was protesting that same editor from putting words into my mouth, falsely accusing me of trying to slander Dinesh D'Souza. I agree with your critique, however, I have painstakingly tried to edit that page "through teamwork, collabration, and consensus." And had you looked harder at my edits you would've noticed that. An impartial editor named SPECIFICO who is more familiar with the conflict weighed in on the dispute when asked and offered the following defense that summed up that conflict perfectly: [5]

(quote SPECIFICO)"I have encountered TimesAreChanging on several of the American Politics articles, and I feel that editor has been consistently obstructive and unwilling to collaborate with editors of any stripe who disagree with him. He short circuits almost immediately into revert warring and personal attacks on good faith editors. I have seen Oneshotofwhiskey less frequently. I find that ID to be constructive and usually policy-based in its edits and comments. Oneshot will sometimes take the bait when taunted by an aggressive editor such as TimesAreChanging and would probably do better to walk away rather than engage, but I see no reason for any disciplinary action. So I think that a TBAN is warranted for Times and constructive advice to Oneshot to WP:DENY when he's being baited. Hope this helps."

I understand that you are a new admin, and perhaps overwhelmed and overlooked all the facts involved. However, the above summary is a valid appraisal of that dispute. I don't think you should use false equivalence or grade me based upon a curve when judging my limited history and behavior against someone with a long-history of editwarring and disruptiveness. If you look at his own defenses, it is clear this editor knows exactly what he is doing in terms of policy so he can't both lecture users his attacks over this violation and that and then pretend to feign ignorance when called out on his own behavior.

However, again, that critique you made against me seems to be more appropriate against the other editor named "ATimesAreAChanging." And, yes, I am probably guilty of some of that too and so I accept that as a valid critique against me. However, it is hard not to feel a little scapegoated by your words. I give you the benefit of the doubt and I'm suggesting, in good faith, that you were not fully aware of the nature and history of this dispute.

Also, thank you for pointing out the unnecessary need for the other editor to make unfounded socking accusations in an arbitration about edit warring. The truth is, and clearly you were NOT aware of this, but the disruptive editor had already tried and failed an SPI against me on those charges. He was found to be in the wrong, and he was even admonished for trying to use that process as a weapon against me.

Here is the SPI where he had already accused me of being a sock: [6]

As you can see, it was found to be a false accusation. So, there was no need to make the same accusation again on the editwar dispute page. He should know better than to do that, and he was still trying to manipulate others into thinking that I was socking even AFTER a proper investigation was concluded that cleared my name. Again, maybe you were not aware of it but hopefully you are now.

And, look....I hope you do NOT think that I am asking you to take sides on this. Not at all. I respect your authority and position and I still think your final decision was MORE than fair. I also plan to follow your advice to the letter and I had already started to follow your advice even before you officially closed that dispute. If you looked at my edit history, I had started to follow your advice to get a consensus IMMEDIATELY AFTER you protected the page and instructed us to get along - however, the disruptive editor continued his personal attacks. That is why I reached out to you...since my complaint was that he was NOT joining me in following your advice. So, it's hard NOT to feel like you got us a little confused there.

Again, this is all water under the bridge. For my part, I am NOT challenging your decision here. Nor am I asking you to get involved. But I am trying to resolve any perception problems here since, in my defense, the disruptive editor was trying to misrepresent me with slander and false accusations.

Thank your again for your time! Your advice is much appreciated and I promise to adhere to it moving forward {:^)Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. Please take this as a companion piece to SPECIFICO's concerns above. Again, while I am far from perfect, I do my best to be a team player and get consensus where possible. But I think SPECIFICO is broadly speaking objecting to the same thing I was experiencing - the danger of false equivalence and grading editors on a curve when a seasoned editor is being disruptive against a novice like myself. I know just enough policy to be effective but I don't have the full understanding and knowledge that SPECIFICO and the disruptive editor ATimesAreAChanging has, so I think that makes it easy for a seasoned edit to engage in WP:GAMING of the system with new people who are making constructive edits, tricking them into thinking they are breaking the rules when they are not. This way a seasoned edit can engage in slowmotion editwars under the guise of simply following the rules. This is why I involved an admin, since it is only fair to let them referee. But again, I only mention this to provide context to SPECIFICO's concerns above. I do NOT want to re-open this debate. And I fully support your decision. My plan is to forgive and forget all parties and to move on. Thank you again for your time {:^)Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Oneshotofwhiskey - I appreciate your feedback and your thoughts regarding my decision and response to you in the AN3 report. I want you to know that, as an administrator making a judgment call in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, it is critically important to make a ruling based on relevant information presented in front of me in respect to the report and the channel used, and do so in a neutral, impartial, and uninvolved manner. Looking from a "big picture" perspective and without looking through every single detail with a comb, I found that the edit warring and dispute was over content-related matter, and that both of you broke 3RR but appeared to have stopped (which is the reason why I did not block either one of you; otherwise, I would have). It was an article under discretionary sanctions, but neither one of you were officially notified. So, I protected the article for a week and responded with my observations and a final warning to the both of you. The fact that the article is under discretionary sanctions, and looking at the number of reversions that occurred within that article, a block and even an editing restriction sanction would have been seen as completely justified by the community (and some users were even asking for this to happen). But, I instead ruled in a manner that I believe is level-headed and fair. There were a lot of details and information presented in the report, but what was examined and factored into my decision were only things that were actually relevant, which was disruption cased by edit warring. If you have other issues regarding behavior, breach of policy, or need community input regarding the in-depth information you provided at AN3, the proper place to raise this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. In the end, I know that my feedback may have reflected in a different manner than you expected, but you're not blocked, and you've been given a chance to learn from this and move on without anything being stapled in your block log or added the editing restriction log. Consider taking a step back for a bit, and move forward when you feel the time is right and that you're ready. I hope you move on from this with a positive reflection of this process, and that you view this as a good learning experience. I wish you the best of luck, and I wish you happy editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Tsmyzzz

