User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-10

You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from October 2019. 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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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.

SPI Case open for 19 Days

Can you check out this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yaysmay15 SPI please? has been open for 19 days and abuse from IP is on going. Thanks. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

LakesideMiners - Sure, I can take a look at it. What's going on? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.71.120.251 seems to be a sock of LTA WP:Yaysmay15. Same pages that are normally targeted by the LTA are being edited by that IP and edit summary’s used by LTA are the same that the IP is using. It could also be someone impersonating the LTA as the IP is out of the range that Yaysmay15 normally uses. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

LakesideMiners - I'm sorry for the extreme delay with looking into the SPI case and responding to your request here. I've updated the SPI report and closed it. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

LakesideMiners - No problem! Happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Michelle McManus

Oshwah, in late August you gave Michelle McManus a month's pending changes protection because of BLP-violating vandalism. That expired today, and this edit was made. Would you consider extending the protection? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wham2001! I apologize for the delay responding to your message and your request here. Looking at the edit history, I see that disruption has been ongoing - the most recent of which was rev del'd by an admin. Let's keep an eye on this article for now. If disruption returns to the article, let me know and I'll be happy to take another look. It's a bit difficult to justify protecting the article after four days have elapsed with no disruption, not to mention the fact that another admin, after redacting a revision, declined to apply protection to it himself. If you watch the article and report disruption to me as soon as it happens, I'll be able to justify protecting it then. ;-) Thanks again, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you Oshwah, I follow your reasoning and that sounds like a plan. I have the article on my watchlist. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Wham2001 - No problem; always happy to help! :-) Let me know how things go, and if I need to take another look at anything going on at that article - I'll be happy to do so. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete file please?

Hello Oshwah,

It is nice to meet again (you probably remember me as UpsandDowns1234). I was wondering if you could delete this file. The file was licensed under the MIT license but I accidentally flagged it as a copyrighted screenshot. Wikipedia does not have a template for MIT but Wikimedia Commons does. I reuploaded the file there and attached the correct license. So can you please delete the local copy? Thanks, Awesome Aasim 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. Someone else already handled it. Awesome Aasim 19:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Awesome Aasim - No worries; sorry for the late reply. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Indian Chefs

Why did you revert my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.100.241 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I just look a look back over the last year, and I've only made two changes to this article that did not revert the changes made to it. Can you point out exactly when and where you feel this has happened so that I can take a look? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Alexandre Pato

I should be thinking better that one IP address would not be enough for immediate page protection. But, if another IP address is doing the same thing in the future with 36 hours left of the block you've set, there should be a better chance of the page being protected without the unprotected error that you did to remove the indefinate move. Iggy (Swan) 12:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan - I'm looking into this. Please stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan - I appreciate your feedback and thoughts. :-) If I declined to protect a page because of the behavior of one IP user, then that is a justified cause; I don't protect pages in the event that one user is causing mayhem and nobody else is at the same time. However - if I see that there's a history or a likelihood that the shenanigans (lol) is going to continue (or is continuing) from more than one source or person, I won't hesitate to take action and protect the page. In your case, if a user is continuing to be an asshat on the article after I've blocked "the sole user" and before that user's block expires, please let me know as soon as possible so that I'm aware of it and can put a "kibosh" to the matter. I'm sorry if I didn't do my duty and act in this case, but please be assured that I will in the future. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

For once, I've missed the usual *ping* from replied threads which I'd started. Usually that happens in Swansea nighttime therefore I don't see that straight away. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 10:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan - HA! No worries! I hope my response answered your questions here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Persistent "periodic" vandalism

Hello Oshawh,
Almost every day, I look closely at my watchlist to see IP addresses or users who have changed Wikipedia articles to see who changed what. Occasionally I have spotted IP addresses which begins with the same numbers. We are in the time of year when it goes past a certain date, I am familiar and suspicious that someone has been vandalising certain articles periodically. I have narrowed it down with the IP range and the following is the widest range (below) to be absolutely sure of the pattern of the edits found, the primarily affected pages being Jack Cork and Joe Hart.
You may study the edits of 84.9.231.0/22 before a range block. Other page watchers might have been aware of this but I would like to talk about this issue as I am fairly confident that some form of persistent vandalism has taken place over themed articles over the weeks. This disruption I feel needs to stop just like the Alexandre Pato article that I've posted earlier on today. Cheers. Iggy (Swan) 14:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iggy the Swan! I apologize for the delay responding to your message and your concerns here. I took a look at the IP range; it's definitely been causing disruption and that range has been blocked before. I applied a one-month vandalism block to it. Let me know if this resolves your issues and concerns, and let me know if it continues from another range. I'll be happy to take another look if that becomes the case. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

