Wikipedia

User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-11

< User:Oshwah


You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from November 2017. 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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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.




Account Block

Hello Oshwah,

You blocked my account - ScenicMedia.

Per the issues cited in the block, I created a new account using my own name.

Please note, the original account was not an organization per se -- it's the name of my own LLC/sole proprietorship.

I just happened to create the account using that name because it's handy.

That said, I'm okay to leave it blocked (or if you can delete the account, that's okay too).

In any event, I wanted to let you know that the page created and edited yesterday/today was done so by me and not by a company for commercial purposes.

I also wanted to let you know my new account in case you had any additional issues or concerns regarding the page created.

Thank you!

JohnRHughes (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi JohnRHughes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for taking the time to create a new account that's in compliance with Wikipedia's username policy. Your original username represented a partnership or business, which does not represent you as an individual person but an organization. This is not allowed, and the reason I blocked your original username so that you could create a new one. It's better to start off here with a username that's in compliance; had you used that account to make major contributions or edits, it would have been much harder to address the problem. Better to take care of things before they build and get bigger ;-). Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Corrections

I fought the law: spelling error in note 13 Chartd should be Charts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3187:F00:6C0E:A155:2FAA:BDED (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack, please resolve

I'm sorry to bother you, but I noticed your online. I'm posting at ITN, regarding the NY attack and someone posted the following, which I believe to be an extreme personal attack, it is unacceptable to call someone racist. Special:Diff/808129416 I've asked him to strike out and he refused. Please take care of it. Thanks. (As I later pointed out, the US Justice Department has strict rules for what is and what isn't terror and a shooting without motive is not a terror attack) Sir Joseph (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sir Joseph - I hatted the entire discussion. It was getting out of hand, completely off-topic, and uncivil. I think this should take care of your concerns, and I hope that the discussion comes to a good and peaceful close. Please let me know if I can help with anything else. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for collapsing, but that is not the same as striking out a vile personal attack. Telling me that my post is a racist diatribe must certainly be a violation of CIVIL or NPA. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph - Yes, I agree that he could have chosen much better words to express his thoughts. However, I'd leave his responses be and don't alter them. You could always leave a message on their talk page, be nice to him, and calmly and professionally tell him how his response made you feel. I'm sure he won't mind, and (so long as you keep it professional and be nice about it) it'll start a good dialogue of communication. What do you think? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, I sense that Sir Joe is extremely incensed by this at the moment, so maybe a third party would be best to post a little reminder as to WP:PA's on the perp's T/P. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I want to give Sir Joseph the opportunity to talk to the user directly and resolve it between themselves; if the discussion doesn't come to a good result, I'll be happy to talk to the user. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, firstly, can you revdel the comment? It is still showing up on the page. Secondly, I did try to talk to the other editor but he said I can't post to his page anymore. I posted my explanation of my comment and how he is posting it way out of context, which shouldn't resort to a terrible personal attack like that regardless. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph - It is redacted. And yes, I can certainly talk to the user. I'm sorry that you had to be sucked into that discussion.... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and I really apologize for bothering you, but when I open the discussion from the hat, I still see the comment. I did refresh to see if it's the cache and I checked in another browser but the "racist diatribe" comment is still there. I'm sorry to bother you, but I do think this is not the same as being called a jerk or asshole or other attacks. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph - I saw that. Another administrator beat me to the rev del; I just left a message letting him know that he didn't redact it completely. I don't want to step on any toes in case he meant to do something else. Also, you owe me absolutely no apologies. My talk page is always open to you and you are welcome to message me any time and ask for help, input, or to talk. I'll be happy to lend a hand. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It is done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Much appreciated. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph - Of course; happy to do it. If I can help you with anything else, you know where to find me ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

your block of user:37.210.197.252

Talk page access needs to go. Meters (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

At the very least. Meters (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Meters -   Done. I also added that, uh... interesting .gif to the blacklist so that it no longer displays in-line on any page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Nicely done. There's certainly no valid use for that gif here. Meters (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

ITNC revdel

Have to say that I disagree with your revdel over at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, though I understand why you did it (it's certainly not "ordinary incivility"). I'd prefer that the attack, absolutely repugnant and nasty as it is, be redacted but in the edit history so that others can build an ANI case if a pattern of such incivility continues. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The ed17 - I'm actually glad you said something. That was my original thought as well, but I later took it back, but with reservation. While I know that this redaction will make Sir Joseph feel better, your argument for keeping it is right. I'm going to undo my redaction. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
FWIW CosmicAdventure‎ has been busy striking some of their more testy comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The ed17 - I've reverted my changes. Since Ad Orientem made the redaction to the edit that added the comment, I'm going to leave that one alone. Modifying it would be overriding his decision to rev del it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
All admins second guess themselves occasionally. Don't sweat it. :-) Sounds good. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The ed17 - Thank you. I appreciate it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Replying to your note

Hi Oswah, yes, that was a mistake that I removed content. I am still learning the ropes here. Definitely want to stick within community best practices and appreciate your message. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louise.ward (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Louise.ward! No problem; please don't hesitate to message me if you have any questions or need help with anything. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You could have at least...

let me finish the EW/N post! Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

HA! No problem :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

All sources about Pınar deniz is Turkish

Hello All sources about Pınar deniz is Turkish. I translated from Turkish language. Sources are from official and news. What can i do? She has a page in IMDb.

Also the actress says in posta newspaper " I was born in 1993. But my id card is 1994". Turkish: Adana’da doğdum, Mardinliyim. Yakın zamana kadar 1994 doğumlu olduğumu zannediyordum ama Galatasaray-Manchester maçının oynandığı gün olan 4 Kasım 1993’te doğduğumu bu maç sayesinde, yeni öğrendim.

Source:http://www.posta.com.tr/pinar-deniz-cephede-savasmak-isterdim-haberi-1264354 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.76.10.147 (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:WyndingHeadland

Please see a new ANI raised by User:Mutt Lunker with the article Scots Gaels involved.
This refers to the disruptive editor issue that you looked at. I appreciate that my handling of the issue has not made anything any easier, but if you look at the new complaint, and particularly on Talk:Scots Gaels I think you will understand the problem.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired - Thanks, I've added a response to the ANI. I hope that you two find a way to work things out, or that the right decision is reached with how to handle the dispute. Good luck to you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. The problem is that WyndingHeadland is, quite simply, beyond reason. I do not say this at all lightly. If the sock allegation is true (and I am convinced that it is), numerous editors have tried to reach consensus (or even some level of understanding) with this user and failed. The extensive rebuttal that I made of accusations about my editing (with hindsight, this level of engagement was unwise) is the end of a long process of trying to engage with WyndingHeadland. I, personally, can do no more to achieve a positive interaction with them. User:Mutt Lunker is a much more experienced editor than me (and very well versed in the subject) - I hope you would take their opinions into account.
Where can I look for resolution on this, based on the above?.
Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
To elaborate on my mention of this users previous incarnation as User:Baglessingazump at the ANI discussion, I had recognised the editor's highly distinctive and idiosyncratic mode of expression at Scots Gael and its talk pages from a highly unproductive and time-consuming number of threads at Highland Clearances a couple of years ago. On checking the latter article it was no surprise that the new incarnation had returned to editing there and in a similarly unproductive and uncooperative manner. An inspection of Archives 3 and 4 for that article will give an indication of the pointlessness of attempting to cooperate with this individual, despite the patient and lengthy attempts of several editors. I would have to say that I would concur with User:ThoughtIdRetired that the user appears to be chronically and overwhelmingly impervious to reason or the will to cooperate, whether as a tactic or due to competence issues. You can, and I previously have, talked to them until the cows come home but to absolutely no avail. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Really very sad level of backbiting going on. Note how the user Mutt Lunker isn't ashamed of following a disruption with a new one. He is actively linking his look for a fight. WyndingHeadland (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see this bizarre post by WyndingHeadland on 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC). The answer immediately after by User:Catrìona sums up what we all feel.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Brammall

Hi Oshwah, I believe you have made a mistake by removing my edits to Patrick Brammall and I would very much dislike having to re-add them as I am not tech savvy and it took me awhile to add even what I did. To solve the problem though I would like to say that I did have a source (an australian newspaper) but I obviously did not add it correctly as the interface is not very user friendly. This is my source: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/canberras-patrick-brammall-joins-offspring-20140528-zrpvc.html Please re-add all my edits but put them down as my edits under my name if possible, if not then tell me how I can re-add them with my source, Thank you.

Farris.hassan (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This edit was reverted due to being unreferenced per Wikipedia's biographies of living people policy. It looks like you've since re-added the content as well as supplied references to them - perfect. My concerns are concerns no longer ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Farris.hassan: The cited source says "Also Canberra-born, Brammall is most well-known for a number of television roles, including in A Moody Christmas, Upper Middle Bogan, and playing Rupert Murdoch in miniseries Power Games: The Packer-Murdoch War." so there's no mention of which suburb Brammall was born in and there's certainly no mention him being divorced or who he was married to. If you can find a source which mentions he was born in the suburb of Kambah, then that information can possibly be re-added. Same goes for any information about him being married or divorced; otherwise, that information should not be added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad you are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.212.221 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Indigo/Brainiac 8

I do feel you made a mistake because that actually did happen in the comics, all those applications to her abilities that her alter persona makes use of. I was gonna add reference points to where I found them because I had just read them off the comics she showcased them recently.--75.168.131.252 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like...

..."Flash"; the sloth in Zootopia. So, I'm looking at the user creation log, see "Baltimorepropertysolutions", check a search on Google to make sure it's real, start a new section on his talk page to leave a uw-coi-username and save [1]...and he's already blocked by you. Our posts have the same time stamp, which is 1 minute after account creation. I sometimes think (with every compliment) you're Taz, spinning furiously through Wikipedia to my sloth. I know I've said it before, but thanks for your speed :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hammersoft - HA! Thanks for the message and for the appreciation. I'm planning on making project participation changes through the end of the year if things work out, but I'll still be spending some time on the front lines. We'll see... Anyways, thank you for the message. I appreciate it very much :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

crystallistion

It seems that Process of crystallization is better than only process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.122.65 (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

need help

Can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgedfg (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Oshwah thak you for your suggetion on sandbox for me.It will really means a lot to me.

DiamondMonster5489 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondMonster5489 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverand William Tennet (Senior)

Sorry for what I did to the page. Those of us involved with the protection and restoration of his house get upset when we see the wrong picture of Tennent used. It's either that oil painting (wrong period dress) or the use of William Tennent's son also named William Tennent. From the President of the Willam Tennet House Association: "according to Wendy Wirsch, President of the William Tennent House Association and Historian of the Neshaminy-Warwick Presbyterian Church, the painting of who is believed to be William Tennent that is used on the Wikipedia website is incorrect. Wendy is acquainted with Anne Tennent Cecil of Spartanburg, SC, who owns the painting. Anne had the painting examined by art experts. The portrait is that of a man who married into the Tennent family". https://www.facebook.com/william.tennenthouse

As far as our research has taken us there is only ONE rendering of William Tennet Senior and it's a silhouette. It can be found at Princeton's special collections library, the Philadelphia Prespaterian Historical Society and in Mary Tennent's bio on her ancestor William Tennent. Please remove the oil and replace with the silhouette, thank you.

Thanking you in advance, Peter W. Brunner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.6.246 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Tesco

Heyo Oshwah, just small request, but could you please semi-protect Tesco for a few days? There is this Youtube video uploaded today [2] that suggested viewers to include Tesco's vast "WWII military campaign" on to Wikipedia. There already has been a few vandals so far, but more is surely to come.
Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, already taken care of by Edgar181. Toreightyone (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry My friends was changing the bark beetles page and they are changing everything sorry but it wansnt me also u should just block us so thx yeah bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.72.172.93 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

IRC

I'm confused. GMGtalk 23:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo - Are you trying to paste text into the channel? Or are you getting disconnected on connect? You're hitting an 'excess flood' restriction. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything. I restarted and cleared all my browsing data. I assume this has something to do with today's troll. GMGtalk 23:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the web client. But dinner's ready. I'll figure it out at some point. GMGtalk 23:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo - If you're on a Windows PC or Linux, I use HexChat as my client. If you're on a Mac, I use LimeChat as my client. Download one of those and use that instead. It'll be much better and easier for you if anything. Ping me if you still run into trouble and you need my help. Enjoy your dinner :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nate Speed sock

Like clockwork, Nate came back to make his preferred edits at MGM Television (see [3]) and Entertainment Studios (see [4]) just minutes after the page protection expired. Can you block his new proxy? Thanks and sorry for bothering. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Aoi - Blocked and page protected. Thanks for the heads up! Let me know if you spot any more LTAs like this and I'll be happy to take a look. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I extended the block on the IP as they've been mucking about on it for a couple of weeks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Ponyo - Yeah, good call on the extension. This IP needs a little bit longer of a time-out ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Big Hunk

Hi OswaH!

I am Curious to know why you thought my edit on Big Hunk was not neutral, Thanks! JAGMVP2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAGMVP2005 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Review

Good day and thanks for your last reply pleease can you help to review this draft to know if it looks good or i need to make corrections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dylan_Leonte_Custard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towoju5 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

RevDel Request

This edit made by a user was explicit, highly offensive to me, and a clear NPA violation. Can a RevDel be done? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Kiteinthewind - The user is blocked and your request is   Done. Please let me know if you need any thing else. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 03:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Kiteinthewind - You bet. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

On your front page

It says that I can leave messages here merely for the purpose of chatting: As this appears to be an open inviatation , I'd like to introduce myself and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hope I can be of help at some point, but just hi for now! Hope all is well with you. additional - when you were five years old computers "had two USB ports on the back"??? Now i feel old Edaham (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Edaham! It's a pleasure to meet you, and thank you for leaving me a message. Of course; my talk page is an open book and you are welcome to leave a message to say hello. You stated in your message, " Hope I can be of help at some point" - what did you mean by this? Oh yes, I grew up in the early 90's, so Windows 95 was the big thing and USB was very new and young. My parents forked out like $2500 for this machine, so it was what you'd consider a "top of the line" back then. We never used those ports, but remembering the year they purchased it and what the computer had... it took me a long time to appreciate what my parents did. They really went full out with that... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The 90s were the days... (or for me, the early 2000s) I remember fiddling around with config.sys and autoexec.bat trying to get MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 running optimally, and messing with I/O ports, IRQs, and DMA channels to get my sound card working. I had all sorts of queer interests and obsessions then too: I actually pretended my ESS Audiodrive was a Sound Blaster Pro! (which was something I literally could do as the model I had is 100% compatible if I recall). A few years ago, I managed to get an old computer running Windows 3.1 connected to the internet and browsed (I think this was before I became an editor) Wikipedia quite a lot on it, and the results weren't pretty  . Maybe I ought to give WikiProject Computing the benefit of my experience?   (or maybe not, as that would probably be original research). Adam9007 (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Another (talk page watcher) I fooled around with PC clones in the mid-80s to late 90s before getting Windows compatible unit. I never worked on them professionally, but I did rescue a couple of crashed clones at work a few times because I knew how to edit config.sys and autoexec.bat files. I had to laugh at "only 2 USB ports" as these computers were much older than that!
@Adam9007: As far your experience, it's not citeable, of course, but that doesn't mean it's useless experience either. Such knowledge can be helpful in sorting out vandalism, etc. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah - I hope I can be of help at some point, is a statement left open to interpretation within the scope of my ability to contribute to the project here at Wikipedia. If there's some task which needs doing (and you don't mind it possibly being delivered late and full of errors) feel free to let me know. I've actually thought of creating a blue "Open to direction" banner userbox with a clipart picture of a builder wearing a hard hat and a checked shirt for Wikipedians who are often at odds regarding what to do next and don't mind people coming along and pointing them in the direction of a job which needs doing. I grew up around computers in the 80s, which is probably why I never got into computers in a big way  . I did build one before though. It was fun! Edaham (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

AYE AYE WAHEY

Frank Hall

Erm, Frank Hall is not a living person, he's been dead 22 years.

I know of his affair with the RTE researcher, because she's a relation of mine, and I saw them together many, many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.181.132 (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Thank you for pointing out that this is not a BLP article. Your edit was still unreferened :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

updating Belgium offshore windpark

Hi there,

I see you are deleting my edits on Belgium windpark because of lacking references. I'm not logged in since I am at work right now, but I am Codiv and I noticed this page is totally outdated. I'm a professional offshore planner and you can for instance check on the 4coffshore.com database. So please restore my edits. And I think it is rather stupid to delete updates if you do not have a clue that the update is wrong and it is rather easy to check the page is outdated.

Best regards,

Codiv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.50.39.8 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey! I reviewed the edits you made to the page Wind power in Belgium and the problem with them is that you haven't provided any references for the updated information. Many of the inline citations are still from 2015. Any information that is in the article should reflect the information in the citations so that it can be cross-checked by a reader should they wish to do so. You are free to remove those references and add new ones - provided they are independent and reliable sources - and update the information accordingly. Hope this helped! Jiten talk contribs 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions

> Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions — > the one you made with this edit to Hot wire barretter— because it did not appear constructive.

Of course you reverted it. But not because it wasn't constructive, but because you are not qualified to understand the subject.

My contribution was to point out that the "Electrolytic Detector" has absolutely nothing to do with the "Hot Wire Barretter".

And I even predicted that you would revert it (in the Talk section).

I'm a retired RF Enginer with a lifelong commitment to researching the history of early radio. I have accumulated an enormous collection of early books at my own expense.

For years I patiently contributed to Wickipedia, only to find that my contributions were reverted by pompous self-elected arseholes who had zero understanding of the subject matter, and zero interest in correcting the ludicrous errors in Wickipedia.

Whatever, this is a classic example of what is wrong with Wickipedia.