Hello! I saw that you blocked Tsmyzzz for 31 hours. I wanted to make sure you saw that they created the same page, 4 times under 3 different names. The person the page is about also has a striking resemblance to the username. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zackmann08! It's good to talk to you again! Indeed I did; I figured I'd give the account a chance to contribute positively after the block. If it continues, let me know and I'll block the account indefinitely. Happy editing :-) -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough! Thanks for the feedback. Hope you are well. :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material

Thank you for locking the Visa requirements for Australian citizens article but the inexplicable behavior by the IP user (3 different IP addresses are used as far as I can tell - 60.231.54.217, 123.211.226.87 and 1.132.97.93/1.132.97.120 and once 58.96.59.233) just spilled to other articles such as the Visa requirements for Fijian citizens, Visa requirements for German citizens, Visa requirements for Thai citizens, Visa requirements for British citizens, Visa requirements for United States citizens. Something more needs to be done. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights - Thanks for the heads up. I'll take care of it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Twofortnights - I've blocked the IPs involved that were given final warnings or had made numerous disruptive changes, and I've protected the pages that have been the subject of numerous changes by the IPs involved .Two IPs were not blocked, as they are now stale and doing so would be moot. And I didn't protect one of the pages involved, since there were only a few disruptive edits made, but not to a level that protection felt needed. Please let me know if the disruption spills over into more articles or IPs and I'll be happy to investigate. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reaction! I keep those articles on my watchlist so if there are any new violations I will let you know.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, yes so it continued on Visa requirements for Greek citizens, Visa requirements for Iranian citizens, Visa requirements for German citizens and Visa requirements for Canadian citizens - the IP is 101.162.168.174. This is so random and odd.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Twofortnights - Indeed it is random, but definitely nothing compared to the array of bizarre and ridiculous disruption I've seen here... lol. The IP has been blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks for letting me know. If you run into any more of this, just let me know and I'll look into it :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for my profile review

Good day Oshwah, I just got a notification that my profile have being reviewed by you. Thanks for the review. Nice reading your user page it also tells a story about me likely.--Reekado (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Hey I'm sorry for messing up wikipedia I just wanted to test the system you had. Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.71.168 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

:My edit was not a "Test edit"

My edit of Tyler Patmon's page was not a test edit. I must have screwed something up in the navbox, but it certainly was not a text edit as I had just finished up editing every bit of the article adding that he was signed to the Chiefs practice squad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotsontop (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Patriotsontop. I'm not sure how I managed to revert your changes; I think I accidentally reverted the wrong change, which happened to be yours. I've restored the article back to reflect the changes you made. Please accept my sincere apologies for the confusion. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to message me and ask. Happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Something with the Infobox did get messed up. Could you please help me fix that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotsontop (talk • contribs)
Sure can! Let me take a look. Stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Fixed it! I made a silly error and did not place in some brackets. Thanks for looking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotsontop (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Patriotsontop - Looks like you just found the issue. Well done! If you need anything else, don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to lend you a hand! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Rick James

I just edited rick james wiki page for an assignment for a computer class.I wasn't trying to be rude and what I edited is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby0 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Another sock on Favonian's page

User:Riff roof Meters (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Already blocked. Meters (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Vergina women

Hi Oshwah,

This user that you blocked appears to have returned as Strudel17 (talk · contribs). Can you issue another block please? Thanks! 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The evidence looks pretty open-and-shut to me; they both made almost the exact same edit to the same page.   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

IRC

Well, that was impressive. See this. Even ChanServ is gone! -- The Voidwalker Whispers 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Voidwalker - Weeee!!!!! I saw the big net split too... Wait... they're all coming back now! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

DatGuy looks from his kiwiirc hole that crashed just now. Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyonwho who knows the 80/20 rule I consider worthy of chatting with !

Hello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.64.197 (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding!