These days, the disruption focused on changing a picture from a famous person to a lion and the vandal hoped Iggy's hands would be bitten off by one, changing another famous person to the name "Jonathan Field" and putting move requests on the linked talk page. That 31 hour block was certainly too small as it disrupted Wikipedia once again. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 10:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan - Wow, this user sounds like a friendly and legit person........ lol. I hope that the range block resolves the issue and the disruption. Like I said, please don't hesitate to let me know if you notice any continued disruption that you believe are by this person, and I'll be happy to take a look. Keep up the great work that you do here, and we'll speak again soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:GARY_809, User:AH999 and User:21 Lilac Street

The same Sockpuppet User:GARY_809, User:AH999 and User:21 Lilac Street now in Bernardo Espinosa. Cheers. Fcbjuvenil (talk) 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Fcbjuvenil - Thanks for letting me know. I apologize for the delay responding to your message... it looks like another admin has taken care of the issue. If this isn't true and if disruption by this user is still ongoing, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Church of Saint Sava

Hell Oshwaho. I just have a quick question regarding this article, Church of Saint Sava, and edits from 28 September till now. I want to report it, but I am not sure exactly to which category this behavior falls in and where should I post my request. Thanks. PajaBG (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi PajaBG! I apologize for the delay responding to your question here. Looking at the edit history of the article in question, this behavior is edit warring, or the act where two or more users involved in an editing or content dispute, instead of discussing the dispute on the article's talk page, will continuously revert the article or page in a back-and-fourth manner in order to restore their preferred version of the page over the version of the other user. "Edit warring" is probably something you've heard of, as well as the "three-revert rule". However, edit warring does not mean that the "three-revert rule" must be violated in order for it to be considered a violation of the edit warring policy. Edit warring is the behavior and the act of revert the article or page in a back-and-fourth and combative fashion with another user instead of following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and discussing the matter peacefully with the other user involved. If you need to report this behavior, you can do so by creating a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them.  :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and don't worry about the delay. First, I would like to apologize for that "Hell Oswaho" at the beginning of my previous post :) I hope the problem was settled as in the end I reported it to Edit warring. Administrator warned the editor, he continued for couple more times, but for now things are quiet. Thanks anyway and take care PajaBG (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Biblioteca Marciana

Template:Biblioteca Marciana has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

SPI archive notice

Hi Oshwah! I'm not sure why I came across them but I just found two redirects from "merged" SPI cases pointing to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codename Lisa, where you replaced the old cases with redirects, rather than the proper procedure for merging SPI case pages. The procedure is roughly documented at WP:SPI/PROC under "advanced clerking" ("No case is currently active for the account that we wish to file the case as, but a prior case has been filed" section). Essentially it consists of history-merging the main case pages (move the old page over the target page, then restore all deleted revisions), and then replacing the redirect left behind at the old case page with "{{SPI archive notice|<new filing name>}}". This one was from a few months ago and I'm in the process of finishing it up, but I thought I'd point this out to you since I haven't really been paying attention and I'm not sure if anyone's pointed out the right process before, or even mentioned where the clerk procedures page is for that matter. Let me know if you have any questions! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector! Good call with the merge attempts and the proper procedure... I totally forgot that I did that. Yeahhhh... I realized later that I wasn't doing some things perfectly right; I just didn't go back and fix the ones that I dun goof'd on. Thanks for letting me know and for the reminder. Yes, if I run into any clerking procedure or technical questions, I'll definitely let you know. Thanks again for the heads up, and I apologize if my goofs caused any inconvenience or frustration upon you. It was certainly not my intent. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably no need to go looking for others, I mean it's obvious what you were intending and anyone with even a tiny bit of clue can follow the case history through a redirect (as opposed to a merge). We can just clean them up as (if) we find them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Sounds good; thanks again for the message and for letting me know. I'd much rather have issues or mistakes that I've caused be discovered and brought to my attention rather than have them go undiscovered and where I'd keep repeatedly making them without being aware - even if those mistakes are factored against me in future discussions or standing for user rights or tools. It sucks to learn that I've made mistakes, messed something up, or that reservations or hesitation exists regarding my ability to handle tools and be trusted; regardless, I'll work through it and I appreciate it a lot! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from same IP

An article I tend to (Sylvania,_Ohio) had some recent edits by this IP: User_talk:24.52.114.132. They were nonsensical, clearly a joke.

You had blocked this IP back in September 2017, it would appear they're back at it again.