And why so many are ridiculing Wickipedia today. People like you just don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.11.19 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey! The reason Oshwah reverted your edit is because the article is not the correct place to point out mistakes in it. The place where that should be done is the talk page of the article. I see you've already posted there but it didn't get enough traction (that tends to happen on relatively low traffic articles). I'd suggest raising the issue at the talk page of WikiProject Electronics so that more people who can understand the technical terms related to the subject get to know about this and a proper discussion can take place. Also, while making your arguments at the discussion, I'd suggest looking up reliable sources to back them up. Your experience in the field can certainly help, but we can't make changes to Wikipedia based only of personal experience. Any additions or changes must be backed by independent and reliable sources. Hope this helped!
P.S. I know it can be a little frustrating sometimes to correct information on Wikipedia due to the sheer number of policies and guidelines but I can assure you, with a little bit of patience and some discussion, anything can be resolved! :) Jiten talk contribs 13:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

Just a heads up since you recently granted rollback here to a user I just warned for using Huggle to revert good edits [5]. Their talk is on my watchlist, but thought I should let you know since the anti-vandal thing is much more your thing than mine :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - Thanks for talking to him and for the heads up. Everyone's expected to make mistakes; I just hope he reflects and that he isn't prone to repeating them multiple times. We'll see :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

hello

hi I'm new to this so can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgedfg (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Jon Baer.

Jon did indeed teach at Trinity High School in Shiremanstown. I believe you could call the school and ask them. He was my teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.234.180 (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Maynard talk

I'm a resident of Maynard and I want to make sure people know about our outstanding welding program. How can we get it back on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happywhale (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Error

Sorry: misclicked on troublesome new device. DrKay (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DrKay - No biggie; happens all the time :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Developmental disability

Hello, Oshwah – Developmental disability may need protection of some kind. See this edit in which LakesideMiners rightly put back material after the article had been blanked, and similar edits back in September.  – Corinne (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, I am replying in response to your restoration of content on the Melbourne Route 5 Tram page. What I did was create a seperate template for the Route map, and make some slight improvements to the route map. That is why it appears that a large amount of content was removed, I was just creating a template page with the same content, in order to make it easier to edit the template alone.

In the mean time, I will reverse your changes, and will be cautious to ensure that I provide a reason for deletion. Feel free to reply to me if you have a question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raleigh98 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Raleigh98! Things appear to be calm, so I'm going to hold off on page protection. However if things go off the fritz, please don't hesitate to file a request at RFPP or let me know. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

LINK REMOVAL QUESTION

Hello Oshwah:

You removed a link from the Psalms page referring to "A Guide to the Psalms of David" sold on Amazon. The book contains a modern heartfelt English translation of all 150 psalms, plus a detailed index (one of its kind) to each by purpose, theme, etc., Based on the following guidelines from the external link page. I believe the link is valid and can benefit Wikipedia readers by informing them of a resource not available anywhere else.

please reconsider

thanks so much

Steve

"Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link."

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Psalms because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)67.87.234.124 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @67.87.234.124: If the book is considered a good source for the article, it can be cited without a URL (including with ISBN), i.e. using {{cite book}} within <ref>...</ref> tags. These citations are usually expected to immediately follow the text it verifies and to also include page numbers. Sometimes a |url= parameter allowing access to the source is appropriate, like a Google books link. Direct links to bookstores are generally discouraged. —PaleoNeonate – 06:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi, Oshwah! I don't think I can provide a valid source for proving. It was just my observation. Let it be unchanged. No biggie) Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.29.213 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's now how Wikipedia works :-). Your edit here doesn't seem believable, and if it's true, a reliable source must be provided. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: ICDC College Edits

Good morning,

I logged onto Wikipedia for an entirely unrelated reason and received this new message. I have concern, because, to my knowledge, I am the only user of this IP address. Specifically, this farcical edit involving 'Lil Romeo' (Talk about a blast from the past) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICDC_College&diff=prev&oldid=768521937

I will be reviewing security settings and hopefully no further edits will originate from this IP address.

Respectfully, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.136.52 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're using a shared IP address, or an internet or network connection shared by multiple people, you may receive warnings for edits you didn't make. Consider creating an account to avoid such issues from occurring. Let me know if you have any questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Help for user talk

Hello sir, I need your help may you please tell How user talk work ,what should I edits on my Wikipedia profile who can see that edits n how do I delete my edit I just join 24hours , I Care your expensive time . I wanna be a Best user talk to help. Thanks Aj-ay adroit (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Aj-ay adroit - This help page on talk pages will assist you, as well as this guide on using talk pages. Read through these both, and let me know if you still have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Pleases stop your repeated undoing of Vandalism.

 

The next time you beat another user to an revert, you may be praised with many THANKS. LakesideMiners (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

LakesideMiners - LOL! Thanks for the warning ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I Warned You.Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners 20:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A charm...

Hi Osh, In the section above, User talk:Oshwah#Talk:CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange, I added a second sock on 1 November, but I think it must have got lost in all the requests (polite and otherwise) you get! Now there is a third sock here. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Update It's been 'got'. Eagleash (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Eagleash, sorry for the delay getting back to you. Let me know if you spot any more of that nonsense and I'll be happy to take care of it. Alternatively, you can (and should) file an SPI so that we at least have this recorded for record-keeping. Never hurts to do so. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I dragged Mz7 into it. I've filed an SPI. Eagleash (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Eagleash - Perfect. If I can be of any assistance to this, let me know. Good to see you again! Happy Sunday :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: William B. Blount edit

Hm, I thought I was correcting a typo in the meta-info, it seems I managed to blow it all away. Thanks for catching and reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.54.35 (talk • contribs)

No problem! If you need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
You know, whenever the depth of the manure on my talk page gets so deep I fear my snorkel will not be long enough, all I have to do is look at your talk page and I feel better. You are appreciated, please know that. John from Idegon (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi John from Idegon! Thanks for the barnstar and for the kind words - I really appreciate you for taking the time to leave me this. Yes, my talk page is quite a significant place that users go to for questions and for help, but honestly I think that it's a good thing. It shows me that I'm approachable and that people know that they can come to me for help and that I will do so. It's important to me and I'm happy to see that people feel comfortable talking to me (if not somebody). So long as people don't use the page to get around process, my talk page will continue to be open and welcome to everyone :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

DFA 1979 edit

I'm contacting you to get a reasonable explanation as to why you have removed my cited (and accurate) edit from the Outrage! Is Now page. I refrained from removed any content, all I did was add a genre to the appropriate area with a cited reference attached. There is nothing wrong or vandalizing about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernetFot (talk • contribs)

Hi BernetFot, and thanks for leaving me a message here. Your edit here was concerning because it removed content (all of which was referenced and sourced) and replaced it with content that you referenced using a Google out link. I think you meant to put this link instead. Can I ask why you believe the content you removed was vandalism? It doesn't appear to be such... Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Reported one user to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Hi Oshwah,

Earlier on today at 09:33 (UTC), I have reported one user of possible inappropriate use of their talkpage, details of my reasoning are found at the bottom of this revision, but the helperbot removed that thirty revisions later since they were already blocked (sockpuppetry) and I don't think no-one actually saw my report on it. The reason behind that was the addition of two naughty words which is possibly an attack on random IP users or me.[1] Thanks, Iggy (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ *Davekgoodnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On User talk:Davekgoodnight (diff):. Revoking TP access, found this diff saying the word "D***y" and "t**s" - you will find them as naughty words in communicating to other users. Thanks. Iggy (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC) - copied and pasted from the title page to the reference
Hi Iggy the Swan, and thanks for leaving me a message here. I apologize for the delay getting back to you; I've been busy with life this past week and I'm catching up with my emails and messages now. It looks like this account is now blocked - did you have any other concerns or other accounts or edits that I need to look into? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Update: Iggy the Swan, I took a look at the diff that you referred to in your AIV report, and I see why you expressed your concerns to me here. I don't see any activity from the IP's contributions since the 9th of November, but do keep an eye on things and let me know if that changes. My concern isn't the language the person used in his response (heck, I've seen wayyyy worse around here lol), but the possible hinting of the IP address as the origin of this user and possible hinting that there's more to come. If this is indeed this person's IP, the block on the account will autoblock that IP address for 24 hours so that no other accounts can edit through that IP (the accounts will be autoblocked, too). However, this only lasts for a day. Hopefully, this person has moved on - but only time will tell. Let me know if you have any additional concerns or if you need assistance with this matter (or any matter) and I'll be glad to help. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Wrong link This diff was the one I was referring to. Iggy (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Iggy the Swan - Ack! Yeah, that was the diff I was actually referring to in my update response. I pasted the wrong one from my browser - sorry about that :-). Fixed, and thanks for letting me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Some users know where Davekgoodnight's home IP is (actually that is the same person as Efc1878 who was blocked in May,) - Geolocate says this IP is located in South-west China, the Dublin IPs are a different person used to revert one of the association football timestamps that Efc1878 keeps changing back to 1st July 2017. As a result, I am one of the users who is keeping an eye on that page to be wary of any suspicious editing.
The IP you're referring to comes from Dublin and is therefore not Davekgoodnight while logging out. I will look carefully as to where each IP address is from when they edit Everton football players as I've noticed the Efc1878 socks are editing them. And I know other users, including yourself, are also keeping an eye on these pages, though your contributions probably covers the entire encyclopedia! Also if I see Davekgoodnight editing their talk page and see more bad habits, appropriate actions will take place. This first use may well be too soon? Iggy (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious statement

Hi,

Is this a confession of some sort? Is there somewhere to report this kind of thing? Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:SSP or WP:ANI I would think. SQLQuery me! 02:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@SQL: What if I don't know which account or IP address is the master? Adam9007 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Luckily, I had provided two options! SQLQuery me! 05:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007, SQL - I've blocked the account. This "confession" on their user page is very specific and something I see all the time when someone evades a block. That's good enough for me to block the account in good confidence; we can safely assume as logical editors here that nobody creating an account for the first time or in good faith and without previous sanctions would put that kind of statement on their user page. Let me know if either of you have questions or concerns about this and I'll gladly address them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP you warned

Osh - did you read my concern about that IP being a sock? I just promoted that article from AfC and put my NPR hat on to finish reviewing/expanding/checking refs when that disruptive IP showed up and refused to discuss anything. I'm thinking my work as an NPR (the G11, AfDs etc.) have made me a target. That IP is not a new user - they are either hiding a block, or hiding their identity so they do what they please but I have a strong suspicion of who it might be and they're stalking my TP. They aren't a new user - they knew exactly what they were doing. If I thought it was disruptive enough to file CU (and knew the process, repercussions, etc) I would. Like I said at the 3R/N, the geolocation appears to be where the suspected registered user resides. Question: if you had imposed a block on that IP address, would it have also blocked the registered user's IP, or does registering bypass such blocks? Atsme📞📧 02:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

See their comment at 3R 02:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Atsme - You're referring to the Ellen Susman article, and the RFPP request and AN3 report you filed, correct? Let me take a look at the information you've supplemented here just now and get back to you. Stand by... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Atsme - The responses that the IP made on the AN3 report you filed come off mostly that this person has been on Wikipedia before, not necessarily that they're using an IP address to evade a block or sanction. What are the other accounts or other IP addresses that you believe this user is a sock puppet of, exactly? I'll be able to use that information to compare edits and look into things further if they need be. Let me know when you can so that I can look into things deeper...
To answer your question about blocking: A typical block made on an IP address is an "IP soft-block", meaning that aside from not being able to edit, the IP address is disallowed from being able to create new accounts while blocked; it does not prevent an already-created account from being able to log in and edit from that IP. An "IP hard-block" adds that extra restriction; it disallows any account that doesn't have the IP block exempt flag from editing from that IP address. Typical IP blocks that are applied are soft. IP hard-blocking is used to stop long-term abuse, confirmed sock puppetry use, or (in many cases) where the IP is a public proxy or web host that's been used to disrupt Wikipedia in the past. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: Atsme has provided additional information and details in private via email (see notice below). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "Question: if you had imposed a block on that IP address, would it have also blocked the registered user's IP, or does registering bypass such blocks?" It depends on whether it's a WP:HARDBLOCK (in which case, yes), or a WP:SOFTBLOCK (in which case, the user can register an account). That is not to say that with a hard block people can't find ways to use different IPs. Softlavender (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ding-dong...mail delivery

 
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Material mailed.
Message added 03:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Atsme📞📧 03:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Atsme - Acknowledged and responded. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dfgvbhjk

Hey Osh. I've already listed all these accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, that's whose socks these are. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Home Lander - Yeahhhh, I didn't realize that until after I filed my SPI to the Dfgvbhjk one. Oh well, lets just leave it be and let a clerk fix it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey, can you delete this rubbish AFD as well? Thanks for helping sweep all these up. Home Lander (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh lord, now he nominated me for deletion. Hilarious! Home Lander (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Aaaand it's gone! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Home Lander - I'm sure you're already doing this, but make sure to add each new sock account you see to the appropriate SPI. We want to make sure that we're tracking all of this ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I already added the newest one before you zapped it. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Home Lander - No... Thank you, sir! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

When Nsmutte is doing his thing like this, one can literally go to Special:NewPages, change the namespace to all, and watch for AFDs to be created by an account that has a red-linked talk page. Good chance it'll be him. Home Lander (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ohh, I'm way ahead of ya there, lol ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and assuming you're not using the live feed... you actually want to change the namespace to "Wikipedia" (not "all"), since AFDs are created in the Wikipedia namespace. That will narrow down your results much better ;-)... basically, use this url... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Great idea! Sometimes I just sit in the meantime and patrol other new pages while watching for more of his... Home Lander (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Beans beans for everyone. Seriously though, good tip about patrolling. ;D L3X1 (distænt write) 13:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You asked what I was trying to do. I pre-emptively nominated the article for deletion, because I didn't want the other editor to keep merging it back into the main article without a discussion

Hi. You asked why I nominated my own article for deletion. This was only to insure that there would be a discussion on whether the topic merited a standalone article rather than the other editor simply merging the article into the main Joe Arpaio article, and because I believed the topic was notable enough that there was no real chance that it would be deleted if there was a discussion. I wasn't nominating my own article because I wanted it deleted; I just wanted a discussion if the other editor was going to effectively delete the article by merging it. I think this is a very clearly notable topic; while the stub article I wrote isn't particularly good yet, if you look at the sources, you'll see the pardon raises some very notable legal issues that have garnered an immense amount of discussion in the political and legal worlds. Infamia (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Infamia - I created a message on your user talk page here. I think there might be some confusion somewhere; that article was never created before, nor was it deleted. It is simply a redirect to the section I linked you to on your user talk page. If you believe that the article should stand on it's own, you don't need to create an AFD discussion; just replace it with the content you wrote and just go from there... if another editor voices opposition and changes it back, it can easily be discussed on the article's talk page and resolved that way; you don't need to create an AFD process for that :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that I do agree that there should be a separate article for it as the pardon is undue (and some of it is offtopic) in the Joe Arpaio. What is the best way of doing that is to create a summarized version of the pardon for a section in the Joe Arpaio article, create a consensus to replace that (may require a few days), and then create the Pardon of Joe Arpaio article. Galobtter (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC) @Infamia: Just pinging him so he sees it. Also I'd like to remind him that there is no deadline, and no need to rush to put an article out on the pardon. There is already a well written section on the pardon which is what I redirected it to for now (that is much longer than what you have) (see Help:Redirect) Galobtter (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion on the best way. There's really no reason a consensus from the main article needs to be obtained, since you JUST created that redirect now. You don't get to edit war to delete the material, and the material in the target article is largely irrelevant (as you admit!) to the legal and constitutional issues which should be the main focus of this article. If you want to contribute to this article and improve, please be my guest. I put stub on it because it's obviously unfinished. Please stop wasting time by blanking it. Contribute to the article instead. If you reverted again, I'll go back and revert again and create the AfD, because you're not going to delete the article without a discussion. Period. Infamia (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I said it was irrelevant to the Joe Arpaio article, but relevant to this article as there already is discussion of the legal ramifications in the Joe arpaio article. You're version doesn't even start with what the pardon is. It is WP:COATRACK. Is the article Ramifications of the Pardon of Joe Arpaio or the Pardon of Joe Arpaio? Creating an AfD is disruptive. It is not meant to replace discussion and dispute resolution. Galobtter (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
OK. Well I merged all the pardon material from the Joe Arpaio article into the Pardon of Joe Arpaio. Most of it is good, plus all I really had in my article was a 1-paragraph introduction. Now the people at Joe Arpaio can delete any irrelevant material, and more can be added to the article, and anything objectionable or coat-racky can be removed from the Pardon article. I think this is a good solution, since I think we did at least agree the topic is probably notable enough for a stand-alone article. Infamia (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Infamia: What's the point of duplicating (and creating a mess 09:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC))? It has a lot of your irrelevant (should be lower down 09:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)) material at the top. For now it can redirect to the pardon section of Joe Arpaio (i brought this up at Talk:Pardon of Joe Arpaio), then like I said above a new article can be created and consensus for that. There's also an onus on you to create a consensus for your change. Galobtter (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You agreed there should be a stand-alone article. A consensus is thus born. An article isn't built in a day. My prefatory material frames the legal notability of the pardon. If you give it some time, this will coalesce into a good article (the best article) and the articles will diverge in content. Editors at the Arpaio article can decide whether to keep material there. Readers interested in the legal aspects of the pardon shouldn't have to swim through the general swamp of Joe Arpaio's page. I'm sure there are thousands of article where the target individual has discussion of a case, and the case itself or incident has its own page. Infamia (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The redirect directly links to the pardon section. I agreed that it should be split off. But I did say that for now (on the talk page of the article) that it should remain a redirect, until a consensus can be made and a decent article made. Right now its more of a mess than something that can be worked on as a start. Your additions are extremely biased and don't really represent the sources. Some experts - not all - think that trump may pardon manafort.Galobtter (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (X3) Infamia - I understand and agree that there's a process to discussing the removal of content. If you believe that Pardon of Joe Arpaio should stand as its own article, that's fine. But responding with the attitude that you're going to revert edits that Galobtter makes on the article that you don't like, and create an AFD when it's not necessary (see my response below) - is not going to make things easier for you; it's only going to add more difficulty and frustration to your stack, not take any of it away. Case in point: your edit summary here... don't do that, man! Help us help you! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok. well, I merged material from the main Joe Arpaio article, since Galobotter suggested there was some good material already there. Now I think there is a good baseline from which to work, and other editors should get involved. There is a lot more scope to expand discussion of this than merely in Joe Arpaio's article, where the legal aspects of the pardon aren't necessarily relevant.Infamia (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon of Joe Arpaio article

Just to catch you up a little bit on what's going on. The creator of this article Pardon of Joe Arpaio, Infamia, is currently a bit out of control. This first started about an hour ago when he created Draft:List of people pardoned by Donald Trump. I declined the article in the AfC process, for reasons listed on the draft page (basically WP:TOOSOON (a list is inherently more than one item). After this he launched a barrage of attacks on my talk page, and deleted comments by other editors trying to get him to calm down and to examine the reasoning behind the decline. I reverted all his comments, as they weren't constructive in any way. This prompted fellow reviewer Galobtter to leave a warning on Infamia's talk page, in response to which Infamia, basically said he didn't have to waste his time with the AfD process and proceeded to create the article. The article as it stands now has a lot of problems and needs to go through the AfD process, just seeing what needs to be done to re-nominate it.