I've indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. (Netsplit, huh, per above? Once when I was in the admin channel, in the guise of Bishzilla, a split left me and Jimbo Wales alone together on the internets. He quickly collected himself and jumped into her pocket. :-) Epic.) Bishonen | talk 00:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen! HA! That's great! Also, good call. Hope you're doing well -- Happy Friday!!!! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

V/H/S edits

Hello. I apologize if the edits in question seem nonconstructive, but I think regarding them as 'vandalism' is a bit misleading. The addition of links to the Amateur Night section was intended to elucidate the segment's themes and allusions. Specifically, adding a link to indicate that one of the characters' urgings against initiating sex with an unconscious young woman is an attempt to stop 'rape' adds significantly to the dimension of the story, as it is a pivotal moment underscoring the character's intentions. And while it is never explicitly stated in the film, the origin of the antagonist - Lily - is rooted in Mesopotamian demonology and Jewish mythology. As the Wikipedia article on the subject states, the Lilin were hostile night spirits who would attack men. In folklore, this would later develop into the notion of a Succubus, a supernatural entity taking the form of a woman to seduce men through sexual activity - which is exactly what happens in the film.

Again, I apologize if this seems nonconstructive pursuant to Wikipedia's guidelines, but I feel that offering links clarifying the allegorical nature of this particular horror short - ridiculous though that may seem - adds significant depth to an informative article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.112.242 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Lotus Power

Looking at the history-it looks like it is a possible SPA for Lotus Power, as 2 different editors have worked on it. Wgolf (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wgolf! Yeah, something funky was going on. However, the article meets A9, so I went ahead and deleted it. If you notice any more of this kind of weird stuff going on, please do not hesitate to give me a heads up. Thank you for your diligence, and I hope you have a great rest of your day! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! (Re: ANI)

Hi Oshwah!

I just wanted to say thanks for helping out with the WP:AN/I discussion that I posted. (about the dynamic 2605:e000:6201:1300::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) range edits. I'm not sure if DoRD informed you or not, maybe he/she found out about the disruption elsewhere, but they have blocked the IP range for 1 month. I just wanted to relay this to you just in case if you were never told the end result of this was.. Anyway, thanks for taking a look into it! :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh perfect! Good! He must have found more evidence to show that the range block was needed. I do admit now... I forgot to check the range contribs tool for that range to see if there was more disruption than reported; I'm guessing that he did, and he found enough evidence to proceed with blocking that range. I'll check the ANI and find out. And you're very welcome; I'm not 100% perfect at this "admin" stuff yet, but I'm happy to see that I'm erring on the side of caution and not blocking or taking admin action when I probably should have, as opposed to erring on the side of using admin tools when I should not have. I'll get it down; just bear with me in the meantime ;-). Again, I'm glad I could (at least try) to be of assistance. Thanks for messaging me, and I hope you have a great day today! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: Ah, I just read the ANI. It looks like the disruption continued after my response a day later. DoRD was looking at new evidence, and he did the right thing. Thank you, DoRD! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that with a new address, they had continued on with the same nonsense. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Cool deal. Thanks for reviewing the updated contribs and for blocking. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

William Adams (Sailor)

Hello

I fairly recently received a number of complaints regarding irresponsible editing of the article: Williams Adams (Sailor) I have been told not to put wrongful edits into Wikipedia articles and completely understand why this should be a rule.

However, I use a private computer and I have never gone to that article. I don't even know who this person IS. I haven't edited anything on Wikipedia in years, however I am being told to refrain or I will be barred from doing so further. Please attempt to resolve this strange occurrence. Thanks 

- Confused Wikipedia user  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.119.241 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oshwah/talkarchive-2016-10

I'll leave this up to you! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

HA! I'll remove it eventually. I'm in no hurry ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Welp, it looks like it was already deleted xD 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
HA! Perfect. Thanks to whoever deleted that page for me. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: It was Drmies. Thanks, Drmies! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Um, it actually looks like it was Paul Erik, unless if I'm missing something here... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Whoops! You're right! I had something going on and open on other tabs... I looked at the wrong damn deleted article. Thanks, Paul Erik! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A pleasure. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, "User:Paul Erik", I'm glad you got a nice "thank you" out of this. I suppose the "thank you" I got is now withdrawn? What is it now, "fuck you Drmies"? "Should have gotten to it before the dude with TWO NAMES did it"? I'm going to drag you all before ArbCom for bullying. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
LOL!!! Drmies, do you want to talk about it? :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
NO. I do NOT want to talk to you, or to the dude with the two names. You know, it wouldn't be so bad if he didn't have that "cool" "K" in there. He's probably toned and goodlooking too--I hate those people. I'm gonna go find someone to block. (BTW, I did just block someone after a first edit--my fuse with stupid vandalism/BLP violations is getting to be really short.) Drmies (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
*gives Drmies a hug*. It's okay. We still love you. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
As the current Editor of the Week and therefore de facto leader of the English speaking Wikipedia until sunday, and noted for resolving tough situations, here is my advice.
  • Drmies is suffering from hot top of the head syndrome. This can only be fixed by plunging the sufferers' right hand in flour or oatmeal, for at least 10 minutes. Drinking beer of at least 7% strength assists the curative process. I have tried it and it works.
  • Oshwah is suffering from lovefest syndrome. The same treatment applies, but substitute sand or sawdust for the hand thing. I have tried it and it works.
  • Paul Erik. You are suffering from something to do with pages. This I do not fully grasp. In this case, I would suggest an immediate bowel movement, then beer while watching the The Poseidon Adventure (1972 film). This treatment has been used with some success in similar circumstances, especially when there is a J in the month, as I believe there is now.