Just a heads up; cheers! A sentient pickle (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi A sentient pickle! Thanks for letting me know, and please accept my apologies for the delayed response. It looks like the disruption to that article has stopped, so I'm going to hold off on taking any administrative action. However, if you see any disruption continue on this article or by the IP user, please let me know and I'll be happy to take another look at it. :-) Thanks again! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible duplicate articles

Hello Oshwah, could you please have a look at these two articles: Vuyalavada Narasimha Reddy and Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy. The content seems to indicate that both articles are referring to the same person. Should we ask for the deletion of one of them? Which is the correct procedure in this case? Thanks in advance, --DoebLoggs (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @DoebLoggs: I think you're right, both articles are on the same person, and both have been on Wikipedia for more than ten years. I've redirected Vuyalavada Narasimha Reddy to Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy simply because the latter is the better article, and now the history of the former article is preserved under the redirect. A question for you: is "Vuyalavada"/"Uyyalawada" an honorific? Throughout the article the person is referred to only as "Narasimha Reddy", and I'm wondering if the article should be moved to that title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that Vuyalavada/Uyyalawada is the name of the village where this person was born. Both articles mention that with the corresponding different spelling. I briefly searched the internet and both names seems attested. I would exclude an honorific though. --DoebLoggs (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: --DoebLoggs (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Thank you for taking care of this while I was offline. I appreciate it a lot! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yw! I'm still not quite sure that the article should be at Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy instead of Narasimha Reddy, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the topic to formulate a rationale for a move request, and it's obviously not hurting anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You could always start a requested move discussion anyway, and just state that you're just looking for community input and thoughts regarding which would be better... Can't hurt anything by doing so, but I'll leave that up to to you. Thanks again for being there while I was offline. I appreciate it a lot. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Dussehra

Wishing you and your family, best wishes on Dussehra --DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray! Thanks for the message and for the well wishes! I hope you're having a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Making Mistakes

I was ready to be blocked from editing last night by 75.191.40.148 because that they are new album releases on December 6 and that they are ture statements. Can you save me from this mistake please i would accept that. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) OP you cannot be blocked by another editor unless they are an administrator. An editor who edits from an IP address (just as you yourself do) is not an administrator. If you added unsourced material to the article you should not be surprised if it is removed... after all the times you've posted at the help desk you should know this by now. The message at your talk page was not wholly appropriate (IMO) but I am not aware if there has been any prior history at this page. Nothing will happen unless you continue to post unsourced material, in which event, you could be blocked. If you do reinstate the content make sure you reference it appropriately. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Please do not alter the time of your posts after they've been autosigned. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah How You Doing 75.191.40.148 said last night that i would be blocked from editing becuase i was putting Album releases on December 6 and that they are ture statements can you talk with 75.191.40.148 about the matter please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You have been given an answer in the earlier thread.

• Note: This post was actually made at 02:56 on 10 October (per page history) and not at the time stated. It is also in the wrong place (new threads go at the end). (Moving to correct location). Eagleash (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@68.103.78.155: You are not in trouble, the IP user that you are referring to is not going by the rules and is just following your edits. Eagleash has the general idea, but I cannot see any issues that you made with your edits. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: Thanks for 'chipping in'. It is always better to have a source but pages of this type are often haphazard in that respect. The 'final warning' is not right as you suggest. Eagleash (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Eagleash, Super Goku V - Thank you both for responding and for helping this IP user while I was offline. I appreciate it very much, and I wish you both a great day and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

IP 171.33.199.186

Hi Oshwah. You warned this IP about WP:DE back in 2017, but they appear to be back. It's tagged as a school account so there's a good chance it's not the same person as before. I thought about WP:ANV this time, but I'd figured I run it by you first since you seem to have been the last admin to have issued the IP a warning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly! Thanks for the message and the information regarding this school IP. Since your initial message, the IP made another disruptive edit here which I just reverted and warned the IP user for. If anyone's edits are clear vandalism, blatant trolling, etc., and they keep repeating their behavior despite just being given warnings, just file a report at AIV - no need to ask or get approval before doing so. :-) Even if an admin declines your AIV report, if you're reporting legitimate vandalism and with the good faith belief that the user needs be blocked for their recent behavior, it won't be a big deal. :-) Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or provide you with any more input, and I'll be happy to help. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I only because it was a school IP and wasn't sure how that would work since it's most likely not the same person playing around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly - No problem; always happy to help! Yeah, no worries at all - school IPs are often the source of repeated vandalism and abuse, and are blocked with this in mind. Many school IPs are often blocked for long periods of time - as long as three years in duration - due to repeated vandalism and disruption to the project. Fear not; if it walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Don't be intimidated, question your good judgment, or make yourself feel as if there's more to what you see. Generally, there isn't, and you're going with the experience and foresight that you've accumulated on Wikipedia when you act in good faith and report such users for administrative review and action. :-) Of course, I must also commend you for asking questions and seeking thoughts and input in situations where you're not 100% sure what should be done - even if you feel that such questions and requests are stupid. There are no stupid questions here if they're asked in good faith, and I will never treat such questions as "stupid", nor will I give anyone a hard time for asking them. If you ever feel that there is no place where you can go, or no person you can reach out to with your question or request and out of fear that you'll be put down for asking them - rest assured, you will always be welcome here and you will always be given the help that you need. :-) Keep up the great work, and I hope you have a great day. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Help needed please - October 2019