Sorry if that was a mouthful. I've reviewed hundreds of AfC pages and dealt with many editors and never had one go this rogue before. Any advice would be great. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete any comments. What is the purpose of your lying?Infamia (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Infamia - Hold on... lets not accuse other people of lying and turn this discussion into a heated or angry situation that doesn't need to be. I think that, out of the confusion with everything, edits were made that didn't make sense. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. Just pointing out I didn't delete anyone's comments, and he is in error. This editor reviewed my submission at AfC of the above article. He gave me uninformative "feedback," declining the submission. If he wishes to nominate it for deletion, he's welcome to. I'm confident the article passes all notability guidelines, and any problems it has can be corrected (and which he could instead help address by simply contributing to the article, rather than attempting to delete it.) Infamia (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Infamia, Sulfurboy - Ooookayyyy... let me try and help straighten up the situation on both sides here. First of all, I thank you both for messaging me with details and information about what's going on. It was extremely helpful for both of you to calmly describe the situation to me so that I could properly offer help to you both. I agree that Draft:List of people pardoned by Donald Trump is quite premature, since there aren't a lot of people that would fit that list. However, I will acknowledge that Pardon of Joe Arpaio is a completely different article and format than that list. First of all, well... it's not a list. And second, it is a notable sequence of events that may or may not warrant it's own article. I think that Infamia was perfectly fine to replace the redirect with content he wrote under this belief (provided that any opposition is discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus reached; no edit warring, etc). An AFD discussion isn't necessary until someone else creates that discussion; Infamia, you don't need to do that since it's not necessary for you to add a process onto what may not need to even become one in the first place :-).
Infamia - On a side note, I will mention to you that edits like this are absolutely uncivil and completely disruptive. Sulfurboy is listed as a trusted editor and member of the articles for creation process, and he took the time to review your article and offer you help and advice. Responding in this manner isn't only against policy, but I'm sure that it makes him feel that he wasted his time trying to assist you... especially knowing that there's (literally) hundreds of articles waiting to be reviewed in AFC. On top of this, creating a discussion in an attempt to get around Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines, or make doing so more difficult to accomplish - is also not okay. If you're confused or do not understand how certain processes work, you gotta ask, man! Don't make assumptions and then revert other editors when they say that you're doing something wrong... listen to them and let them help you!
I hope this answers some questions and helps to get this situation somewhat organized... do any of you two have questions or concerns that I can assist you with? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to remove protection on this Page to edit

Hi Oshwah I would like you to remove protection on this page so that I can create a new Page for this upcoming game

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Finding+Paradise

thanks - AITSTUDENT5852 AITSTUDENT5852 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi AITSTUDENT5852! Welcome to Wikipedia! I think that you might be in the wrong place or confused on what you need to do or where to go. If you want to create a new article, there is a tutorial located here that will help you with exactly how to do this, as well as help you to do the necessary checks before proceeding (so that you don't end up ultimately wasting your time with writing an article that ends up not meeting certain requirements). It's very important that you go through this tutorial and follow all of the necessary steps; if you unknowingly skip a crucial check, you might find yourself spending a significant amount of time writing an article just for it not to be used -- I do not want to see that happen to you. Before you begin writing, please do not hesitate to message me here if you have any questions about the tutorial or need help with any guidelines or steps. I'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Little Mix

You recently corrected my edit on best selling girl groups. The X factor confirmed Little Mix have sold 36 million records, and I was editing it accordingly. I don't know why you switched it to 30 again, when that is no longer true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petty Mixer (talk • contribs) 09:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Petty Mixer! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns. I did not revert or undo your edit to List of best-selling girl groups. I simply applied page protection to the article in order to resolve the persistent level of unreferenced modifications to the content being made to it. If the content is not correct in its present form, please feel free to modify the article and fix the error. Make sure that your changes are either supported by the source already cited, or that you cite a source with the changes you're making. If you have any more questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

udhampur

my edits were totally genuine and i was only putting the missing but worth to be mention places to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJandial (talk • contribs)

SirJandial - What about this edit you made? I'm also concerned that these edits might be based off of original research. Have you reviewed Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and no original research? You might want to start by visiting this Wikipedia tutorial and going through it entirely; it will help you learn and understand the basics and core policies in which this project operates and follows. I just don't want to see you end up frustrated and feeling overwhelmed in the end; Wikipedia has many guidelines that you should be aware of, and this tutorial will absolutely guide you through them! Please take my advice and do this; it will help you significantly with understanding Wikipedia's basics and will give you a tremendously good start with editing here. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm happy to have you here as an editor! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

Hi,

I would have reported this sooner, but I was on my mobile phone. Not sure what else to say (except maybe should the editor be blocked?), but WP:LEGAL says such threats are to be reported, so here I am. Ta. Adam9007 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! No worries; thanks for letting me know.   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Issues with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Georgia Southern University/Modern Latin America (Fall 2017)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Issues with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Georgia Southern University/Modern Latin America (Fall 2017). There are some somewhat serious issues with this course, your input would be appreciated --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cameron11598 - Thanks for the ping. There are lots of concerning edits going on by a few users under this class, and we need to get things straightened out. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

42nd Ontario general election - photos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Ontario_general_election

I am a new user, so apologies for any small errors of etiquette I may make.

The photos provided for the 3 main leaders are not consistent. The Liberal Leader is smiling and looking directly at the reader - the best photo. The NDP Leader is smiling, but not making eye contact with reader - not so good. The PC Leader is not smiling, nor looking at the reader - worst photo.

I suggest similar photo for each to ensure impartiality of Wikipedia. suggestion: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/830142570151960576/1xygBPH9.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/834757904058060800/5LF-jvMe.jpg

Burloak Burloak (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Burloak! Welcome to Wikipedia! No apologies are needed; we were all new users here once, and you'll learn the ropes and etiquette as you edit and grow your experience here. Sure, I can agree with that; if there are better photos that can be used, then yeah... I see no harm in using them. However, there's a very important set of guidelines and policies that we must understand and comply with 100.0% of the time, which is Wikipedia's policies on copyrighted content (specifically, the copyright and licensing of images). We must be absolutely careful and make absolute sure that any image we upload to Wikipedia has a license and copyright that allows us to use it. We take violations of this policy very seriously, so make sure that you know and understand these guidelines and are proficient with them before you begin working with images yourself (which will be awhile from now). Until you're fully proficient on Wikipedia and with it's policies and guidelines, you should have other editors help you with this process; don't do it alone. I'm not a complete expert on image copyright, but I can at least answer any questions that you may have. There's also a useful FAQ for copyright-related matters that you can read here. I know it's a lot of links to give you and tell you to review, but it's an important policy and it takes great time and understanding before one becomes an expert in that area. I'm certainly not one ;-). This is why getting someone to help you is absolutely important. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! We're happy to have you as a member of the community! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit you deleted on Samuel de Champlain

I think you have made a mistake. I added from another source and that is what they called him at the time. It is not my opinion and think it should be on the article because it is a useful fact to others that are . doing research on him (like me). Thank you

2601:182:CF00:1C93:5DCD:617E:F649:D9F4 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for leaving me a message. The edit you made here has multiple issues. Not only is it not referenced by any kind of source, the part that states "and was like always greatly respected" seems to be a statement that's opinionated, and isn't worded in an encyclopedic tone. This is why I reverted this edit. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, verifiability, and adding content that's worded in a neutral point of view. Another helpful guideline is how to write in a formal and encyclopedic tone. These guidelines will help you to understand the concerns I expressed, as well as help you improve and grow with experience. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sulphur Springs

Hello,

I currently reside in Sulphur Springs. I am editing it to reflect the current conditions.


Thanks yous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmadman (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank's for helping me with getting situated in RC patrolling, and IRC, and basically everything Wikipedia related. You've been a great help. Adotchar| reply here 00:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome, Adotchar. It's what I'm here for; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message, Oshwah. I'm glad you reached out to me. Might I ask you why you reverted back to a version of the article which contained no reference to Dominic Selwood's membership of the Freemasons and his active participation in Masonic events? The links I have provided show more than circumstantial evidence of his involvement in Freemasonry. Dr Selwood is a journalist and published author: it is not an incidental detail - and it should be noted in the main body of the article. Initially, I linked to an online document written by Dr Selwood (published by his old school apparently). It looks as if that school has its own Masonic Lodge for old members. When that document was taken off-line someone edited the wikipedia entry to remove reference to Dr Selwood being a Freemason: the source no longer 'existed' - the claim could no longer be substantiated. I asked a friend of mine to tweet the same document on Twitter - but shortly afterwards a complaint was made that this violated privacy rules - the friend's account was blocked. I then decided to make the wordpress blog with the same information - but with all sensitive personal information blocked out other than the fact that Dr Selwood was organising a Masonic meeting. But this new link also proved contentious on here since a blog is not considered an authoritative source . Subsequent Google searches reveal that Dr Selwood is slated to appear at Masonic conferences to talk on his personal impressions of the 300th Anniversary celebrations of Freemasonry which he participated at. He is an advertised speaker, the links are genuine, a simple search within those links will see his name appear on the list of speakers. At the very least, then, these salient facts should be permitted to stand in his biography. No value judgment is made here on Wikipedia about Dr Selwood being a Freemason. (On the wordpress blog I criticise those who are editing the wikipedia page to make no reference to Dr Selwood's Masonic connections but on Wikipedia I appreciate that neutrality is important and I simply want those details to be mentioned in the biography. They are not incidental details: the Freemasons are a hugely influential organisation and belonging to them should be in the public domain of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia: especially if such details are available online. I am, of course, more than happy to enter into discussion with yourself as mediator in order to resolve a fractious dispute that wastes everybody's time. Many thanks. 202.239.38.179 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I simply reverted the edit because it appears that it has come under dispute by other editors who have concerns about the content you're changing. Have you started a discussion on the article's talk page? If not, you need to do this. We don't resolve disputes by repeatedly reverting each other back and fourth; we're supposed to follow proper dispute resolution protocol and discuss the dispute and come to an agreement with the others, then edit the article with the changes agreed upon. The information you provided here is definitely what should be added to the talk page. Then, let the discussion take its course. If you have any questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah So I reached out to Eggishorn on the Dominic Selwood biography page with exactly the above. No reply. I'm not too surprised by that: those who are editing out my additions want to PREVENT the knowledge that Selwood is a Freemason from being public knowledge. If, as I suspect, I don't get any reply and that they will stonewall in silence in that hope that you will keep your editorial decision and keep that information from Selwood's Wikipedia page, can I hope that you will check the reliability of the sources yourself and make an arbitration that sees that information returned to his public biography? If you're not willing to do that can you tell me why you wouldn't be willing to do that? Many thanks.159.122.131.153 (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

See the response I made to your message below. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game)

Would you consider ECP? I'm clearly to involved at this point, but I was looking to request escalation to ECP next. Was hoping it wouldn't push to full protection but there is a reddit thread actively encouraging users to make the disputed change. There is an AMA by EA scheduled for Wednesday now, so protection through at least the 16th is probably good. The game will be released on the 17th. -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi ferret! Thanks for leaving me a message here. Sigh... this is a situation where I wish that setting multiple protection level durations were possible (AKA full protection for 2 days, then have it automatically lower to ECP after it expires and go for a week). Unfortunately, this is not an option. Given the information you provided, I think that the right thing to do in order to maintain order on the article and be in compliance with Wikipedia's page protection policies is to keep the article at full protection. There are clearly disputes and borderline edit warring by different users with all different user rights (including extended confirmed users) and over different areas within the article. Full protection is the fair and logical level that will stop all of the various disputes, and give no advantages to anyone.
Being a redditor myself (unfortuntately... lol), I completely 100% understand your concerns, and I'm pretty damn sure that I know what subreddit is behind the meat puppetry recruitment efforts... lol. I also understand the concerns regarding the upcoming AMA, too... I've seen many, many times first-hand the ripple effect that follows on related or directly associated articles. To speak freely, it pretty much becomes a shit-show... LOL. Let's not beat around the bush, here :-). As much as I really, really badly want to factor this information into my decision to change the protection level and extend the duration, the AMA is information that's upcoming and in the future, and making an administrative action to protect the article with this taken into account would be pre-emptive, which by policy is something I cannot do.
I'm sure you know that administrative actions are a judgment call, and there's typically some leeway in these areas when making the call to protect articles (I mean, that's how it is...), but this particular request for edit protection and this situation impacts many editors, who will be looking my direction and setting a very high expectation regarding proper administrative tool use and the compliance of these policies, as well as my reasons behind taking the actions that I took. I believe that what's best in this situation is to take the action that is fair, neutral, and the right thing to do. And I believe that keeping full protection is the right thing to do. However, after it expires, I'm open to evaluating and considering what should be done next (whether we keep ECP, or something different), but for now... I will stand by my original observations and evaluation of the evidence, and the decision I made. I hope you understand and appreciate what I'm trying to do here. If you have any questions, concerns, or additional reasons you discuss where you still believe that my decision needs to be re-evaluated, please let me know. My talk page is completely open to you, and you (as well as anyone else) are welcome here. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I completely understand, and don't really disagree. I started out hoping we could be a lenient as possible with protection for this (Hence only 2 days) but it quickly escalated and continued after semiprot. For what it's worth, I don't believe the rest of the article content is in dispute. There has been some editing and tweaking, but no real changes to the overall content and its nicely sourced. The main dispute has been about inserting "pay-to-win" into the lead sentence so that it would appear in Google search results (There's a thread dedicated to it). -- ferret (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, Ferret. I always hope to be as lenient with protection as I can, and apply the lowest and shortest protections that I think will solve the situation. Shoot, if you know me well, I get disappointing messages somewhat occasionally that the OP was expecting a longer or more strict protection than I give! But... I gotta be fair, and given what I observed, I had to stay true with what I believed was right... even if I'm not exactly satisfied with the result. It's the curse that comes with being an admin that's a completely neutral party and evaluating a request in a completely impartial manner; sometimes, what is honest, right, and fair will be what makes everyone unhappy (lol). It's the responsibility I bear, and while I'm definitely far... far... FAR... from a perfect editor and a perfect admin, I'll be damned if I don't do my best and put my heart into doing what's right for the project :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Before I wander off for the night, just for full disclosure, I semiprot'd Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game) just now as well. Electronic Arts was protected earlier today by someone else. -- ferret (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

ferret - Yup, good call. Thanks for doing that. Have a great night, and thanks again for the discussion! I really appreciate your messages here and for challenging my thinking and helping me make sure that what I did was right :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Harmontown Edit

Hello, Oshwah!