I sincerely hope this advice resolves this complex issue. Irondome (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Help us......... help us, Irondome! Save us......... :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
All is well. I am feeling the tingly curative thing from 3,000 miles away already. Do not use brown sugar. It must be sand Oshwah. Reflect on this. Irondome (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A party and nobody invited me! Jim1138 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If I could roll back time..

Hi Oshwah, hoping all is good with you! I opposed your adminship at the RfA. I was seriously wrong to do so. You are doing a damn fine job, with grace and good humour. My apologies. Put it down to a brainfart on my part. If I could turn back the clock you would have had my firmest support. But what matters is you got through and are wielding the mop with style and discretion. Kind regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Irondome, you owe me absolutely no apologies at all for your vote. You voted using your judgment and insight, with the integrity of the project in-mind, and with the evidence presented in the RfA. That's all that I (or, anybody, for that matter) could ever ask for. The RfA is over and it's in the past, as far as I'm concerned :-). I appreciate your message and your kind words - I'm happy to hear that you're happy with how I've turned out with the administrator role, and that I'm doing well with the tools - it's what should be expected of me. I promised the community that I would use the tools with neutrality, intelligence, level-headedness, and with a good heart... and I plan to keep my promise :-). I hope you're doing well, and I hope you're having a great day! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi I am a surf school like the two other ones and I have legal permits like them and have been around three years . I am confused why I am not allowed to be added

Hi I am a legal commercial surf school like the two others featured Aloha Surf Girls (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Aloha Surf Girls - Your edits constitute advertising or promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, and articles that are neutral and reflect the best quality content contain no bias or advertising toward your organization. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you even live in Hawaii ? Talking about commercialism ? Uncle Bryan blocks all the public parking stalls at two locations and bully's people, north shore surf girls is commercial and carol is crooked . I have the right to be presented . But whateve...

You are confused and wrong Aloha Surf Girls (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to read what Wikipedia is not, as it will help you to understand what you're doing, and why it is against Wikipedia's polices. If you have any questions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please let me know. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I apologize for the edit I made, that was just me being silly, I hope you don't mind. Is there a way to make an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiblox (talk • contribs) 01:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wikiblox: I have put a welcome box on your talk page which gives a rundown of our policies and how editing works. Articles for Creation may also be a good place to start for you. -- Dane2007 talk 03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hey, thanks for blocking the IP vandals on Jennifer Rubin (journalist). I just noticed that one of them had some not nice things to say about us on their talk page. I would remove the personal attack but sense that wouldn't be well-received--perhaps they need their talk page access revoked. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Safehaven86! No problem; thanks for giving your time towards vandal patrolling. It's a big help and it makes a huge difference! I've revoked talk page access from the IP due to (obvious) misuse of it. Thanks for the heads up! Keep up the awesome work! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and the same to you! Safehaven86 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
You're best administrator over 9001, You have beaten vandalism and Keep up! ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Junior5a! Good to talk to you again! I hope your day is going well! Thank you for the barnstar, my man! I really appreciate it, as well as your time spend helping combat vandalism. I've seen you out there quite a bit... in fact, it should be me that's giving you a barnstar, not the other way around ;-). It's great to be on the front lines side-by-side with you, and I'm your guy if you need anything! Happy editing, man. Keep it real -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Yung miraboi mark

Good day Oshwah, My account has being blocked User talk:Yung miraboi mark for some months, I am responding to my case but nobody is paying attention to me.--105.112.34.39 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to be patient and wait for an administrator to review your block. Alternatively, you can also appeal by visiting Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Please make no further edits outside your username (like you did here), as doing so is block evasion and will only add difficulty and evidence that can be used against you in your appeal. I won't block this IP unless you make further edits, since you may not have know about this, but please follow the directions and do not edit outside your account. Good luck to you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

IM NEW

IM NEW DONT JUDGE ME OK YEAH IVE DONE GOOFED BUT PLEASE LIKE DUDE HAVE PATIENCE WIT MAH SOUL. HAVE A BLESSED DAY SIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy poo101 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Derek Hough

I beat you to the revert so I guessed you returned the favor :). Thanks for your vandalism fighting! -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

LuK3 - No, thank you, sir! Thanks for helping with patrolling recent changes and for reverting vandalism! It's a task that not a lot of people enjoy doing, and I always appreciate those who help keep Wikipedia clean from all of that! Your time and diligence does not go unnoticed! And I appreciate your message as well! As always, it's great to talk to you again, and I hope you're having a good day! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your previous API is being re-tried by the same disruptive editor I complained about

Sorry to bother you. However, I would like to bring to your attention that the previous API you ruled on is being re-tried by user name "TheTimesAreAChanging" [[7]], the same disruptive editor I had exhaustingly complained about.