Hi Oshwah,

I'm posting this message anonymously because I know that my account's contributions page is being monitored. I am hoping that the accounts in question will become evident as you read this. I am sending this message to you because I noticed that you have certain select powers as an admin and thus I am hoping that you might be able to provide some kind of help that other admins cannot.

For some time now, my accounts have been subject to a sustained, if intermittent campaign of harassment. Every few weeks or months, an editor has been posting messages to my talk page such as [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this one] that are thinly-veiled personal attacks. This editor has used dynamic IPs, a virtual private network, multiple sockpuppets and single-purpose accounts to do this. My talk page has been repeatedly protected, but he often resurfaces within hours of that protection expiring. I had hoped that when I created a new account, [[REDACTED - Oshwah] but that is not the case]. It is quite clear that he has not intention of stopping, and admin actions mean nothing to him. Another admin is taking care of the current issue (I do not want to be stepping on his toes here), but in the past few hours it took a disturbing turn when the editor posted [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this]. This section in particular concerns me:

"I do have problems with my mental health. I have intrusive thoughts going back to when [editor one] and his lackey [editor two] worked for literal days to destroy my mental wellbeing, personally attack my character, and have me banned."

I do not know what I have done to antagonise this editor. All I asked at the time is that he be civil and that he observe policies when editing. When he repeatedly refused and made a series of abusive posts, I referred him to ANI and he was blocked. It was shortly after that that his habit of posting to my talk page began. There was certainly no conspiracy against him. I did not intend to destroy his wellbeing, attack his character or have him banned. Nor did I ever slander him.

What I find disturbing about this most recent message is that this editor clearly will not stop until he gets what he wants. His habit of monitoring my contribution pages is bordering on stalking and his actions are effectively cyber-bullying. I do not want to sound melodramatic here, but because of this editor I do not feel completely safe editing Wikipedia anymore. I know enough about digital security to know that I know practically nothing and I am feeling vulnerable because of it. The editor admits to having problems with his mental health and that I am the focus of it because he blames me for his ban. I don't know what to do about it because all the admins have ever been able to do is add various levels of protection to my talk page and hope that he get tired. Can you please help me? [REDACTED - Oshwah] 13:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I've suppressed your IP address information from this discussion as well as the edit history of this page in order to protect your privacy. Next time, if you need to contact me without publicly giving out your account username in fear that you'll be harassed further, all you need to do is email me instead. :-) By purposefully messaging me on my user talk page and while being logged out (as you did above), you exposed your IP address and other subsequent information that's tied to it. Any user with some knowledge and experience with "connecting the dots" will be able to find out what account you are by clicking on the diffs you provided above, and now they have your IP address, which they can use to look up your geolocation, ISP, and other such information - more weapons in their arsenal that they can use to further harass, intimidate, and scare you with. Don't do that to yourself! :-)

My technical abilities as an administrator are the exact same as all other administrators - they can do the exact same things as I can on Wikipedia (such as block, delete, protect, etc), but may have different or varying levels of experience and know-how involving how to fully investigate, interpret evidence, and take appropriate action that resolves a given issue. I am also an oversighter, but that doesn't grant me additional abilities that would allow me to resolve this issue any better than other admins who aren't oversighters. If the user made past edits that were suppressed, I obviously have the ability to see those, but that's all. I do have extensive experience with harassment and helping users who are constantly being harassed because of the fact that I'm very often the target of harassment, doxxing and outing attempts, death threats, and the like. I'm sorry that you're facing repeat harassment by this user, and that it's calling your comfort and safety into question when you edit Wikipedia. That's the last thing I'd want to hear is going on, and I'll be more than happy to help assure your safety and give you the resources in order to handle future harassment attempts. :-)

The best thing to do when someone messages you in order to harass, vandalize, threaten, or troll you is to completely ignore them. Don't respond to the messages, don't talk about it publicly on Wikipedia where the user can see that you're clearly reacting to their attempts, don't even remove the messages from your talk page - let someone else do that. As "thinly veiled" and specific that you believe these messages are aimed toward you as a person, the truth of the matter is that 95% of the time, they have absolutely no idea of who you are, where you live, and where and how to find you. Users who harass and abuse this project often are those who have the skill and experience to connect an account to another account, use VPNs, proxy servers, and other methods to evade blocks and bans and get around them, and make their words, threats, and their attempts at harassing and scaring other users have the effect that they're looking for by making their words appear as if they're on to you and will find you...