You recently reverted an edit for the article List of Harmontown podcast episodes. Below's the link to the episode entitled "Brothers Killing Brothers for Some Dank Memes"

http://www.harmontown.com/2017/07/episode-251-brothers-killing-brothers-for-some-dank-memes/

Thanks! Meanbuttbutt (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Meanbuttbutt

Pardon of Joe Arpaio

Hi, Oshwah - I nominated the Arpaio article for AfD a few days ago - it had major issues (quotes that were character assassinations based on detractor opinions) and considering it's NPOV issues, I removed what I strongly believed to be noncompliant material. It was very poorly written and included information about unrelated events and had many other issues. I removed the most glaring problems and invited the editors who were involved to discuss before trying to add anything back. The article is subject to DS - American politics 2 (June 2015) All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people - Discretionary sanctions - Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Shouldn't there be a notice attached to the article edit view? How about on the TP - and what about notifying editors? It's hard to find all the stuff like the DS templates to remind editors the article is subject to DS. It was also a copy-paste from the BLP Joe Arpaio (a spin-off?), which created a potential plagiarism problem that has since been resolved. I'm just making you aware of my involvement since you were already called to the article before my time. Atsme📞📧 06:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The onus is on you if you are going to delete 2/3 of the article to provide some justification for that, especially while a deletion discussion is going on that says "DO NOT BLANK THE PAGE" which is more or less what you did. What precisely are you talking about in terms of non-compliant material? Multiple editors are trying to engage you on the talk page as we speak, yet you refuse to respond. I'm having great difficulty in seeing that your actions can possibly be in good faith. What are these "glaring problems"? What is the "non-compliant material?" What is the "character assassination?" It's a page about a legal issue, it has nothing to do with anyone's character. Can you provide any citation to what you find objectionable? Whose character is being assassinated? The page is not about Arpaio. Frankly, you seem to have little to no idea of what the article is about. Your accusations of "plagiarism" are beyond ridiculous- material was merged, and it was stated that it was merged. Also, a strong consensus developed at AfD that you were wrong, and the article deserved to stay. I think only 1 other editor agreed with your position, and yet you felt it was OK to delete nearly the entire page why exactly? Why don't you share what your problems are at the talk page, at the discussion you asked us to have? Infamia (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Oshwah, all I would basically ask here is that there should not be large-scale deletion of 2/3 of the page while the deletion discussion is going on (it's not a very long page to begin with), since this effectively bars any new editors from contributing to the discussion. The deletion discussion also seems to coalescing to a strong consensus for keep as a stand-alone article-- I see roughly 7 votes for keep, and 2 votes to delete or merge-- and I also think it's not really in the spirit of the rules to delete most of a page and ask other editors to establish a consensus for restoring basically the entire page, when a strong consensus has developed that the topic merits its own page. We've also tried to engage this editor at the talk page like they asked regarding the material they'd like to delete, but there hasn't been a response.Infamia (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it bars people, as people can see the page history and the previous version, but agree that deletion is completely unwarranted. Galobtter (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, and thanks for leaving me a message! Yes, as I mentioned here to both Infamia and Galobtter earlier, this article is under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee per WP:ARBAP2. I've already added the necessary warnings and templates on the article's talk page here. Are there templates that you think are missing that I should add? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Just want to make sure - so there's no real editing restriction like 1RR, just that admins can impose sanctions, right? Galobtter (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter - This article is not currently under 1RR restrictions; that is correct. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Oshwah - I'm not sure if the edit page needs a DS banner or if it's ok just being on the TP. Also, that article is laden with policy violations and it appears to me that Infamia with only 222 edits may need to read WP:CIR and WP:SOAPBOX. I removed the opinion based character assassinations but the new editors are not distinguishing between what is and isn't encyclopedic or exercising the level of sensitivity needed for BLP. There is far too much noncompliant material in that article now, regardless of it being at AfD - the noncompliance is one of the reasons I nominated it for AfD - and as you can see on the TP, per Jake Brockman, we're dealing with WP:SOAP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:POVFORK and when a BLP is involved, consensus prolongs the noncompliance. It should be removed, WP:POVFORK
Caution - Article splits are permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. On the other hand, having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident. For this reason Mel Gibson DUI incident was folded back into a Mel Gibson article section. However, it is possible for article spinoffs to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinoff Criticism of XYZ. Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.
Oshwah, my concern is justified based on the following comment by Infamia which has gone entirely unchecked: his edit summary reads (Violent oppose. Atsme, your comment merely indicates your own ignorance of the legal issues involved here. I suggest you read some of the sources before ignorantly opining on matters on which you know next to nothing.) That comment is a pretty serious PA against me and a block is in order, especially based on his disruption at the article. Instead, he received protection for what is basically an attack page. Atsme📞📧 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
90% of what you removed was already in Joe Arpaio. So hardly part of the POV change. Infamia's additions are definately not NPOV and those can be toned down or removed..but the remaining is not like that. I have no desire to change the POV. I just mostly want the article to be split off per WP:SPINOFF, as it is far too large. For the incivility I have been giving him warnings - it's up to the last one now. He did not receive protection on the article- the article received protection, which is not his. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum: Talk page banners have no real meaning, as far as I know, only DS alerts count for anything sanctions-wise. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The question at the time was slightly different, it was more looking at it form the perspective if that section should be copied to a new article or if the redirect should be reinstated. I believe I did also say that the topic is notable in my humble opinion. The text - as it was presented then - did touch crystal ball (speculation who else Trump might pardon), soapboxing (mainly in the way language was used and the slant the article had). Both led to POVFORK from the main article. The former two have been addressed in the meantime. As Galobtter said, what remains now is 90% give or take what is already in the main article. Forking may make sense given the pardon touches on a vast array of considerations (legal and otherwise) which may be beyond the scope of the BLP. After the fixes have been done, I am not that worried about being a current POVFORK. It may become a POVFORK, but that's up to the community to patrol - just like with the very same section in the main article. I'm not sure what is to be achieved here... There are three usual routes: a) editing by the community to ensure that all issues are addressed (which may include redirecting), b) AfD or c) speedy delete. Editing is ongoing, AfD is being held. A speedy delete I find hard to argue with the CSD criteria. WP:A10 and WP:G10 spring to mind, but as the article is presented right now, both are difficult to argue. AfD is the right way. The editor's behaviour and language does raise concerns. This may be a case for WP:ANI to be viewed there. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jake Brockman: He's been reported to ANI already and blocked as a sock. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Galobtter. I should have checked. No surprise. His confidence, skill and choice of topics was unusual for a new editor.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That ban review thing at ANI

[6] It’s User:Colton Cosmic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 - AHA! I knew it was somebody! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing an article

Hi Oshwah! I'm Scarlet and I was just wondering if you could tell me how to edit an article and save your changes. Write me back ASAP. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletiscool (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WHO DO U THINK u are changing my work i worked hard doing that do u know who i am i will love u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneymate34 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

UGLYDOLL

Hello, I am the Director of Operations for Pretty Ugly, LLC., the owners of Uglydoll. I need to make the changes to the ownership page. Kathy Caldas [REDACTED - Oshwah] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.213.146 (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

First, this is a direct violation of Wikipedia:ConflictOfInterest - you should follow the appropriate steps to ensure that you stay within the guidelines and regulations of that. Secondly, seeing as how you have a COI, you should post a request to the UglyDoll talk page, along with a valid source to prove that the ownership has changed. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

My Edit

I share this IP address with a number of other users, because it is a public Wi-Fi hotspot. My edit to Joy Davidman was not unconstructive, and was intended to fix a mistake in the article. Fuck you and have a nice life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.134.60 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Huh it is bone cancer.. Surprising. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not too sure about that. Our article, and some others I've found, says it was breast cancer metastasized to the bones, which is still considered breast cancer and not bone cancer. I've found a few newspaper book reviews that call it "bone cancer", like the NYTimes one you cited, but I'm inclined to trust the other sources on this, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. I guess book reviews aren't exactly checked for offhand statements. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry

i did not mean to remove your elderly woman png and put her "sauce" in the text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.28.157 (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Montville High School (Connecticut)

Hi Oshwah, I've requested page protection. Looks like a lot of socks. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:F11B:E449:55C1:762E (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two days. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Bears watchlisting. 2601:188:180:11F0:F11B:E449:55C1:762E (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Malarkey

I am the one who made the michael malarkey article edit. I dont have a source but he told me himself, i went to his moms house in yellow springs, Ohio. My step Dad (wendell hensley) brought me there and told me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.121.77 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, please do not add unsourced content to biographical articles. Something you 'happen to know' about a subject is original research and has no import on Wikipedia. Statements should be reliably sourced and references correctly added; (see WP:REFB for more information). Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Uglydoll changes

Please help. I do not know what needs to be done to correct the owner listed. kathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcaldas (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Kcaldas - Apart from the conflict of interest issues that are occurring, you need to make an edit request on the article's talk page. Just make sure that your request includes a reliable reference with the changes you believe should be made. Our guidelines on adding in-line citations and identifying reliable sources will assist you with everything you need. If you have any questions after reading these pages, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cosmos (Carl Sagan book) Edit

Hello, Oshwah. Regarding the edit made to Cosmos (Carl Sagan book), I want to clarify that I didn't remove any content. In fact the edit was addition of information in the Critical reception section. I have also cited the source deemed necessary.

please reconsider

thank you

Benzy Benzykaram (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Benzykaram - My sincere apologies; I've restored the changes you made to the article. The reversion I made to your edits was done accidentally. Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bola Johnson edits

Greetings, Oshwah! You recently reverted two of my edits to Bola Johnson, claiming they appeared to be tests. They were not tests. I edited the intro paragraph to bring the dates into standard format and to explain who the subject was in the intro, something the article failed to do. My other changes were cosmetic punctuation and grammar fixes. Can you tell me what you objected to in these edits or what makes them look like tests? HisReasonablyEasyLife (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

HisReasonablyEasyLife - Ah, I see what you're trying to do now... It was simply just some of the small changes made to the article, nothing big. I'll occasionally see new users and editors that make small changes and add technical error or problems to articles to see what it does, or make small changes to see the impact. I noticed this edit and that you placed the words "as told by Bola" with "accordingto". That, and some other small things gave the idea that you might have been testing; I see now that you were not. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need my assistance with anything, and I'll be happy to help. Thanks for leaving me a message and for explaining what you were attempting to do :-). Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

HELP!

I am not having any luck editing the page. Please help me! If you can contact me via email that would be helpful. [REDACTED - Oshwah] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcaldas (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Kcaldas - See the response I made to you above, and please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to help you. I want to make sure that your security and your privacy are protected, so I redacted the contact information that you left in your message above. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Further to the "Dominic Selwood" article Edit War...

Hi Oshwah So I reached out to Eggishorn on the Dominic Selwood biography page with exactly the above. No reply. I'm not too surprised by that: those who are editing out my additions want to PREVENT the knowledge that Selwood is a Freemason from being public knowledge. If, as I suspect, I don't get any reply and that they will stonewall in silence in that hope that you will keep your editorial decision and keep that information from Selwood's Wikipedia page, can I hope that you will check the reliability of the sources yourself and make an arbitration that sees that information returned to his public biography? If you're not willing to do that can you tell me why you wouldn't be willing to do that? Many thanks. 159.122.131.153 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The concerns regarding the validity and reliability of content is outlined in our guidelines on verifiability and identifying reliable sources. While I'm happy to answer any specific questions regarding these policies if you have them, the discussion that should be ongoing on the aritcle's talk page will be the best place to have the references in question examined. They will be available to be evaluated and discussed by multiple editors, who will be able to collaborate and come to a consensus that is logical, appropriate, and in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have any questions regarding the evaluation of the sources you're referring to, our dispute resolution process will most likely answer them. If not, then please do not hesitate to ask me them, and I'll be more than happy to help. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Names of China,

Hello Oshwah,

I did state my reason. I thought the content was off-topic. It's about the names of china/dynasty/state, not the names of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.170.9 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Your edit summary makes sense to me now... thanks for the message. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism to Iko page

Hey Oshwah, thanks for noticing the vandalism to the Iko page and for messaging. We've also noticed this and have issued a warning against this users frequent incorrect edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:146.90.248.167

20:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPProtect (talk • contribs)

can you restore a love letter to you I think I removed all content again

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki1143 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Maximiliano Korstanje

Appears that the second IP was requested by the first to edit Per User talk:Jim1138#Maximiliano Korstanje That page is an absolute promotional c.v. and needs to be hacked way down. I tag-bombed it and started a discussion on talk:Maximiliano Korstanje for what it's worth. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138 - I agree; there are multiple issues with this article that need to be fixed. Thanks for starting that process and for assisting with the attempts to improve the content. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Formal request for removal of human user rights

To whom it may concern,

Please view this as the most formal request known to mankind. I hereby request that the user right is known as "IPBE" be removed from my user account, and be deported into the void. I solemnly swear that I currently do not need it.

Yours sincerely,
(t) Josve05a (c) 01:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I support this incredibly formal request, and formally request that it be formally implemented in the most formal of ways. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
LOL!   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Bonin Bough

Can you please refund and userfy this page Draft:Bonin Bough? I want to give it another try. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you delete the redirect? I moved the draft to my user page. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Janweh64 -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
If you have a moment, do you think I qualify for the Pagemover privilege? I often find myself in situations where I have to move a page but should not leave a redirect. I have a good understanding of Wikipedia's naming conventions. For example, Bonin Bough's real name is actually Brant Bonin Bough. He is often referred to as B. Bonin Bough. But the majority of RS commonly refer to him as simply Bonin Bough. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Janweh64 - Sure, here you go. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bob Coy

The first edit today, added at 3:48, did have a source. It was higher up in the paragraph, so you might have missed it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity! Yes, that is correct - which is why I didn't remove that content from the article. There was content in that paragraph after the source citation that appeared to be in violation of WP:BLP; this is simply what I removed. Please let me know if you have any questions or additional concerns and I'll be happy to answer and address them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
But was the later content supported by the reference added in the same edit as the earlier content & source? I guess I'm wondering whether things would be different if the reference had simply come at the end of the paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity - I would say that it doesn't, no. The content included specific words and phrases that the reference did not use. It also contained portions that were within quotations as if it were directly quoting text from the reference, but were not stated in the reference. Because this article is a BLP, this paragraph is detailing a highly controversial and contentious event, and the content removed made statements that were highly detailed and specific - I'm erring on the side of caution and keeping content removed and the revisions redacted. You're of course welcome to expand the paragraph and the content there (assuming they comply with policy of course... lol). While I don't believe that the edit was vandalism or made with the intention of violating policy, I believe that the details were worded different enough from what was stated in the reference that it needed removal. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your response. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity - You bet. If you need my assistance with anything else, you know where to find me ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dave Hill

Hi Oshwah, I made an edit to the Dave Hill page to remove a paragraph that was clearly a duplicate of the paragraph above it, this was clearly stated in the edit summary. I believe your reversion is in error and ask that you please review it more carefully.

Thanks in advance. 27.96.199.20 (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh shit. You're totally right. That was my mistake and my fault and I apologize for that. I've restored the edit you made to the article. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention so that I could review and fix it. Please let me know if you need anything else, and I'll be happy to help you. Thanks again :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem mate, after all everyone makes mistakes. Enjoy the rest of your day.

27.96.199.20 (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Busy Day Today Huh?

I keep seeing you in Huggle. About every other page. You are quick. There seems to be more vandalism then normal today. Leave some for me. Also, I did not know you could use three tides to sign your posts! Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners

Hi LakesideMiners! Don't worry, I'll leave some for you ;-)! You can, but look at your signature above ^^ ... leaving three tildes omits adding a timestamp to the end of your signature (fun fact: adding five tildes will only add the current timestamp, no signature). You typically always want to use four tildes when signing your messages ;-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
T Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners
H Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
X 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
LOL Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why, just just why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clive_Nolan&oldid=810516365 Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners 19:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dominic Selwood Edit War

Hi Oshwah So you've semi-blocked editing on the Dominic Selwood article because? At the very least, with the references I supplied, 'Masonic Conferences' should be explicitly listed as the kinds of meetings Selwood talks at. I cannot make that change presently. Perhaps you'd be good enough to do so - and perhaps give me a personal reply? Oh, and if you could just clarify that you have had no links with Freemasonry yourself - nor been contacted by those concerned? Thanks. 202.239.38.179 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You can request an edit be made on a protected article by creating an edit request on the article's talk page. The guide I linked to you here will provide you with all of the necessary information, instructions and requirements. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

The IP 209.240.233.18 is being a nuisance and has cleared some of the warnings off his page. Would you like to consider blocking him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No sooner had this block expired than the IP was at it again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Mobius strip animation

Hello :) I think the animation is quite useful. Orientability is often defined in mathematics lectures by considering a frame of reference that becomes indistinguishable from its mirror image when moved around the space it is in and I thought the crab was a good illustration of this. Is there some way I could integrate it into the page more usefully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishtodd1 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hamishtodd1! Ohhhhh, okay. That edit makes a lot more sense now that I look at the equation of the plane and its attempt to explain symmetry. I apologize for the confusion; I've restored the changes you made describing the image. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks for leaving me a message and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385)

Hello Oshwah, I'm Maximilian Mizerski. I see you reported me for vandalism. I removed the y after display because for some reason, there was an error when playing the hymn. It would say that there were no lyrics, even though I recently added lyrics to Bogurodzica in both Polish and English. I was going to edit it eimmediately after and put back the y in display. You removed all of my contribution on that page which I had to put back. I put the national anthems there in the first place.

Thank you! I hope to hear back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmizerski2000 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maxmizerski2000, and thank you for leaving me a message here! I went back to the article and manually restored the original changes you made to it, and then appended your latest revision to the restoration; the article should now be exactly as it would have been if my reversion didn't exist. What I originally saw when patrolling was this edit you made. I initially believed that this was the only edit you've made to the article, and didn't realize that this edit followed the other edits you made. I reverted this edit believing that the change you made was simply because you wanted to test stuff. Unfortunately, what happens with the software I'm using to patrol and make changes is that it looks at your talk page and finds how many times you've been warned in the past, and it automatically leaves the next warning level. Since you have two warnings on the top of your talk page now, the software doesn't leave a warning for edit testing on the third warning. The third and final warnings left on user talk pages are worded exactly the same if it was over a reversion for an edit test or a reversion for vandalism. This is why you received the particular warning on your talk page from me and stating that what you were doing was vandalism. Really, it was my fault - I should have noticed and realized that you had made other edits, and not just the only one that I saw, and had I noticed, I wouldn't have reverted what I thought was a removal of only one letter from the article. I hope that my explanation here helped you to understand exactly what happened and why. I definitely didn't think of you as a vandal, even though the message left and the revert I made said otherwise :-). I apologize for the confusion this caused you. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you further. Thanks again for leaving me a message, and I wish you happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation

Hi admin! You messaged a user, who is actually a sockpuppet of blocked "User:Shameel Done". Check how he has vandalised Fawad Khan. Please aso see User talk:Alexf#Sock investigation, File:Ahmed Shameel.jpg and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shameel Done. Thanks! M. Billoo 04:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi M.Billoo2000! Thanks for leaving me a message with this information. Have you filed an SPI? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Not yet, as I don't know how to file. Thanks! M. Billoo 00:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Just search "User:Shameel" on Wikipedia, and you will be shocked to see the results of how much accounts one person has made. Sharing some more links;
Thanks! M. Billoo 13:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What is an editing break?

An editor added a so called "editing break" to a discussion in a talk page. Is that something legitimate? Where can I find more information about it if so? Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Thinker78: He's just putting a heading for a better layout. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It introduces a new subsection that permits easier location in a thread for adding a new comment without loading the entire thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Evading user talk page block

Infamia appears to be evading his talk page access block with this IP edit. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter - I've blocked the IP for block evasion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Trust Definition

What is not constructive about my edit? I simply offer an alternative fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DE77:D300:BDF0:5CBD:5DB1:C3CD (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Company on wiki

Hi I am trying to create new page for my website. I want to show about us of my company on wiki. So help me Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloraZone (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@FloraZone: I've given you a Conflict of Interest notice. I would advise not to try to write about your own company on wikipedia, as you have a conflict of interest. If your company is notable, then someone else will write about it. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 10:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

hey!

Why you delete my page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAYTHAMALFIQI (talk • contribs) 10:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi HAYTHAMALFIQI, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on user pages (namely, what you can have on your user page and what you can not). User pages can be deleted under this criterion if the user page violates the guidelines I linked you, or falls within the criterion's description. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message, I welcome you to the project, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit Salvator Mundi (Leonardo).

the painting that you see is not Christ and is not Supposed to be used as Christ. the Symbolic hand sign's used in the painting along with the orb. are very symbolic. if you search Baphomet on wiki you will see why i am correcting you. the devil worship hand sign in the so called painting of Christ is clearly being replicated. this is a clear representation of the Anti-christ trying to appear as something holy. Jehovah god is my witness and you will be just as accountable. don't take a double portion of gods anger on their behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm823 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Baked Alaska change explanation

Hi Oshwah,

My addition to Baked Alaska was after Twitter ruled the 'entertainer' to be banned competently for beging an user that only distributes racisme as a of revenue.