He essentially copied and pasted the previous ANI and is trying to get a second opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Oneshotofwhiskey_and_Dinesh_D.27Souza

What bothers me about it is that you made a fair ruling and since then I have respected your instructions and strove to work things out with the editor on that page. I have for the most part avoided making edits on the article in contention. Rather I have sought to work things out on the talk page and consensus building, just like you asked! Rather than the OTHER editor [[8]] doing the same, he has simply resumed personal attacks [[9]] A direct quote from him is that I "openly boasts that [I am] a WP:NOTHERE". This is simply NOT true.

I would hope that after your previous ruling that we are supposed to start with a fresh slate and move forward. Hopefully, any FUTURE ANIs should be based only on behavior and actions SINCE then. Again, I have done NOTHING since then other than argue my point in the talk page.

My hope is that you can step into this new ANI he created to make the other editors there aware of the fact that there was a previous ruling placed upon us both that is authoritative on everyone involved. He is clearly trying to game the system with this tired old rehashed accusation that you already decided upon, striving to get the outcome he prefers so he can topic ban me from the article. Please weigh in there, if you can, so others will not be manipulated by his efforts.

Again, here is it...Nothing new is cited, just the same accusations you ruled on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Oneshotofwhiskey_and_Dinesh_D.27Souza

Editors should be aware that the OP "TheTimesAreAChanging" [[10]] routinely misrepresents facts and cites diffs that do not support his claims. His edit comments continue to be full of personal attacks and hostile side rants in this edit subject headings. And he has edit warred on American Politics post 1932 articles after having received the warning template. Speedy close or boomerang is in order there on that NEW unnecessary API that you already ruled on.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Oneshotofwhiskey - Thanks for the heads up. I'll read the ANI and see if I can't get an uninvolved administrator to step in, as I have done so previously. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Boulder Dam

THe "Hoover" Dam has been officiall redesignated as the Boulder Dam by Barack Obama. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BDA0:6C1:D4D5:3F7F:2D27:DE17 (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


proof as designated - https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama --2607:FEA8:BDA0:6C1:D4D5:3F7F:2D27:DE17 (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing in that source that proves or even makes mention of the Hoover Dam. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The more you know...it was the boulder dam while it was being built! Thanks vandal for inspiring learning! -- Dane2007 talk 01:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza, formerly at AN3 is now at ANI

Since you were the admin closer of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive328#User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Oneshotofwhiskey (Result: Page protected) you might be made aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Oneshotofwhiskey and Dinesh D'Souza. Nothing forces you to participate; your name is not mentioned though one phrase might be a reference to you: "the admin finding that both of us need to find common ground". You made further comments here. I feel some frustration at not being able to think of anything reasonable to do to calm down this dispute, or propose a sanction. Both parties were so energized and spoke at such length that it was hard to get a clear view. Since the issue falls under WP:ARBAP2 it is theoretically possible to issue topic bans. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I see you were already notified of the ANI above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston - No worries. I knew they'd eventually be back. I'll take a look for sure. If it's a continuation of the same thing, and with further disruption made to the article, then I believe it may be time to move forward with sanctions. Thanks for the heads up. By the way, I might need your help with this one (if you don't mind) :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect to you both, since you are discussing "sanctions" as almost a presumption here- I haven't made any changes to this article since the decision you reached. I was not the one who made a NEW API. Also, my activity has been limited to the talkpage. I have stayed away from personal attacks, I have kept my responses civil and neutral. I have pushed for consensus, as you requested. So then, let me get this straight: when one editor here starts to act up again, I too have to be punished for his inability to follow the rules?? Or, as you saying it was a violation to bring the API to your attention since the other editor was attempting to rehash it???? You made an authoratative decision in the previous API. I have followed your expectation to the letter. I simply mentioned it here since the OTHER editor was ignoring it, trying to start the editwar again through a procedural means that is akin to gaming the system.
I have offended by you saying that,"I knew they'd eventually be back." If you truly look(ed) into this, you will find that I've been extremely cautious and respectful of what you asked of us. I do not and did not consent to him bringing about this new API. IN fact, I warned him against it. FYI- he threatened the API when I dared to respectfully disagree with him on the talk page. APIs shouldn't be used by editors in this fashion. More to the point, you should be offended that your previous ruling was overlooked by the other editor as he shopped around for a second opinion by opening up this NEW API only a mere week after the old API was settled. Again, I feel like I'm being (re)punished for past behavior when we were both asked by you to treat this as water under the bridge and move on.
Forgive my terseness here, but it feels like you are saying that if ONE editor is punished then it is only fair to punish the other editor. No one owes disruptive editors false equivalence. The burden and responsibility should be on the editor who continues to stir the pot.
If responding here was considered a violation, then that comes to a shock to me. I was under the impression that we were supposed to bring any new developments to your attention. No one likes to be stalked or bullied in this manner as I have by this OTHER editor clearly engaging in WP:OWN and WP:GAMING.
Again, forgive my long-windedness, my TL:DR portion of this, my emotion, my terseness but I shouldn't be sanctioned for following your rules. I should be sanctioned for NOT following them. Thanx again for your time, nothing personal.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oneshotofwhiskey - I apologize. My statement, by no means, was implying any kind of presumption towards anybody. If it's a continuation of the same thing, and with further disruption made to the article, then sure... sanctions may be imposed. But if you haven't disrupted the article, then you'll most likely be fine depending on what is found. I assure you that I will do my best to make a ruling (as I did before) in a neutral, level-headed, and unbiased manner and with the evidence presented. The last thing I want to do is impose any sort of administrative action or sanctions upon anyone who does not fairly deserve them... doing so would be unfair and is not the right thing to do. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I apologize as well. Clearly I overreacted.Like Ed, I didn't notice you had responded above. The formatting confused me and took EVERYTHING outta context. I thought you were indirectly responding to me through your comment to the admin ED. Then afterwards I saw you had written a nice reply to me in the above section saying you would look into it, etc. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding. P.S. I confess that I am too longwinded (get it from my grandmother!) and so maybe the TL:DR comment made me a little conscious too (that's on me for being a little too thinskinned!haha). Thanx again for your time and whatever happens, I know it's nothing personal ;) Take care.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 United States protests