Since his feed was a daily occupation(considering the volume and longevity), racism is a large part of the revenu generation for Baked Alaska.

Because of this I would define his occupation not only 'entertainer' but also 'racist'. I don't consider describing what people do for a living 'non-constructive' but factual (as per wiki spirit).

can you help me explain the fine line between (for example) describing Hitler's attributes , but it's not constructive about current people(who openly say they are)?

best regards, Wouter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.149.75.75 (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit you made here is not constructive, and hence I reverted it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit

Hi, why was my edit removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigman3000 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Change my edit

Why was it changed?? Thebigman3000 (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Given the response & my edits (with explanation). Please help me understand why you keep reinstating the deletion tag. I made changes and gave a reason for why I deleted some of the content. Kind Regards.

This page is not unambiguously promotional as the additional information included serves to provide context to the manner in which Digitization of Education is utilized, as "edutainment". The manner of application is central to the youth-based nature of initiative. Please also note that the inaugural periodical is pro-bono. The Cover is used as it is tied to Escalating US Dissention (though is in no way biased or partisan). Also, every other picture added in the past has been an issues (logo, picture of an interview, etc.) so this seemed to be the most palatable. That said, I am happy to delete items (select cities, etc.) which imply a "promotion-based" agenda. All that is required is direction. --The LOVE Movement (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Eleazer at The LOVE Movement (TLM) (talk • contribs)

I've responded to your second request for assistance below. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Escalating US Dissention (2nd Request for Assistance)

Hello,

Not to belabor the point: However, I did not create the page - Nick Gilliard did. What I would greatly appreciate is a review of the changes I made from the time of the original request as well as the original dispute I filed (if you're available and time permits). I have every intention of abiding by the parameters. Kind regards Oshwah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Eleazer at The LOVE Movement (TLM) (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Eleazer at The LOVE Movement (TLM) - My apologies for mixing you two up. Are are correct: under policy, the only editor restricted from removing a CSD tag on an article is the editor that created it. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to assist you further. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Ja22tb‎

I don't whether you know the answers to the questions being posted at User talk:Ja22tb‎ regarding ways of proving a users' identity ? The question of deletion is altogether another matter.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Velella - You need to tell him to contact Wikipedia's Volunteer Response Team by visiting Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. This will put them in touch with the appropriate team, who have the tools and training to handle this situation, verify his identity, and respond to his requests. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My WP:ANI Report

Hi. Since you have responded to my report,[7] then would you please finalize it? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wario-Man - Sure, I'll re-review the ANI you filed and do what I can to assist. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, my report is becoming old and has turned into a wall of text. I just want a final clear response by an admin, because it's really necessary for possible future incidents. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on Ibtihaj Muhammad

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ibtihaj Muhammad. -Opluset (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The picture in the Trần Thái Tông article

Dear Oshwah,

The picture 松陰論道圖.jpg is a crop (a part) from this painting. Its Chinese name means “Discussing the Dao in the Shade of Pines”. The painting is printed in the Book 宋代小品繪畫（三）(Song dynasty paintings, vol.3). Author: 尹然 (Yin Ran). China. The People Fine Arts Publishing House. 40 pages. 2010. ISBN 8102039.

Beside, please see here, with information that:

  • The paintings also called 松荫论道图 (meaning: Discussing the Dao in the Shade of Pines) or 三教论道图 (meaning: Discussing the Dao from Thee Religions).
  • Traditionally the painting was attributed to the famous painter Liu Songnian 劉松年 (ca. 1150 – after 1225), but painting's style is relatively weak and during Song dynasty (960-1279) there were too many paintings with theme “Three Religions” (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism), so that currently attributed to anonymous painter (佚名畫家).

From my point of view, three characters in the painting represent the three East Asian religions: Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, in which the figure in the 松陰論道圖.jpg is a Confucianist in the Song dynasty’s costume. So that, use this picture to illustrate Trần Thái Tông (1218-1277, the king of DaiViet) is unreasonable. Khonghieugi123 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

85.181.240.51

FYI, Special:Contributions/77.179.48.107 appears to be making very similar edits to the above IP you recently blocked. –72 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

72 - Ohhhh, yes.... there were actually A LOT MORE than just this additional IP. It looks like it's stopped though. If you see any more of them out there, please let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey newbie

No chance! 92.229.133.109 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Chukwalla

Hi, I did not do any mistake, this was the wrong person sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowlion100 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, I am currently working on a college project. We are supposed to be adding information we found in our research and adding our new information into a previously created entry of Regulation of Emotion. We plan to edit the information into a neutral point of view and try reentering our information into the entry.

Thank you for your message,

Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.rhinehart (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
For dealing with a slew of MEATBOTS — xaosflux Talk 01:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Xaosflux - Thanks for leaving me some Wikilove, Xaosflux! Yeah that issue yesterday... was quite unique to say the least... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Mitchell Torok. rwaustin2 Rwaustin2 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you reversed all my edits on Mitchell toroks's entry into wikipedia. Thia ia Mr. Torok's family and I'd like them reinstated. Rwaustin2 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Rwaustin2 - Your edits to the article were completely unreferenced and in violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people. Wikipedia's article content must always reflect verifiability and neutrality; your claims of being related to the article subject are irrelevant (in fact, it puts Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines into play if anything). Please review the policies and guidelines I've linked you to here, and let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate your understanding and your compliance. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for being the Batman to my Robin on those meatbots! Nihlus 02:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the Wikilove, Nihlus. That was quite a unique sequence of events, yesterday. I just hope it doesn't continue like that... and I hope that this doesn't become a thing. That's going to be ridiculous to contain if edit filers don't solve it or if the user keeps finding ways to bypass each change that's made to stop them... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm his son in law, married to his daughter.

And simply tried to update the page as I know he would have wanted it updated. You guys can leave it as is. Rwaustin2 (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Stop! Look! What's that behind you?!

Look! Jim1138 (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Holy shit... seriously? o.0 ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Taking too long for the review process...

Hi Oshwah,

I experienced that it is taking tooo long for an article to be created, and can you please suggest after having at the below article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rashtriya_Hindi_Mail


Article is in review status.

Regards, Myera

MyeraMishra (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi MyeraMishra! Welcome to Wikipedia! I understand that the AFC review process can take some time; It's very heavily backlogged and it can take at least a few weeks before anyone beings reviewing it. I can assist you if you have any questions or need specific help, but I do not want to do anything that will be out-of-process for the AFC review project; it would be inappropriate and would also be treating your draft differently by "cutting it in line" in front of everyone else. If I do that, it'll signal to other editors that all they need to do in order to get their draft reviewed quickly is to message an administrator or AFC reviewer and tell them that they want their draft reviewed. That would be horribly disruptive to the process as these users would get flooded with individual requests. That's the the point of having an AFC review queue in the first place, right? To treat everyone fairly and assist them in the order in which their AFC review request is received? Do let me know if you have any specific questions; I'll be more than happy to assist you and answer them. Otherwise, sorry, but you need to be patient and wait to have your draft reviewed like everyone else :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:AFC not ACC hahaha. Yes the point out a queue is that people have to wait in line :(. Currently things have been getting worse after ACTRIAL increased the number of submissions there. Things are "severely backlogged" and isn't getting better.. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 16:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter - HA! It dawned on me just as you were leaving this response... lol. All fixed ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for helping clean up vandalism on Wikipedia keep up the good work! Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gary "Roach" Sanderson! Thanks for leaving me this barnstar and for the kind words. I appreciate it very much. I hope you have a great rest of your day (my weekend officially begins in an hour), and I wish you happy editing! I'm sure we'll run into each other again on the battlefield soon; I'll see you out there :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Security

I have my Google account two way security code. How can fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisalsir9 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Faisalsir9, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Is this Wikipedia-related? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Rachelle Ferrell

Hi, my edits to Rachelle's page have been taken down. I don't understand why. I just put a little more emphasis on her vocal ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:ce25:c930:1c06:77f6:f2:17b1 (talk • contribs)

Hi there, and thank you for leaving me a message here. That "emphasis" you're referring to with your edit to Rachelle Ferrell is why I reverted it. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, as this is the reason for the revert. It will answer your questions and help you to improve your edits in this aspect. Please let me know if you have any questions about the policy page I linked you to, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for messaging me :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sons a Witches editing

The editing by the IP editor you warned isn’t really 3RR it’s homestly vandalism and content removal IMO. As per his first edit summary the only reason he removed the criticism is because he didn’t like it. The fact is that the criticism which was removed was from a RS and cited and sourced. Just because someone doesn’t like what a critic has to say doesn’t give them the right to remove it. Add to the fact that the editor has absolutely no previous edit history. I’m honestly trying to maintain order here and getting frustrated that my efforts to maintain an accurate and thorough article are being questioned. Thanks and sorry to vent. - SanAnMan (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: sir I would appreciate a response please and thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
SanAnMan - Hey, sorry for the late reply. I'll take a look and get back to you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
SanAnMan - The edits made by the IP simply remove a section paragraph from the article, and with edit summaries provided that attempt to communicate (although incorrectly and showing a clear lack of understanding with how things work here). I'm leaning more towards saying that this is a content-related issue than I am with saying that this is vandalism. The IP hasn't edited the article since I left an edit warring notice on their talk page. If this IP makes any more edits that are disruptive to the article, or if another IP or user comes along and starts adding the exact same fuel to the fire - please let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to hold off on taking action until the IP edits again. I'm sorry that you're frustrated; I understand how much of a grueling process this all can be at times. I hope that you understand that my responsibilities require that I maintain complete objectivity and neutrality when making a decision. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No subject

ok thankyou oshwah,next time i will came with diverse resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagrafan (talk • contribs) 06:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sagrafan! Welcome to Wikipedia! You should go through our tutorial for new users! It'll provide you with lots of help and get you started with all of "the basics" with being an editor here. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing wrong citations in Aswan article

Don't remove the contribution. Of the sources I removed one is a news article that doesn't support at all the text but seems a philippino Komiks article. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/technology/535657/the-aswang-diaspora-why-philippine-lower-myths-continue-to-endure/story/

Other is just an opinion in a news article that doesn't seem an informed opinion about the subject but just cites "Anthropologists" whithout telling who this anthropologists are:

http://www.philstar.com/supreme/2015/05/30/1460087/theres-aswang-terrorizing-mindanao-and-yes-please-take-seriously

The wikipedia article seems to have copied these unsourced opinion word by word.

And the one I left says actually the opposite to what the part of the article I removed claims. It isn't clear he is an actual anthropologist as the text claims but just a documentary filmaker about the Aswang. Still it is the more reliable source of all provided.

https://www.aswangproject.com/aswang-in-capiz/

It would be better if dubious claims like this who use citations that actually don't support what they claim or are not autoritative sources are removed.

Unless you point me out a reason to not removing them I'm reverting your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.54.70 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for messaging me here regarding your edits to Aswang and for explaining the reason for your edit. I also have issue with your edit because it appears not to be worded in a neutral point of view. In fact, you replace the word "believe" with the statement "have discarded the long held false notion", which is not only the opposite of what the original content said, you say that it's a "false notion". This concerns me about your view on the topic... can you please explain? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. My initial intention was to remove the whole paragraph altogether but I have had problems with administrators in the past for removing whole paragraphs even if they were misleading. When I read that the only semi-valid (And it comes from a filmaker) citation said in fact the opposite (Even if only related to the claim that female rebels against the spanish were branded as aswang) I thought on using it as a quote for not removing the whole paragraph. I even keep the encomiendas theory even if I disagree with it. By the way I have a personal opinion about the subject. The Aswang (Particularly the Manananggal variation of the Aswang) is very similar to other local myths like the Penanggalan in Malaysia and the colonial rule cannot be blamed to the prevalence of similar myths in all the Asian south east but these seem to have been developed and shared between the native cultures. The paragraph could be redone to actually adress the citation like this:

"Modern investigation shows that the prevalence of the aswang myth in the Capiz region might be related to genetical diseases like the X-Linked Dystonia Parkinsonism (XDP) or Dystonia of Panay (Lubag)"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aswangproject.com/aswang-in-capiz/|title=The truth about the ASWANG in Capiz|last=Clark|first=Jordan|date=|website=|access-date=}}</ref>

I would remove altogether the rest of the citations and claims as they are not actually supported by reliable sources.

Arrow

Hey, about the Arrow episodes, I just thought that the episode summary could've been more informative, maybe include adding the flashbacks and give a more detailed summary. And it isn't just with Arrow, I see some of the problem on Legends of Tomorrow and Gotham with their episode summaries. Just something I think that can be improved if we put a little bit more effort into it. Something to think about and would be open to talking about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCED:E980:9C7D:FDC7:FB00:E022 (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My contribution to the movie "Election"

I took a great deal of time to write an accurate and definitive plot description of the film "Election" because the version that was previously posted contained many inaccuracies. I have seen the movie eight times and know the plot inside and out. I also went to Stanford with the director and screenplay writer of the film, Alexander Payne. I was quite surprised that you would remove my description of the plot because you felt that it wasn't "neutral." I'm not sure what you meant by that. I happen to think "Election" is an outstanding film, a modern day classic, but my description of the plot was meant to be nothing more than a faithful representation of what actually occurs in the movie. As I said, the previously posted plot description contained many inaccuracies, which is what led to my replacing it. I would appreciate your keeping my version of the plot in the Wikipedia entry. If there is any aspect of it that you believe not to be "neutral," please be specific as to what you're referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.133.177 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! And thank you for writing me a message here. After re-reading your edit, I realized that the wording changes I saw you make didn't make the implication of opinion like I had originally thought. I saw your additions of adjectives such as "fabulous" and others, and thought that you were adding a personal analysis - I realize now that this is not the case. It also helps to know that you were editing a movie plot - which I feel can have these kinds of adjectives you used and without making it a neutral point of view concern. I've restored the changes you made, and I apologize for the misinterpretation on my part. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for messaging me and for letting me know about this. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

About the user you blocked, 3478-BOT

Hi Oshwah! Just wanted to let you know that the user you blocked above, is a sock of a user Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. 3478-BOT has just uploaded copyrighted images at Wikimedia Commons, the same as all other Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw's socks usually do, see the contributions here. Could you enable autoblock here for this user, and add a sock tag to the userpage? Thanks, theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

theinstantmatrix - Oh, joy! This is gonna be a fun one to deal with, isn't it? ...... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong

The only one lacking a neutral point of view here is you, using language pushed by Russians to make the Ukrainian identity seem like nothing but smoke and mirrors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8402:5F89:2829:5B1F:640A:7010 (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And this is the exact reason that I reverted your edits to the Little Russia article - especially when you add statements such as "and are thus not worthy of independence and must kowtow to Russian imperialism", and "in an attempt to justify Russian imperialism and oppression of the distinct Ukrainian people and their country". I don't know much of anything about the article subject at all, but edits that add these phrases certainly don't add any degree of neutrality to the article, and it concerns me that you may be trying to push a point of view here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the subject at hand, then you should not be trying to edit the article at hand. I do know what I'm talking about, and my edits are logical, factual statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8402:5F89:2829:5B1F:640A:7010 (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Olam - thank you

Re: Olam page updates

Dear Oswald Thank you for your message. I should have spent longer reading the guidelines for updates. Nikki NikkiBarber (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit (sorry)

Sorry, I am just an amateur. I did not realise the edits would actually be visible to everyone. I thank you for removing it, and will delete my account. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlternateAccount1 (talk • contribs) 18 November 2017 10:35 (UTC)

Al Porter

Hi, in terms of your removals from the article, you state "There was an article section that I removed that did have references, but they were poor and not to the compliance of the standard in which they are required" - just for clarification, one of references was to The Irish Times newspaper, it is a national newspaper in Ireland, and one of the two newspapers of record in the country, (and the other was to a national radio broadcaster) so I'm wondering what standard you feel it fails to meet, thanks, Damiantgordon (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Damiantgordon, and thanks for leaving me a message. I'll take another look and get back to you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, Damiantgordon (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Damiantgordon - One issue I saw was that one of the references required a paid subscription with them to view it, and it was used as a reference to about half the content. I'll take another look at it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
If it helps, here's a reference from another Irish/UK paper http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/18/irish-comedian-al-porter-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-by-four-men-7089258/, Damiantgordon (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response - I've been busy with the just-celebrated holiday and what-not :-). Cool deal; go ahead and update the article if you haven't already. My main concern was the fact that the content was poorly referenced, not that it was added in the first place. I just need to keep careful watch on BLPs and make sure that serious violations and issues like this are redacted - not necessarily because anyone did anything wrong (contentious information that news and media release with "breaking news" is usually added to these articles soon after), but it also prevents an editor from accidentally restoring the article to any of those revisions down the road if such a situation calls for it in the future. With BLPs and potentially serious violations, we're supposed to err on the side of caution and protect the project with that priority in mind. If things are found to be okay later, we can always un-redact the revisions; no big deal. But with all of this latest news regarding the number BLPs and sexual abuse allegations brought fourth by others, this is a subject and area that is very serious and every revision needs to be carefully scrutinized not only for their use of reliable references, but also the wording and details that are used and added to the content. It only takes as little as one simple word to make an otherwise true or informative addition to content in this very area and situation become a huge BLP issue that states something differently than what the references state, and a target for discussion and criticism over its possible libelous implications. This is definitely something we definitely don't need to have happen :-). I hope this response helps you to understand my thoughts and reasons behind the actions I took regarding some of the revisions to this article. Please let me know if you still have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to continue assisting you with them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Message

My IP changed! I am not blocked anymore!

Phoebe Cates

Looks like an multiple IP attack. You'll probably have to protect the page. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 16:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Boomer Vial - Way ahead of you ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wedding photography - Citation

Hi

I made and edit to this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_photography

As far as I was aware a citation was made [3] in the references at the bottom. Can you tell me what I am doing wrong? It's pretty much similar to the other citatation [2] that is on the page?

Thank you82.8.231.13 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Your edit here to Wedding photography appeared to be added for advertising purposes, and not to add information or verify any information or details that were added. This is why Mojo Hand removed the external URL from the article. (he actually beat me to it, else I would have done so myself). If you have any more questions about this, please refer to this page on advertising, and let me know if you have questions about this policy. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for leaving me (as well as Mojo Hand) a message about your questions, and I'm sure that I can speak for Mojo Hand when I say that we both wish you happy editing on Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Howard Hughes

I am new to editing on Wikipedia . Howard Hughes was born on December 24th and it says September 24th. Even the picture you have of his tombstone reads December 24th, I tried to edit and you sent me a message that says to cite my source. YOUR Wikipedia page was my source, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.190.47 (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was curious and looked into this. The gravestone is only one source of several and there is disagreement among the sources as described at Howard Hughes#Early years. Hughes is said to have stated that he was born on 24 December, but then he was known to be "eccentric" (i.e. un poco loco) and he dated Ava Gardner who had that birthday. Maybe he got confused, or maybe he believed what he wanted to believe. In the end, (1) the only certainty is that we will never know for certain, and (2) the 3-month difference is less important than making a decision and stabilizing it in the article; otherwise we'll be back and forth on this into eternity. It is not strictly necessary to choose one date or the other; there are multiple ways that we could indicate the uncertainty. Normally I would suggest a simple discussion on the article's talk page, but the low participation at that article might justify an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I have started a discussion in article talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Angus Young died

Angus Young died on Saturday 18th November 2017. The page needs updating.95.16.17.32 (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Just create an edit request on the article's talk page, and I (or another administrator) will be happy to review it and assist. If you want your edit requests to go quickly and without any kind of problems, they'll each need to provide references to reliable sources to verify the changes you're requesting to make. Thank you for leaving me a message, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It was Malcolm Young. Eagleash (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong?

What is wrong with this edit? Or this one, which entailed removing a permanently redlinked film from a select filmography? 68.175.107.186 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I saw that you added content to Topher Grace stating that "[h]is paternal aunt is actress Sue Grace", and you did not cite a reference. This is why I reverted the edit you made. Your edit here removed the "References" section from the article without a detailed explanation, which is why I reverted this edit. If you had a reason to do so, just let me know and I'll be happy to help you with this. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia's policy on articles that are biographies of living people, as we require a much stricter and higher level of verifiability with added content (especially if controversial, negative, or contentious), and hold these articles to this policy (and the editors accountable) with higher scrutiny than other articles. If you have any questions about any of the policies and guidelines I've linked you here, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns, and I wish you happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Some advice?

Hi Oshwah, I hadn't been on WP for quite some time (so a little rusty), but recently have popped in to tinker with some pages. I've come across an issue and was seeking some advice. (I recall seeking assistance from you in the past and you were quite helpful). If you have look at Talk:List of diagnoses from House (TV series), it's all spelled out there. Basically, an ip user (though he also has an active registered account as well) has been making the same revert over and over, 8 times and counting, over the past few months. I have repeatedly tried to engage him on the talk page, but he refuses. His own talk page(s) show similar issues with an uncooperative attitude. I'm looking for a resolution to what is basically a slow edit-war, but he won't engage... just keeps on reverting (basically WP:NOTHERE). Any advice? Is there a particular avenue I should follow? Is there anything you can do? Any advice and/or assistance would be appreciated. Cheers - theWOLFchild 03:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thewolfchild - I've left an edit warring notice on the user's talk page. If the user edits the article again, let me know. That diff is the user's last warning. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
He's done it again. - theWOLFchild 18:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: - just a gentle reminder. I see your talk page filling up, didn't want you to forget about this.   Cheers - theWOLFchild 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And he's just done it again. Seems he waits a couple days, pops in, reverts and leaves. Clearly gaming the system. This is the 10th time and 2nd since your final warning. All diffs are listed on the article talk, where I've tried to get him to discuss numerous times, but he refuses to engage. - theWOLFchild 01:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Thewolfchild - Sorry for the delayed response. Let me take another look at this... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thewolfchild - I left a final warning on the user's talk page - I really hope this person does what is asked. It's probably doubtful given their history and the fact that we've warned them to no avail, but we should at least try. Nobody is breaking 3RR, but there's absolutely edit warring going on here.
I'd also lay back from reverting the article if I were you - since you're also involved and . You may not have noticed, but another uninvolved user seems to agree with the IP that the two categories are not correct (see diff). I also highly recommend that you take the initiative and start another talk page discussion (I see that you've edited on the article's talk page, which is good) and let both the IP and Aspects know on their talk pages that you've done so and give them a link so they can go straight there and respond - it'll show that you're following dispute resolution protocol and that you want this discussed.
I'm just trying to watch out for everyone involved here; I've seen it numerous times where an experienced editor and a new user or IP are in an edit war (much like this), and both users wound up blocked because neither started an actual discussion on the article's talk page and it just kept going on. A lot of people get sucked into these "long-term editor vs new editor / IP" edit wars and the experienced user always winds up frustrated and upset when an administrator does what truly is fair. As you could imagine, these kinds of edit wars make things really hard for mindful administrators who care about the community and culture to take action without retribution. On one hand, an admin be biased if they only blocked the IP. On the other hand, it would show you (in a way) that reaching out to an admin for advice or help will just ultimately get them blocked because "they did it too" - which is really something I'd never want to do unless there was no other option (lol). This is the reason for my lengthy response to you here. I don't want to see you get blocked over something silly like this. I think you're doing the right thing by reaching out for advice, and I appreciate it very much. Please let me know if you need any more input or advice, and I'll be happy to help. I hope things get sorted out in a positive and collaborative manner and that everyone walks away satisfied. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey, don't worry about the length of your reply, I asked for advice and you're providing it... the more the better. I don't want to get into a dispute with the guy, I really want a discussion and have been trying my damndest to get him to engage. I even stopped templating him, hoping that might lead to a postive response. I just want to know his reasoning and why he's so insistent on this. I don't know if you noticed, but has enaged with other editors before (so it"s not a language barrier or lack of knowing how to use talk pages), there was an issue before where was apparently doing mass-removals of these same categories and several other experienced editors tried to get him to stop. He did engage on one his talk pages at one point (not sure which one) but he was quite hostile. Then he just stopped. Now all he does is pop in, revert, leave, wait a few days to avoid 3RR and then pop in and revert again. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. I dont want to edit war and I certainly dont want to get bocked. I just want this resolved, one way or the other, but the right way. However, that said, if it comes to it, I will walk away before it gets to the point where I can get my peepee slapped over this. So your advice is heard and accepted, with gratitude. Sorry for the lengthy reply in return. Have a good weekend. Cheers - theWOLFchild 21:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with Personal Attacks Positivally

You're really great at dealing with personal attacks at a positive attitude. That's never easy for me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi FilmandTVFan28! Thank you for taking the time to leave me this message and for your kind words. I appreciate it... very much :-). Don't feel discouraged if you feel that it's not easy for you. Deflecting heated personal attacks being thrown at you and with kindness isn't something easily taught nor quickly learned. It takes time and practice to become proficient at knowing the right way to respond to others who may not have the skills and ability to do so themselves. It's not easy for most people, even myself at times... especially when someone is "up in your face" over something you made a mistake doing. That's a big one I had to overcome! It was hard to be apologetic to someone and be willing to assist them over a mistake that I made when they're running at you with torches and pitchforks. I wasn't perfect at it either - nobody is perfect. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, and (as you already know) my talk page is always open to you and you are welcome at any time to message me for input and advice if you find yourself in need of it. I'll be happy to help :-). Until we meet again -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A bit confused

Osh, can you advise as to the status of User:Kingshowman? Is that account the sockmaster? If so, and based on the subsequent sock farm, are any of them site banned? I ask because of WP:BMB and how their editing should be handled. Atsme📞📧 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. Sorry for the delayed response. As far as I know, he is the sockmaster of any sock puppet accounts that are created and attributed to that user, yes. The Bans apply to all editing, good or bad section of the banning policy, is a good and needed policy in general because of the spirit of the policy and what it's tying to convey to all users. Simply put: The spirit of the policy is trying to voice that a ban is a ban, and that those who are under the given type of ban are expected to obey and follow through with them throughout its duration. Making what is seen as "good edits" is not a valid reason to violate the given ban if the edit does so (usually because what the banned editor perceived as "good edits" was the reason that got the editor banned in the first place). Does it mean that we have to revert every single edit that the banned user made (or G5 it) simply because the edit was made by a banned user? It depends. Many people have different opinions about this, but if you're looking for what I believe is the right thing to do, I say this: the policy is good because it gives us editors the ability to judge each situation and apply them on a case-by-case basis. Not all good edits made by a banned user must be reverted on-sight simply because of the fact that they are banned. I think we should take into account the editor's history, the reason they were banned in the first place, as well as the article and context of such edits - and make a decision from there. I don't believe in blindly reverting all edits by a banned user and with your eyes closed. I believe in doing so with your eyes open and with good care and judgment in-mind. If anything, one could start a discussion and ask what others think before they take action. Two heads (or more than two heads) are better than one, after all ;-). Does this help answer your question at all? Or do you have specific questions or situations that I need to look at? I'll be happy to do so if you do. Just let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal info

On the [REDACTED - OSHWAH] talk page, some woman [REDACTED - OSHWAH]. She has posted some personal info, including her name and address, and I was thinkng it should probably be redacted. You would know better than me so I'll leave it with you. Cheers - theWOLFchild 00:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A word of advice. I handle WP:REVDEL requests by sending them via e-mail to friendly WP:Administrators, like Oshwah. I do this to avoid the Streisand effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
"Revdel"! Thank you! I was trying remember the term and it just wouldn't come to me. (I've been away awhile and I'm a little rusty on some stuff). Anyway, I figured I'd mention it to a helpful admin like Oshwah and he'd know what to do. I'm sure he'll get to it shortly, and her post has been there for 11 months already, so I don't how much of an effect my post here will have. But thanks for the info. Cheers - theWOLFchild 01:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. In the future, if you see someone posting information like that, definitely let someone know via email instead (I have a link on the top of my talk page). If the information is personally identifiable, such as someone's address, contact information, or other information that is not supposed to be public - this is handled by the oversight team. However, if you're not sure and just need help - I'll be more than happy to take a look and handle it for you - just email it to me. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Disregard, the info has now been redacted. - theWOLFchild 09:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for leaving a message and for letting one of us know. I'd rather you say something and have it be nothing, than to say nothing and have it be something we need to redact from public viewing :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Error in The Guardian article

I was working on the article Gukurahundi and another editor wrote or added the figure that "the consensus is that more than twenty thousand were killed" in a revision, citing a The Guardian article titled "New documents claim to prove Mugabe ordered Gukurahundi killings". I went to check the news article and found that it had a link under the statement "when more than 20,000 civilians were killed by Robert Mugabe’s feared Fifth Brigade" that pointed to apparently the source of the claim of the 20,000 figure. I clicked on it and found out that the link was broken. So I went to the internet archives to see if I managed to get it. After getting an "account suspended" notice I looked for an older capture, and I was able to find that the site was successfully archived, so I went through it. I failed to find a 20,000 dead figure; instead, I found that it said in page 27 under "Results -all areas", "Deaths: Confirmed dead number over 2 000: almost certain dead numbers between 3000 and 4 000: possible dead could be double this or more". In conclusion I think that the article erroneously claims that there were 20,000 deaths according to its linked information. I was wondering if when you have some time to spare you can verify if my conclusion is correct, because as it is a reliable source being cited for information added to Wikipedia, and in interest of the truth, I am planning in contacting The Guardian over the misleading claim. Thinker78 (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thinker78! Great job with your digging and investigative work! That's awesome that you're taking the time to verify that not only is wikipedia's information correct, but the information from the references that we're citing as well. If that PDF document is the only source or reference that The Guardian is citing when stating that the death toll is 20,000 (instead of what may only be 2,000 people), this might be a case of misinformation over a simple typo or the number in the reference being misread. I'd say that contacting them and letting them know about what you found is never a bad idea. Even if they respond and are able to show that they're correct, it'll help them to be aware that there are problems and that the link on that article page needs to be fixed. I'd add a talk page discussion to the article on Wikipedia and discuss your findings there as well, so that other editors can become aware of your potential findings and can take a look as well. Again, I commend you on your digging and your message here asking questions and what the proper next step is. As far as Wikipedia goes, a discussion is always the best decision to make - especially when it's over article content that is currently (or may soon become) disputed. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for your hard work! It's great to see such dedication, and it should not go unnoticed! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Fishy account

Hi,

This editor's contributions look rather suspicious, especially his user space. They're made more so by this edit. Does this user need an eye kept on him, or am I going insane? (if so, it wouldn't be a first  ) Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Oh, it gets better (i.e., worse): [8] Well at least it's not mainspace. Yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)}}.
I guess that's what you meant by especially his user space. NM. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
He's blocked now, for vandalism, and his sandbox has been deleted (can't imagine what was there) but he should've been blocked on his username alone. "Wikipedifile". Good riddance. - theWOLFchild 19:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It was definitely a sandbox worth deleting. The user has been blocked as a vandalism-only account, and I'll definitely agree and attest that the block was good :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

IPs needs to be blocked

Special:Contributions/209.140.44.69 - it's him. I deleted his comment from BLPN. Possibly this one, too - 2602:306:BD87:6730:B83D:9B02:61F8:9C65 - adding another that was overlooked User talk:75.99.95.250 Atsme📞📧 02:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

63.143.243.96 too Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, Galobtter - Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns about these IP users and their edits. They definitely look suspicious and were most likely made from our recent sock puppet user there. It looks like one of the IPs is blocked for evasion and the other three haven't edited since the time they started; it's essentially a moot point to block them now since the user has probably moved on. Definitely keep an eye on things, and let me know if you see any more suspicious edits like this. I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks again for your diligence and for keeping these pages free of disruption :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

RevisionDelete request

Hello User:Oshwah, I saw that you are listed as an administrator willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and would appreciate it if you would delete this BLP violation. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A US holiday greeting!

 
Want more yams?
No thanks, I'm stuffed.
Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
A Thanksgiving tale...

Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns).
The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?”
The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”.
The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?”

Atsme📞📧 02:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Atsme! And a happy Thanksgiving to you, and everyone else who reads this! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Rebel Media Page

I disagree 100%. I think my edit was entirely objective. The page as it is is highly biased.

Wikipedia is becoming extremely biased on anything that has to do with politics and is now highly untrustworthy.

I think it needs to change and be more even handed.

This is my attempt to help make wikipedia better and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Coeur (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richard Coeur, and thank you for leaving me a message regarding your edits to The Rebel Media. I reverted your edits to the article back in July 2017 because you added unreferenced content and adjectives that did not reflect a neutral point of view with the content that you modified. Such examples were when you added phrases describing a media spokesperson mentioned in the article such as, "while infringing on Free-Speech rights", "falsely described as", and "no stranger to mis-labeleing people he disagrees with". You also replaced the noun "residents" with "Left-wing political activists (supposedly residents)". Having no involvement or in-depth knowledge with the article subject at all, I can say that these modifications you made were not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please take time and review this policy using the links I gave you here, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions about the page. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you if you need me to. Thanks again for leaving me a message, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving holiday, and I wish you happy editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Kito

Hi, excuse my later reply but I was not connected for about a week. I think as you as vandalism, probably I made it by mistake. All the best.Chesipiero (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Chesipiero - No problem. Happens all the time; no big deal :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Doug Howard, musician

Amanda Naughton is his half-sister, not his step-sister. Patience Jarvis is mother to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.207.140 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Make sure that you cite a reliable source with your changes if there are no references in the article that verify this information that you're adding :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to proceed with a mess

An IP or IPs starting with 124.106... has been adding colors to List of colors (main page) with links that go to non-existent sections or non-existent articles. Example with this edit Deep Bronze, Deep Blue, Deep Aquamarine link to non-existent sections and have no source. I removed much of these on List of colors: N–Z with this edit also leaving a refimprove and note on talk:List of colors: N–Z#Dubious, unsourced colors. How does one deal with this stuff? Need a tool that checks Wiki-links that checks for bad/non-existent section names. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim1138 - Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns here. I've added pending changes protection to the List of colors article for three months, since all that's been edited on the page for at least the last six months is vandalism. It looks like the majority of links on the other lists of colors (at least the List of colors: A–F article) point to tables in the List of Crayola crayon colors article (which doesn't appear to point or link to any pages inside or outside of Wikipedia). These colors being added by the various users you're pointing out: Do we know if the colors they're adding are real? I guess another question that comes to my mind is... what is real?... especially when it comes to the name of a color? It seems like anybody could add an RGB or HTML color code to the list and make a claim that this is the correct color, and that this is the correct color name. I don't see it as out-of-line to ask these users to provide a reference with what they're adding in order to verify that these colors do, in fact, have a notable name by some creator that's widely used, and that the color they added is the correct shade as the color that's being claimed as having a name. Then there's the issue of notability and if a certain color is notable enough to be listed... oh boy. This particular situation sounds like one that will need quite a bit of editor review and oversight if it's going to be improved and up to par with our policies and guidelines... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not the list of colors article that's getting dubious edits, it's the internal links: List of colors: A–F, List of colors: G–M, List of colors: N–Z, & List of colors (compact) It seems that 124.106.246.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the source of much of it. Broke this template. I seem to see 124.106... popup all too frequently such as 124.106.250.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s edits on 1926. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jim1138 - Just wanted to check in with you about this. Did you still need help with this? Let me know. If you do, I'll be happy help you out with whatever I can. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
It has been quiet for awhile. I'll let you know if I see a problem in the future. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Jim1138 - Sounds good. Please do. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Philip Neri

While looking at the article on Philip Neri I noticed that there appeared to be some recent back and forth regarding material under the "Legacy - The Oratory" section. I have two questions. (1) would most of this be better served on the Oratory page? (which looks rather spare in some sections), and (2) since the sources cited are both over 100 years old, is this still current practice? I did not wish to tamper with it, as I would not want to appear to be "mucking around" after the two reverts, so I will leave this to your discretion. Cheers. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mannanan51! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions. The two reversions I made to the article recently (here and here) was to revert vandalism. I'm not an expert nor do I have much in-depth knowledge on the subject, but I'd imagine that references on topics such as religion and early religion, and the traditions carried throughout them - would be quite old, since these traditions have been practiced for a very long time. I would examine the wording of the article and its references cited in order to figure out if these traditions you ask about are current and still in practice to this day. The article Oratory of Saint Philip Neri might help answer your question; have you read this article yet? Let me know if you have any more questions or need additional assistance, and I'll be more than happy to do what I can to help. If anything, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction or refer you to the correct help page in order to get your question answered. Either way, I'll make sure that you get help. Thanks again for your message :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
You bet; always happy to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

While you were away....