I redirected 2016 United States protests, but perhaps it should be speedy deleted as non specific. In any case, it seems to be attracting a lot of encyclopedic edits. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am One of Many -   Done. Page deleted. I agree that the redirect is non-specific, and I also feel that the redirect in itself can be interpreted as having bias, as it redirects to an article about the 2016 presidential election. Thanks for the heads up! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Hi quick note -- Times was warned about ARBAP in 2015 and twice recently. Not sure how this ties in to your recent comment about the AN3 thread. You can check the log of his talk page history. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, have you added this information to the ANI thread? It would be extremely helpful to the community if you state this information and provide the diff to that previous warning. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi sorry I'm on the run. Would you mind adding it to the ANI? Thanks.
It was November 2015 [11] and then I warned him in Oct 2016 [12] before Robert McClendon did the same after that. Mine was cut and paste of the subst template so you can find mine in his talkpage history rather than searching for the tag.
If you look through his talk page archives you'll find many editors of all stripes politely asking him to stop personal attacks and battlegrounding, with Times usually responding with further attacks or snark.I'm tied up all day but hope to be back this evening. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

sorry that was my sister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.94.210 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverted Changes

Oshwah,

I am sorry that my edit to Liberty University School of Law was not acceptable. My description of the changes must not have properly been entered when I updated the page. Thank you for pointing out my oversight! Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be changed on the page.

Jgmosteller

Help

Hello sir i don't know how creat wikipedia pls help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBF Production (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

More BLP edits that need to be hidden from same editor you recently addressed

There are two more edits at West Deptford and National Park that have the same BLP issue and should have content hidden from the same problem editor. Thanks for your attention to this issue before and now. Alansohn (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn - Good call, dude! Thanks for pointing that out!   Done - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Borcker

They appear to have returned with this account: Watermoor (talk · contribs) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

See 79.12.188.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for similar edits. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
And if you could also tag the account with {{sockpuppet|1=Borcker|2=blocked}} – Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian socks

Thanks for looking into the Osama Tolba crew. Yintan  05:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yintan - You bet! Always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Blind Willie Johnson

Can this page be protected for an extended period of time (at least until I complete the "legacy" section)? A new user keeps removing information sourced by a reliable book on Johnson's life. I am thoroughly convinced the user will keep reverting even though I have sourced everything I have written so far. I do not take ownership of the article, but I do not want to see my work reverted when I back it up with evidence. I also do not want to be tricked into edit warring so some help would be appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheGracefulSlick. Let me take a look at the article and who is making these changes. I don't want to protect the article over one person causing disruption, and I certainly don't want to protect the article in order to tilt the scale if the dispute is content-related. Either way, I'll look into it and take care what needs to be taken care of ;-). Thanks for the heads up; hope you're having a good day today. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the editor has only done this twice, I'm going to hold off for now. If the removal continues, and he doesn't respond to a ping on the article's talk page asking for an explanation, warn him for edit warring. If that doesn't stop him, or if the edits become really disruptive, let me know and I'll jump in ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, especially for how kindly you wrote it. I made a few adjustments to the article to hopefully appease the editor. He/she claims I am taking "ownership" of the article because I list it on my user page (as I do with all articles I write or significantly worked on), but really I just want to improve upon the state I found it in. Some of his/her objections are based on out-dated sources or statements that have been proven inaccurate by later work. Thank you again for the help, I really appreciate it!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick - No problem! Always happy to help! My advice? Don't let those silly accusations of ownership or whatever else do anything but make you smirk and think, "HA! Right...". Just brush them off, and don't even acknowledge them in your responses. As you've probably seen hundreds of times, I get accused by editors and IP's of lots of different things. Welcome to the world of Wikipedia editing! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarence Issko

Can you delete this page that Deanwikipedia (talk · contribs) made? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I did explain why, did you read my edit summaries?