An editor attempted to remove a pair of comments made by other editors on your talk page, twice. Both times he was promptly and rightfully reverted by other watchful editors. However, he also attempted to leave a message at the same time, but that was removed in tbe reverts. That message should remain and be disposed of at your discretion. The message was;

collapsing original message

Hello

Can you please unblock 58.161.155.1 please thank you --115.186.196.218 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyBeachCentre (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Same message amd timestamp both times. I added the {{Unsigned}} template.

FYI - theWOLFchild 11:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thewolfchild - Thanks, man. I appreciate the heads up. I think this editor was also trying to ask me this same question on IRC the other day as well. It looks like an editor that might be violating their own IP block to ask that their IP be unblocked? I'm not sure. I'll need to look and see :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I just left the blocking admin a message letting them know that this username is also a violation as it is the exact match of an Organization. I'll let him carry out the decision regarding this user and the block placed on the account. Thanks again for the FYI. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Cote d'Azur

Hi Oshwah. Do you think User:Cote d'Azur is a username violation because technically there is a place called Cote d'Azur? Also, it seems unlikely that this editor is a Wikipedia:Master Editor just based upon the edits made with this account, but not sure if that's really an issue that needs to be addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: - Just so you know, Cote d'Azur has been here since 2008 and has almost 37,000 edits so far. There doesn't appear to be anything in the Wikipedia Username policy that prohibits using a name of a location as a username. FYI (Non-administrator comment) - theWOLFchild 11:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Since the WP:Master Editor requirements include at least 42,000 edits, that userbox is indeed misleading. Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
OMG! Really? Then somebody better do something... quick! Before anymore damage is inflcited on the project. Children might see that atrocious misuse of the 'master editor' thingy. >gasp!< Think of the children! [/sarcasm] - theWOLFchild 12:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
My Global edit counts shows 43,490 on All projects. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Cote d'Azur, the edit counts refer to EN-wiki only, not "all projects". Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wow. No wonder we have a problem keeping decent editors when they're harangued with this kind of nonsense. FFS. - theWOLFchild 12:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Service awards: To learn your edit count and the date of your first logged edit, click Preferences where this information will appear under View global account info. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Quoted directly from the Wikipedia Service Awards page; "These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty". I think we're done here. - theWOLFchild 12:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Well thanks, Cote d'Azur, I learned something! Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Apart from the edit count, the name of the "place" is Côte d'Azur not Cote d'Azur. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's call this one 'close enough'. :) Cote d'Azur is 9 years 5 months (6/16/2008 1:7) 36,882 edits, and that makes him a friend and valued editor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Anna Frodesiak, his edit count is 43,446 [9], because as he notes/quotes above, the service awards include global contributions. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just for the sake of clarity, per WP:SVC#What is counted? "If you want to count edits on other Wikimedia projects, that's okay too." It's not important though... just a bit of 'fun'. Eagleash (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks to everyone who responded. First of all, my sincerest apologies to Cote d'Azur. I don't know exactly how I mixed things up, but I probably had multiple windows opened at the same time and mixed up your contributions history with another editor, or just had a total brain freeze. Regardless, a silly error on my part, so once again sorry for that bit of drama. Next apologies to everyone else as well for stirring a pot that didn't need to be stirred. My bad all around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi there! Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. Yes, as said by Anna Frodesiak, Thewolfchild, and others here: Since this editor has made positive and constructive edits and contributions to the project, administrators will be much, much less inclined to hold their feet to the fire regarding a possible username violation (unless the violation is grossly egregious in nature and needs to be changes - and even then, we'll ask them to do so first without taking any action). Reports that are made to WP:UAA and others regarding username issues should be in regards to accounts that were just recently created; old accounts you happen to bump into that have made no edits, or accounts of long-term editors that have made good contributions will generally be left alone (with the usual exception I stated above, of course). If there are other questions about usernames, the username policy, or if an account is in violation of this policy - please don't hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be happy to take a look, answer your question, and explain the policy in regards to the given case (if applicable). I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving, and I wish you all happy editing :-)! Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"and others..." Gee, thanks. Oh well, Anna said I was a "friend and valued editor", which gave me a warm fuzzy feeling : ) - wolf 00:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thewolfchild - LOL! There - I added you as well. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thewolfchild - Also, your current signature doesn't link to your user space at all (the one right above that just says "wolf" and in red color) - unless you were just adding one with code as a one-off? If you changed your signature, I'd suggest changing it to this, so that other editors can click on it and go directly to your user page: [[User:Thewolfchild|{{color|red|wolf}}]]
It's up to you, obviously. Just adding a suggestion to help you out ;-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, just a one time thing. My sig is still hooked up. By the way, speaking of usernames that sound like places, I heard of a town up in Ontario Canada called "Oshawa". Coincidence..? - theWOLFchild 01:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thewolfchild - HA! I've had that mentioned to me a lot. There's even been users who've misspelled my username as that town as well. Coincidence, you ask? Yes. 100%. I knew nothing of that town's existence until other people here mentioned it to me... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The lunatic is back

Hi! This guy is back. Your assistance is very much welcome! Surtsicna (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna - I've blocked the IP for edit warring. Let me know if you see any more disruption like this and I'll be happy to take a look :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

71.55.216.64

Hi,

I think he's asking for his TPA to be revoked. What do you think? Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

J.T. Barrett

Thank you! I was in the process of deleting the change and saw that you did it. I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhombre329 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Elhombre329 - No problem. If you need help with anything, please don't hesitate to message me here an ask. I'll be happy to help you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And another one on User talk:JamesBWatson

IP contibutions Meters (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Meters - Thanks for the heads up. The IP is blocked. Let me know if you see any more pop up and I'll be happy to take care of them ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have changed

Because I know better than u and its my birth place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad abedi (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've responded to your message left below. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

denial of changes to guy Sebastian

here is the source http://www.hamishandandy.com/2017/guy-sebastian-polishes-musical-disaster/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.3.160.222 (talk • contribs)

Hi there! Thanks for the message! What you need to do is cite the source in-line with the article. The link I gave you here will show you how to do this if you don't know how. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's non-notable trivia, no? --NeilN talk to me 07:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
NeilN - I would say that you're correct, yes. I guess my priority with helping this user was to make sure that (s)he understood the importance of citing references to content they add or modify in articles. However, I guess by not addressing this issue as well, the user would ultimately be wasting their time just the same... I'm glad you mentioned this; I was debating whether or not to, and I probably should have. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

removing of my edits

I have edited chatta bazaar and u have removed this can I know the reasono — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad abedi (talk • contribs)

Hi Asad abedi, and thanks for leaving me a message with your question and your concerns. Your edits to Chatta Bazaar here and here, and your edit to Noorkhan Bazar here - did not cite any reliable sources with the content you added in order to verify its accuracy and authenticity. It appears that the content you added may be based off original research (experience, ideas, conclusions, etc. that you've made or written yourself - basically "citing yourself"), which is not allowed on Wikipedia. They're very important policies that help assure that the quality of articles within Wikipedia are within those of an encyclopedia, and it's important that you read and understand them. I highly recommend that you review both of these policies and guidelines, and let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them if you do. Thanks again for leaving me a message. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Guy sebastion edit

I tried again with the proper cite and used this link http://www.hamishandandy.com/2017/guy-sebastian-polishes-musical-disaster/, which is where the song was made, I then got a message saying i was doing "disruptive editing" and was vandalizing the page. which was not my intent whatsoever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.3.160.222 (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

sorry

Please forgive me this is my first time plus i really dont feel like getting in trouble il stop im sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMaN696969 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

New

New --Why Orshwannkr waste time with PatrolScript ? (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)



  • omg bro... how do you do it? - wolf 09:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Very carefully ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shahab.pishanidar/Archive

I just ran across an editor complaining that you had blocked his account[10] - I don't know which it is, do you want me to run a CU? Doug Weller talk 09:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller! It's good to talk to you again. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving holiday. Is this user is referencing information from the SPI you placed in the section header here? If so, this was an easy SPI with obvious behavioral similarities with all accounts involved. The user keeps trying to create those same articles and was (or possibly 'is') using multiple accounts to do so. In that case, I'd say sure... go for it. You're only going to pull data that would potentially confirm this account using information from Srmgh1990, since Checkuser data retention is only three months. If you run the check, let me know what comes back and I'll be happy to do what's needed if you need me to - just tell me what you need me to do. Thanks for the message and for the heads up. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I follow you "is referencing information" - the Mafiri account, which has never been blocked, is saying you blocked his account after he created an article for Pishanidar. He doesn't give the name of the blocked account but I'm guessing you blocked Srmgh1990. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller - "referencing information" simply meant "making any reference that would link this account to evidence or other information presented in the SPI". Aha! This edit the account made is a give-away. He referenced the Srmgh1990 account near his/her signature, which I did block per the SPI you linked above. I'd say that there's no question that this user is the same as the account in the SPI, per their own admission. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need anything else and I'll be happy to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller - FYI: I just opened a new SPI case for this user for record-keeping purposes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing done by me in wart

Hello Oshwah, Myself Dr. A.P.S.Chhabra, I made a small addition to article "wart" as it seemed to be necessary in the treatment of warts. Can u add that content again and if any clarification is required pls tell.

Thank u Dr A.P.S.Chhabra (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dr A.P.S.Chhabra, and thank you for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason I reverted your edit here was for a number of concerns. First, the content you added did not reference any reliable source at all. Your edit also had issues with neutrality. For example: stating that "homoeopathy is very effective in treating warts" is opinion-based and isn't in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on adding content to articles that reflect a neutral point-of-view. The topic of homoeopathy or alternative medicine (broadly construed and on any article anywhere on Wikipedia) is a current area of conflict on Wikipedia - and to such an extent that we have special authorizations and scrutiny enacted in this topic area (due to a past ruling by a committee). We need to be especially careful with how we add content in this topic area, and how we word things on articles in the area of medicine. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies, as well as our guideline on identifying reliable sources. These are very important pages to review and understand. Since you're new to Wikipedia, you should start by completing our Wikipedia tutorial. It will help you by showing you around the site, exposing you to typical situations and areas, and guiding you through how to perform basic tasks and functions here. From the feedback I get, most users say that they gain a much better understanding of things here when they complete this tutorial. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines, and we don't expect you to be perfect at all - so don't fret and don't worry! It's okay to be bold and fix things! You'll just need to keep your eyes open and listen to the feedback and input of others so that you can pick up on the different guidelines and improve things from there. If you have any more questions or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask me. I'll be happy to assist you. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for the message, and I hope you follow my recommendations and go through the tutorial and review the pages I linked you. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

New IP user, at this point only has a half-dozen edits, however all but one are to add a "cite" from a website called beautifullife.info which appears to be a user submission site. People send blog posts in advertising design related products. Submissions appear to be anonymous, as there is no author's name attached. There is very little info about the site itself. I don't know if this guy is just innocently adding a site he likes and thinks is a legit source, or if this is the beginning of some advert-spam. Either way, I think his additions will likely need to be dealt with in some form. Here's his contribs: Special:Contributions/86.58.52.10. Maybe you could also let me know the best way to deal with this if I come across a similar situation in the future. Thanks - theWOLFchild 14:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thewolfchild. I definitely see your concerns here. I'd start by giving the IP the benefit of the doubt until we have reason not to. Just explain on their talk page what you said here - the website isn't reliable per WP:UGC because it appears user-generated and opinionated, and that they should review this guideline on identifying reliable sources. Lets do that and see what happens from there. If trouble continues to brew, let me know and I'll be happy to try and lightly step in and help :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Again...

Look who's popped in and reverted, yet again, despite all your final warnings and my cont'd effort to engage (I tried his talk page again last night). I believe this is revert number 11, and again, no reply on the article talk. - theWOLFchild 15:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thewolfchild - I've blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring. However, because of the fact the more than one user seems to believe that these categories are not correct here, I'm going to leave the article as-is. You should do the same thing and leave things be, since you're involved in this as well. Start that discussion like I suggested above, and lets keep things there and see how it goes :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, one other editor once, (and I'm not even sure that wasn't him as well - he has reverted with at least 2 different accounts). Meanwhile, he has been challenged on his talk page by several experienced editors who challenged his cat removals as improper. I think both BRD and STATUSQUO apply here. The article should go back to it previous, widely avcepted form, not the current version he has BATTLED and EDIT-WARRED his way into. He been blocked for this revert, so the revert shouldn't stand. If its going to be changed, it should be changed the right way. - theWOLFchild 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thewolfchild - It's your call. I'm just letting you know what I recommend you do so that you don't step yourself into any hot water. You're welcome to take my advice or leave it; it won't hurt my feelings (lol). Just make sure that what you're doing is the right thing and that it isn't going to possibly get you zapped - that's all I ask... haha ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying (figuratively speaking), but... and with all due respect, I am going to revert. There are all the reasons and policies I just listed above to support this, plus I'm not violating 3RR or a warning and more importantly, if I don't, then nothing will happen He'll disappear, no discussion, no resolution. A fail for the dispute resolution process. If it's reverted, then when his block lifts, he has a choice...A) discuss on the talk page (finally) and hopefully we resolve this the right way, B) he foolishly reverts again, proving he's NOTHERE and just wants to BATTLE or C), he does nothing. Which means he had no real reason to revert. And the disruption stops. I think its the right thing to do. - theWOLFchild 15:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thewolfchild - Hey, like I said, it's your call - have at it. I trust that you're being careful and that you're making good decisions :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

About our change on external link to Ella Sri Lanka

Hi there,

Apologies if I'm doing anything wrong here.

I can not understand why I can't put an external link to the page which describer all about a location Ella Sri Lanka.

The visitella.com does not provide any paid services, but a information website which covers everything about Ella, Sri Lanka.

So do you think adding that as an external link is violating the wikipedia guidelines?

I'm new to wikipedia, so appreciate your guidence!

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishankasampath (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ishankasampath, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for leaving me a message with your questions. The external links you're adding to the article make it shift towards being an advertisement (either by enticing users to visit the website, or by enticing users to visit the place). You must remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. If you're looking to add travel information and tourist content, you might consider visiting our sister project, Wikivoyage, and starting an article there (in fact, you already have an account there! Since you have an account on Wikipedia, it goes with you to Wikimedia's other sister project sites!). That is the place where this kind of content and links may be more acceptable and geared towards. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Oshwah,

Thanks for you reply. Yes, just checked Wikivoyage and found a page about Ella.

Looks like thats where I should add more details.

Thanks for the guidance! Appreciate lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishankasampath (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You bet, and best of luck to you! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 note

Hey there, thanks for your detailed close at ANI on my IPv6 /64 block. I'm nowhere near as familiar with IPv6 addressing, but it's basically my understanding that a /64 basically represents the same sort of endpoint as an individual IPv4 address, so effectively at any time all addresses within a /64 block will be the same end user, but the /64 block can be assigned dynamically to different users at different times in the same way that IPv4 addresses are. Does that make sense? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector! You bet. Your description makes sense, for sure. IPv6 is quite a different beast compared to IPv4. If you're familiar with network addressing, subnet masking, and CIDR notation and what it actually refers to, IPv6 isn't too bad; you just have to get the hang of it is all. I'm not sure how much you know about IP addressing, but allow me to explain how it works... if you're at all interested in some IP knowledge... lol ;-)
Basically, the CIDR notation (/24, /16, /64, etc) refers to the number of bits that you're including in the range to block from editing. So, for example: lets say in "IPv4-land" that 192.168.0.2 (something easy) is causing disruption. In binary, 192.168.0.2 is 11000000.10101000.00000000.00000010. You'll see that there are 8 bits for each address block, totaling 32 bits. So, when you go to block a range on Wikipedia (say, 192.168.0.0/24) - you're saying grab the left-most 24 bits (so, 11000000.10101000.00000000) and IPs that edit from anything after that - are blocked, too. So 192.168.0.X are now blocked.
In IPv6, the important thing to note is that each IP block is not in base-10 (or 0-9) like IPv4; they're in hexidecimal or base-16 (hexidecimal increments from 0 to F). This means that each block is 16 bits in length (not 8, like IPv4). There's also eight IP blocks in IPv6 (where IPv4 only had four blocks) - totaling 128 bits in length (instead of 32 bits in IPv4). So when you block a /64 IPv6 range, (just like above) you're saying grab the left-most 64 bits, and IPs that edit from anything after that are blocked as well.
The big difference is how they're handed out to users. Where you'll see one IPv4 and a range of them (like my example above with 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.0/24), IPv6 addresses are commonly (not always, but commonly) handed out where the first half is kept by the network, and the second half is allocated to one person - so that second half can change like the situation you just saw. In a nutshell, what you're saying makes sense. If you see edits on an article by an IPv6 where the last four blocks are changing and the first four blocks are staying the same, it's the same person - block the /64. Because some networks can hand IPv6 addresses out differently - I usually only block the individual IPv6 address unless I see that it's changing like we've seen. Then I zap the /64.
I hope my long and boring response made some sense and that you didn't get bored out on me... lol. I do Corporate IT Administration and Software Engineering as a career, so naturally I'll have a geek-level of knowledge over this stuff.... haha. Let me know if you have questions or if anything doesn't make sense and you want to know more. I'll be happy to elaborate further :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that detailed explanation! I am familiar with the notations and ranges and bases and all that, I'm just not as up to speed on how they're assigned. This all makes sense to me, and I think would make a pretty good primer for other admins interested in range blocks. Cheers! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Ivanvector - Awesome! You bet; always happy to help. Until we meet again ;-) -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Beverly R (talk · contribs)