I did explain why, did you read my edit summaries? 69.50.69.34 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I responded to your talk page. I think I did it by mistake; you clearly had an edit summary. Weird... Anyways, I owe you my apologies. Please feel to revert (if you haven't already). Have a great day, and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the apologies, and happy editing to you too ! 69.50.69.34 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

About the yin and yang article

Hi, Oshwah! Hope you 're doing well.

There's this line in the article on yin-yang: "Further, whenever one quality reaches its peak, it will naturally begin to transform into the opposite quality: for example, grain that reaches its full height in summer (fully yang) will produce seeds and die back in winter (fully yin) in an endless cycle."

It say that things will "transform into the opposite quality" when it reaches its peak. Does it, by any chance, imply that a good person will gradually become a dark personality - bad person? Dumb question, sorry, but still I'd be happy if given a clarification.

Thanks!Vinayshastri (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links question and reverted edits

I was making several revisions on 10/26 that were all removed. Between 1999-2004 I interviewed about 20 bands. They interviews were recently uploaded to youtube, and I was trying to add links to each band's page, often creating a 'interviews' section at the base of each page. Reading through the 'external links' and media link pages on here, I don't feel I've broken any rules by adding these. So the question is, will I be able to link as is (youtube link), or do they have to be on a different type of site/page?

Thanks for helping a wiki noob. Diagoro1 (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.....really disappointed in the lack of help, considering all the other responses below. I was banned for a few days, and all the notations said "just ask if you have a question".....Diagoro1 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Diagoro1 - My apologies. I didn't mean to skip your message; I'm not sure how I managed to do this. Which articles are you referring to exactly? Have you reviewed Wikipedia's external links guidelines? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Primarily, I'm wondering if linking a youtube interview is unacceptable, as opposed to the same content on a personal page. Story short, I hosted a radio show and did a ton of great (my opinion) interviews, mostly with little known bands. I only have audio, and posted them on youtube for ease of access/use. In terms of prior attempts, I tried with Steadman, Stereophonics, Fonda, The Lucksmiths, and a few others.Diagoro1 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Diagoro1 - If these interviews on youtube were conducted by you, then they cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia articles. This constitutes original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. In short, original research is anything that you've written, seen, published, etc - that contains original thought. Original research isn't allowed due to the fact that such content isn't attributable to a reliable, published source (see Wikipedia's verifiability policy). This rule applies to all articles (especially if they are biographies of living people). Give these policies a read-through, as they are very important to know and understand. If you have any questions about them, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, if I could ask, what's the use of a "interviews" tab I see on many band pages? Is it only acceptable if a third party adds them? I've seen numerous interviews/performance links on band pages, wondering if it's just something that slipped through editing.Diagoro1 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

INDIA (LOVE) WESBROOKS

Yes, hello. I'd like to have a brief discussion with you about my page deletion. I was simply educating the community on India Love, yet my page was deleted. I don;'t appreciate this and I would appreciate an explanation.

Thank you, P&S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfghjkuytrdfcvbnji876rdcvb (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply

":" Thanks for your valuable message. I was just trying to add my Organization details in Wikipedia. My organization is authorized and also have the existence in "Google Map" . But it is deleted. Actually I am new in wiki. I think I made some mistakes, that why it happened. So can you tell me what is the procedure to make a successful page under wiki either in case of personal page or professional page? RSLBP (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ooops?

I don't think you intended to restore this?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo - Woah! ...No I did not. Looks like it's already been reverted. Thanks for catching and for giving me a heads-up :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Ponyo - I repaid the favor for you (lol). You got my back, I got yours ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

updating information about Rodney Mott

Hey

what I'm doing wrong? I noticed someone had some brief information about me and I just wanted to update the information about my family. I'm not a programmer and have never try this beforeTrueteller2016 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Trueteller2016 - Thanks for letting me know. You need to read and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on no original research and conflicts of interest, as your edits to the page constitutes issues with both. Citing personal knowledge of someone when adding content in an article is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (especially if the article is about biographies of living people), and since you have a personal relationship with the article subject, this represents a conflict of interest. Editing articles or even participating in discussions about articles that you have a conflict of interest in is highly discouraged behavior. Please review these policies and guidelines and let me know if you have any questions. Again, thanks for letting me know and for your message. I'm happy to help you if you have questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thank for the quick reply.. my kid searches and find thing and i just want the information to be correct and reflective of our family...
who can add the information? Trueteller2016 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Trueteller2016 - Any uninvolved editor can. The best thing you can do is not touch the article, and let other editors who would better represent a neutral point of view make any edits they feel is necessary. It's best to not get involved with articles that you have conflicts of interest in. For example, I don't make edits to the article of where I went to college, or any such articles that I would naturally compromise it's neutrality, even if I don't intend to. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The source was the Pete Burns article on Wikipedia. I used an abbreviated version of the death statement. I felt it was a appropriate to do so because Burns was the frontman for the band, even though people could find the death information by clicking the solo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.230.115 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pete Burns death information on "Dead Or Alive" page