Hi Oshwah, I notice you've already rev/deleted some of this new user's edits for copyright violation. My concern is that everything they've added may be similarly unacceptable, but rather than answering my questions they're just messing around with an article heading. The sources appear to be People or Time magazine articles from the 90s, and I don't know if they easily show up in Google searches. Any light you can shed would be great. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I rev del'd two of her edits due to the fact that she didn't paraphrase what she was referencing, but instead copied the text word-for-word from the source... which... is a copyright violation. I reviewed both the Louise Bourgeois and Andrée Ruellan articles, and I didn't see any blatant copy-and-paste copyright violations that I saw with Eunice Golden (but definitely feel free to check as well, in case I missed something). Regarding the concerns you have with the edits made to Andrée Ruellan: It looks like she just needs to be educated and shown Wikipedia's manual of style (specifically, for section headings). You've done the right thing by not reverting the article any more - don't let yourself get sucked into edit warring ;-)! I'd leave things be and try talking to her on her user talk page, or starting an article talk page discussion. Remember: she's new. We need to give her the benefit of the doubt and try educating before anything else. We don't want to chew on her boots and drive her away; Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines... shoot, it took me at least six months before I felt like I was somewhat proficient with the basic ones. If trying to communicate or educate the user doesn't work, we can discuss things from there if they need be. Oh, and I'd also highly suggest to her that she go through and complete the Wikipedia tutorial. It's a big help to new users as well. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, or if you need help with anything else. I'll be happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'm walking away, but I don't trust their edits. She restored this [11] after I deleted it; it's not a reliable source. New doesn't get a lot of slack from me when they don't respond or communicate--if a new user genuinely welcomes guidance or is concerned about violating guidelines, silence isn't a good sign. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 858

Why have you put protection on the article after another random IP address'es trolling to censor content and bot removing it. "path of prospero" (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Chernobog95 - That's because there's an ongoing edit war and content dispute on the article. All editors involved need to take this dispute to the article's talk page and come to a consensus as to what the article content should be - edit warring is not allowed. You need to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and properly discuss and resolve these issues. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you further. I wish you happy editing, and that the discussion comes to a peaceful, quick, and positive resolution. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no need for discussion due to fact those are noname anonymous IP's and not registered users thus I can not have what you suggest in first place unless they have fixed IP which is doubtful as nearly everyone has dynamic IP. If you weren't aware of that then now you are aware, now its for me to see if you will accept or ignore this fact. First IP wrote NCE which is just acronym and I don't know meaning of it and if he meant NCEO then his reason is invalid as I haven't changed the meaning of the page while other IP complained about english of my addition which I note accepted the criticism yet it isn't valid reason/excuse/justification to remove the content. Those who have issues with my lack of effort in being gramaticaly correct have done edits that fixed that and for that I am thankful. They didn't have to do it, they could have notified me and I would have put more effort in it. The last one that removed content was a bot? Anyway I think I fixed majority of mistakes that native english speakers would have with me such as last noname anonymous user whose only dynamic IP is known which will change once he/she resets router or provider resets IP address. Chernobog95 - 26 September 2017 22:10 GTM1+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernobog95 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Chernobog95 - You must understand that this isn't about whose "right or wrong" or "who has an account vs who doesn't"; what you're describing here is a content-related dispute, and they need to be discussed and resolved by following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol - there's nothing more to it. When it comes down to the "bread and butter" of it all: that's Wikipedia's policy and that's what we need to do. Protecting the article will stop the disruption, and nudge everyone to take the dispute to the article's talk page. Because an editor doesn't have an account doesn't mean that you can't start a talk page discussion, notify the IP addresses on their talk pages and give them a link, and wait for the user to respond. The article is protected in order to be fair to all parties and not give favor to anybody - so that everyone involved will take the dispute to the proper place and resolve it. That's the fair, logical, and right thing to do in this situation. Being an administrator often comes with making decisions and taking action that will upset somebody (shoot, I've taken actions where it upset everybody) - but that comes with the responsibility, and is a reason why becoming one is very hard. I understand your frustration (and trust me, I've been there before), but this is the right decision and per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know. I'll be happy to assist you further. Again, I appreciate your messages and I will do my best to make sure that I at least answer your questions and point you in the right direction. Let's start a discussion, sort this thing out, and come to an agreement so I can unprotect the page and we all can move on and keep improving the project :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

 
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.- theWOLFchild 20:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well that was pretty damn quick. Cheers - theWOLFchild 20:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thewolfchild - LOL. You're all set. Thanks for the email :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

HI!

Just saying that you do an amazing job but you keep saying that i keep vandilizing but im not! Can you fix this error?99.229.125.80 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your talkpage doesn't exist, and you've never edited wikipedia from this address. Where are you being accused of vandalism? SQLQuery me! 01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for blocking no good users and reverting vandalism keep up the good work! Felicia (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Felicia777! Thanks for the Wikilove! I appreciate it very much, and I'm happy to see that my time contributing here is somewhat useful around here :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Adolph Hitler" main page

I would like you to monitor the activity on this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_18_November_2017

My request for addition of 2 paragraphs on the Adolph Hitler main page has been met by criticism from people who are closed minded amateurs. They control the webpage, they are unfamiliar with quality books, they are all about recent writings, triteness, and sarcasm. I added a request to join the editing team, and I'm sure they will have something to say about that, too. I would like to know who they are (meaning qualifications, academic background, & present employment). Is that possible? Thanks for your interest. You can reach me at the following email address: [REDACTED - Oshwah]

John Milner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Music man214, and thank you for leaving me this message with your questions and concerns. Looking at your edit request, the reason it was originally declined was due to the volume and size of the request you're trying to make. Edit requests typically involve non-controversial changes to the article that don't require discussion or significant scrutiny in order to be implemented. Your proposed changes are significant; they require much more discussion, input, and scrutiny than what an edit request is designed to review and accept with its process and procedures. This is why it was declined. It doesn't mean that your proposed changes are bad or that none of your proposed changes will improve the article... they're asking you to start a discussion on the article's talk page so that your proposed changes can have a deeper look and give other editors time to help review it and get it ready for implementation (if applicable).
It's not helpful nor does it make the process easier on anybody when you respond to the feedback and instructions other editors gave you and in the defensive and combative nature as you've been doing. You need to be accepting of the feedback and the instructions given to you; they're not trying to make your life harder or give you a hard time... their responses are completely for your benefit and to make the process easier and stress-free for you. These editors are certainly not "closed-minded amateurs" who "aim to control the article" to their liking and preference, as you've stated both here and in your responses to your edit request. These editors are proficient with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the proper procedures and processes involved with making large changes to content, how to assert verifiability and identify reliable sources with content that needs them, and with formatting your changes properly so that any incorporation of your changes are added to the article without big formatting messes or mishaps to clean up... this is why you need to let them help you.
You came here for my input, and my response to you is to collaborate positively and openly with them, and help them to help you! Asking me to find out "who they are" and give you their personal and private information is not only something I cannot do, but would be egregiously against Wikipedia policy if I were to even consider doing so. People who are closed-minded aren't those who take time out of their day try to help you... they are people who make the unfounded accusations and combative and defensive responses as you've been making. I'm not trying to personally attack you with that statement; I'm trying to help you see things in their perspective in hopes that you'll understand what I'm trying to tell you and that you'll let them help you. They're trying to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and they're trying to help improve the article if your changes do just that -- let them help you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Did I post my suggestions in the wrong place? I don't think so (The article's "Talk Page" is the Adolph Hitler main talk page. If there is a better place to have this matter discussed, please give me the link. BTW, my credibility is unchallengeable (I have cited source material that the other writers had missed), and I ask about qualifications only because of unprofessional conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs)
Music man214 - My apologies if I confused you; you're in the right place (the article's talk page). I just assumed that the editors who responded to your edit request asked you to start a new section on the same page so that they could close the edit request discussion is all. So long as you let them help you and you follow their recommendations, you'll be fine and your proposed changes will be reviewed and the right changes will be made to the article (if applicable) to reflect improvements and with your changes in-mind. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New subspecies declaration

    I was and am making a declaration of a new subspecies of robin and naming it Turdus Bergensii. The species does have white spots/feathers in it's hood and does not migrate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybee1960 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

‎A barnstar for you!

  The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for helping me unbreak Huggle! Phuzion (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Phuzion! Thanks for the WikiLove! You bet; always happy to help. If you run into any more issues or if you need my help with anything on Huggle, you're more than welcome to ask me here and I'll be happy to give you a hand :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Fox and Friends

How odd! I do not recall making this edit, and it's certainly not something I would do intentionally. I'm ... going to change my WP password :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudineChionh (talk • contribs) 06:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your account is probably fine, ClaudineChionh. The edit you're referring to here was made by an IP address, or (assuming this is you) - while you were logged out. By the way, I'll be happy to redact these diffs from my talk page if you have concerns about your privacy. Let me know and I will do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. I usually stay logged out unless I'm editing (which I don't do very often these days), and must have got confused. ClaudineChionh (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
ClaudineChionh - Are you using a shared IP address here? It seems strange that vandalism was added to the article, yet you came here and claimed the edit to be apparently made by you and thinking that your account was compromised... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please reverse your close

Primefac, RoySmith please explain to Oshwah why Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegations should not be prematurely closed - this is getting to be ridiculous. MelanieN, Drmies - it appears Volunteer Marek has started bludgeoning editors who voted Delete, and I'm seeing growing concern among POV warriors who refuse to let that AfD run its course. We clearly have socks who have participated to add to the KEEP iVotes, and I'm not sure why Oshwah decided to close it, but please, something has to be done...I've never seen anything like this throughout my entire time as an editor. I've already had to reverse a NAC soon after it was reopened. This AfD may also be a good place for CU to weed out some socks. Atsme📞📧 14:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme:, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from making personal attacks about me on other users' talk pages. Also, you might want to look in the mirror. Volunteer Marek  14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, there's no such thing as "premature close" here. You can't demand to keep an AfD open until you get the result you happen to like. Volunteer Marek  14:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
At 11 days open, there is nothing "premature" about a close. If it ends up relisted, it's relisted, but there is nothing saying that it cannot be closed. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Primefac - it was only open 4 days (start Nov 15 - end Nov 19) before it was improperly closed as NAC. The closing statement included: No prejudice against re-nomination after the election is done. The election is Dec 12th, so the whole thing smells political to me. The article stayed closed for 5 days until I finally figured out how to get it reopened. It was just opened again yesterday and substantive deletes are being added. Primefac, according to your 11 day scenario, when does the 11 days begin and end considering the in-between improprieties and premature closes? It certainly appears to involve some POV warrior activity with a push to quickly close as keep before the election, especially in light of the sock activity and the KEEP iVotes by questionable brand new editors. Oshwah is wanting to close it in a few hours according to his edit summary. I would rather a completely uninvolved admin come in and review the AfD after it has a chance to run 11 days, especially in light of what has happened - and I think it's only fair if the closing admin evaluates the iVotes by brand new editors. Is that too much to ask? I'm also concerned this could be considered an attack page with BLP violations considering the list of victim names which side-steps WP:BLPNAME, WP:WELLKNOWN and NPOV. I will respect a proper close and proper evaluation of consensus once the AfD has had a chance to run its course without unnecessary disruption, and I think that's only fair based on the socks and IAR activity. Atsme📞📧 15:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't find much fault with the close--it seems to reflect the tenor of the discussion, sadly. Like the Weinstein case I think all this is way too close to NEWS. I don't see VM bludgeoning, by the way--there's just a few comments relative to the whole discussion, and "Also saying "someone on twitter said so" is... well, silly" is correct. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, I lost you at "Also saying "someone on twitter said so"...are you referring to VM's response to another editor? Atsme📞📧 02:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations

Hi,

Your typo fix is still wrong  . Adam9007 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 - ARGH! I love it when I go to fix a typo, and I end up adding another typo alongside the first fix.... lol. Thanks for letting me know - the deed has been done (and correctly this time!) :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I hate it when I fix one problem, only to discover another, or worse, it actually causes another problem. I get that a lot when fiddling around with computers. Adam9007 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I coined the phrase "yupo" on Wikipedia because of the level of idiot that I've achieved in the past. A "yupo" is when you edit a page to fix a typo, and you add a typo in your edit summary describing that you're fixing a typo. It came from... you guessed it... a typo I made to the the word "typo" in my edit summary when I was editing an article... to fix a typo. Yes, I have achieved that level of stupid. lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if it's deliberate, but don't you mean "that level of idiocy" and "that level of stupidity"? (Yes, I'm a grammar nazi  ). Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It was deliberate :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User:GlasgowGladiators

Hi again Oshwah. Another question about usernames, etc. User:GlasgowGladiators appears to be working on a draft on their user page about a wheelchair football team named Glasgow Gladiator and their username appears to be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. I've posted some things on their user talk about usernames, COI editing, and userpage drafts, but I'm not sure they understand such the information in those posts. They appear to be a new SPA whose only edits are related to this draft. They seem to also be having difficulty with image licensing and have uploaded files to Commons which have been deleted or will soon be deleted as copyvios. Anyway, I've suggested the user move this content to their sandbox or another user subpage, but there's been no response. Any suggestions on how to proceed here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly - Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Did you report this to UAA? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No I did not. I just added a template to the user's talk page. FWIW, they apparently have moved what they were working on to Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC and blanked their userpage. A new account has also appeared as KJMClark1966, however. This account was used to re-upload the infobox logo to Commons (I have just removed it from the article) which was previously deleted twice per c:COM:L by two seperate Commons admins. I have tagged the file with c:Template:Fair use, so it will almost surely be shorty be deleted as well.
GlasgowGladiators did blank their userpage, and replaced it with {{Userspace draft}}; so, apparently they did see the user talk page post(s) I left. It's also possible they saw the post I added about usernames and decided to abandon the account and edit as KJMClark1966. If that's the case, then I'm not sure if a softblock of the username is needed, at least not as long as the account remains unused. Also, if this is the same person, then I don't think this is really a case of WP:SOCK as long as they stick to the KJMClark1966 account for here on. My concerns now are (1) about the repeated unploading of the infobox file to Commons and other likely copyvios to Commons, and (2) possible COI (even perhaps paid) editing regardless of who is behind the accounts. As it currently stands, "Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC" is completely unsourced and of questionable notability per WP:ORG. I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion unless the content is a blatant copy-paste copyvio from the club's official website, but it is at risk of Prod or AfD. This also might be a case of the creator(s) misunderstanding what Wikipedia's about (particularly WP:NOTWEBHOST. Someone else has already tagged it with {{Unsourced}}, and I was going to add {{Notability}} and {{COI}} tags as well, but figured I see what you or your talk page watchers might have to say first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Marchjuly - As long as the user stopped using the first account and has completely switched to using a different one, (s)he wouldn't be in violation of WP:SOCK. If that's not the case, let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance

Hlo Oshwah, Yes I will go through the tutorial and then only take any further step. Thank you for your guidance and keep guiding wherever you feel necessary Dr A.P.S.Chhabra (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr A.P.S.Chhabra - You bet; always happy to help. If you need more help with anything, don't hesitate to message me here and I'll be happy to do so. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hamid

رمز جی میل میخام — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.36.59 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This translates to "I need Gmail code". . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Weird. Umm... okay then? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Help With Userboxes

Hey Oshwah, I need a bit of help with getting my user boxes to be organized and not take up so much space. Can you help? Thanks! . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

LakesideMiners - Sure, no problem. What exactly are you trying to do? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like something like [12]. If you look right now, I have them going down the side of the page. I was able to get something like what I linked , but the tops of the groups were not alined, unequal spacing in between,ect. so I moved it to how it is now. You think you could help me get something like I have above? Thanks . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 17:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@LakesideMiners: how about this? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
YES! THANK YOU User:Writ Keeper. . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 18:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Writ Keeper - Thanks for helping LakesideMiners out. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Haha, you're both welcome. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Side Note: Who do you think is the youngest editor on Wikipedia? [REDACTED - Oshwah]. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 19:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure - probably quite young. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm just thinking of 2 year old in diaper siting in front of the computer on huggle. . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 19:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I admit to nothing. I've been long out of diapers and should be off the pull-ups soon... we'll see ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, diapers would allow you to edit Wikipedia for longer periods of time. My parents would freak if I did that though. LOL! I will admit that does sound kinda comfy. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 19:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
LakesideMiners - Oh... dude! What a good idea! I mean.... *clears throat*. Yeah... that's weird... something I'd never ever consider doing :-P. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Reminds me of this Paraphilic infantilism, I have done a bit of googling on this, not all sexual, kinda cute sometimes to be honest. Also, you seem to LOVE emotes OwO. Also This is geting so long that I think it should be moved here User:LakesideMiners/ThatOtherTalkPage Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 19:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick question...

You recently undeleted a LONG ago post from a troll at the ref desks, here. While I'm not really concerned about whether or not such posts are or are not rev-deleted, is there any reason why an 18-month old post from a one-off IP address with no other history needed modification? Unless there is some other history here, it seems like a waste of time and resources to spend a second on that. Just curious. --Jayron32 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32 - I just ran into it while unblocking the IP from an indefinite block and saw that edit in the IP's contributions. The only thing I unredacted was the IP address (the rest was completely fine and needed it); it just looked like it was done accidentally and I was simply fixing it. I guess I'm just a "kill a few birds with one stone" kind of guy :-)... I'm fixing one issue and I see another that can be quickly fixed, why not just do it while I'm here? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Yeah, it's not a problem, I was just trying to figure out how you even found the edit. Makes total sense now. Carry on. --Jayron32 17:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Jayron32 - Cool deal; you're always welcome to ask me about anything like this - even if you're just curious. I have no problem with explaining ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I really like lasagna

i really like lasagna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaboogabee123 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Lake here, I added a header to the Users's message. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 16:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey Oshwah! Can we get this guy some lasagna? . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 17:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-11&oldid=1084173669"