The source was the Pete Burns article on Wikipedia. I used an abbreviated version of the death statement. I felt it was a appropriate to do so because Burns was the frontman for the band, even though people could find the death information by clicking the solo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.230.115 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:NELSONPOGI

I thought G1 didn't apply to the userspace? Adam9007 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Does it not? I'll have to review the guidelines... stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Adam9007 - You're totally right! It doesn't. Restoring. Thanks! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm still going to blank this... it's obviously disruptive and looks spam-like. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I also reverted the same stuff on the page User:Apaucokes. Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Adam9007 - Awesome! Thanks for doing that, and thanks for catching the G1 delete and for the heads up. Silly me! *Shrugs* ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No subject

I Oshwah,

The edits in the wiki are not attempts to whitewash anything. Rather, the whole article is biased and based on propagandistic material from known right-wing propaganda homepage "Nyheter Idag". The statement that police "covered up" facts and information is only partly true, but the article will make the reader believe that this is undisputed fact. The whole article is an attempt at characterizing events that are contested as if they are proven facts.

Thank you for your input! I'm new to article editing on wiki. But this misuse of public knowledge is terrifying.

Best, BigBird1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBird1 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This is propaganda

Hi Oshwah,

don't know if my last reply to you came through. I'm new at this.

Anyway; my point is that the whole article is written with a heavy bias. It lacks neutrality. The citations from "Nyheter Idag" are stated as facts when they are highly contested by mainstream media. This article has cherry-picked articles and notices to create the overall appearance of neutrality, when it is clearly not.

That is why I tried to remove such unfounded and highly contested material. I tried to mark the text, but was not successful. Next time I will not delete without adding a comment or argument on why.

Thank you for helping make Wikipedia great!

BigBird1

BigBird1 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

  The Admin's Barnstar
Aargh, you beat me to it! I was in the process of putting a CSD tag on Aneezaannie's talkpage for spam, but you had already deleted the page and blocked the user! Thanks, Oshwah! :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks dude! Always happy to help! I appreciate the wikilove!!! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

TuneTown "vandalism"?

I did not vandalize the page on TuneTown online and wish to apologize if you thought I did so. I tried my best to correct the page based on my memories. It's been a long time since I played the game and thought (and still think) the enemy robots were called Nigs instead of Cogs. Please revoke my warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.227.57 (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Well done on reverting the vandalism on Wikipedia. You're a great admin. :) The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 04:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jackninja5! Happy Friday, man! I really appreciate the wikilove, and for your kind words. I'm extremely honored and pleased by your feedback, as well as the feedback that others have left me too. Administrators who truly serve their tools well and for the good of the project behave like servants to the community, not like authoritative figures. I take that thought to heart, and highly so. Oh, and you have to be chill and have fun too! That's a big one! Anyways... it's a pleasure to serve you, and I plan to continue doing so for... well, the completely unforeseeable future ;-). Thanks a lot, Jackninja5. I hope you have a great weekend. Until our paths cross again -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm an admin on a few wikis on Wikia so I know what it's like. BTW, it's actually Saturday where I am. ;) The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 05:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Aww crap! I had a 50/50 shot at guessing correctly! Well... wait... *looks at the time zone map*.... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

':' mott

Well, it would be nice if someone update my information.. It's strange to me that I'm unable to get my information updated. Trueteller2016 (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

TheJacob

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism, as you did at Harrassing users. Harrassing users Why'd you delete it sounds like a good article! I noticed that TheJacob was complaining about the lack of littarasy letteracy spell'n n read'n 'n write'n Jim1138 (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Aww, damnit, did I seriously?!!! LOLOL!!! ... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
ARGGG... I put it in the wrong line on Twinkle!! *face palms at himself* ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with New Article

Hi, Oshwah. I want to write an article about a living person, and am having difficulty about coming up with references/resources. I got some answers from another admin, but posted another question I couldn't find on his page. So I'm shooting this one over to you, since I was able to connect with you!

This person has written an autobiography. Can an autobiography be used as a primary source?

Thank you!


Ginger-lyn Summer (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Ginger-lyn

Hi Ginger-lyn Summer! Thanks for leaving me a message with your question. If the autobiography was created by the person himself, then it would be a primary source. We try to avoid using self-written materials as sources when it comes to writing or expanding article about that same person, and for many reasons. For more information, see Wikipedia's biographies of living people (self-published sources section). If you have any more questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. Happy editing! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Your block of User:Maxis332,879,3437

Please add user talk page access to the block since now adding multiple copies of the same material to his talk page. Meters (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. User:C.Fred noticed. Meters (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Cool deal. Glad it's been taken care of. Let me know if I can do anything else. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2016-10&oldid=1142130835"