The underlying bread-and-butter to it all is that their mission is to troll and to harass in order to accomplish a given objective and get their way. Trolls require attention, and trolls require recognition in order to make them feel that all the time and energy they've been spending to abuse Wikipedia and harass you is worth it, as well as motivate them to keep doing what they're doing. It's like the "big brother vs little brother" analogy that I often give to others here: We've all been in the situation where we've poked, prodded, pinched, or teased someone - and their negative reaction to what you were doing to them encouraged you to keep doing it to them again and again... much like what things a big brother often does to their little brother. Had this person not reacted or showed any level of care or attention to your pokes and prods, you would've gotten bored of it and moved on. This works the exact same way with trolls... all you need to do is deny them any kind of recognition or response and they'll eventually get bored of it and stop. Denying recognition is what I do with each message I receive that attempt to harass, threaten, insult, or doxx me on Wikipedia (which they've always done incorrectly or unsuccessfully... lol). I completely ignore their attempts and give them absolutely no reaction in return. I go even further... When I block LTA users and trolls, I don't even put a link to the SPI page, their master account username, or any overly specific details in the block reason and summary. I just tag it as "sock puppetry". If they made harassing edits, messages, and threats, or (sometimes) other edits that give out who they are (AKA a "signature" or "calling card"), I rev del those edits with "WP:DENY" as the reason. I take all of their efforts and motivations to keep up what they're doing and I take them away, and I know that it's working when I start getting harassment aimed toward me all of a sudden... ;-)

Of course, like I always say to other users: If a message makes you feel threatened, unsafe, scared, or that your life is in any kind of danger - you should absolutely follow all of the advice that's given on this page, no questions asked. However, I feel that once you start taking my advice above, you'll eventually find this user to be spending less of their time on you, and they'll eventually move on. No matter how hard, how frequent, how bad it gets, do not let up. Don't give them any kind of attention or recognition. By letting yourself become scared and feeling unsafe, taking a break or leaving Wikipedia, responding with reactions and the like, removing the harassment yourself, and/or doing anything else that would motivate them to keep up their shenanigans, all you're doing is giving them exactly what they want.

I'm available any time you need me; please don't hesitate to reach out to me if there's anything I can do in order to help put an end to this ongoing harassment. Again, I'm sorry that you're being targeted with this rubbish, and that it's starting to get to you. Just follow my advice, keep me in your back pocket for when you need to reach out for help, keep doing the awesome things you're doing, and this will all pass by.... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

OUP access

Hey Oshwah, i hope that all is well for you. I wanted to have your insight about an issue. About 2 months ago, i asked for an OUP access through the Wiki library, few days later, i received an email confirming that i was granted the access. In the same message, i was said to wait a few weeks before receiving further informations about the access, however, since then, nothing. Any idea ? Wish you a great rest of your day mate.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your question. What date did you receive the email confirming that you were approved for access to the resource? "A few weeks" usually means (to me, at least...) 3 weeks to a month. If a month has gone by since the time that you were emailed and informed that your request for access was approved, make sure that you check your spam folder, as well as your trash, and any inbox folders that you've created email inbox rules for that automatically redirect emails given certain conditions. Often, people are given login credentials by way of an email arriving from a noreply or system email from the service bot as an automatic action following the creation of your login, not from the same email address that was used to inform you of their decision and approval. This can trigger spam filters to flag and redirect the email you're looking for - especially if it appears to be unsolicited and from a sender that you've never communicated with before (which is a common scenario).

Looking at this page, if you're sure that nothing was accidentally filtered or rerouted in your email inbox, I would recommend sending an email to wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org with your questions and concerns. Just politely express concern due to having not been contacted with credentials to access the resource, and ask if everything is okay, and if things are - if they'd be willing to give you an estimated timeline as to when you'll have your login created. Hopefully, someone will get back to you and let you know what's going on. ;-) Please let me know if I can help with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Oshwah, thank you very much for your kind and detailed response. I received the mail from "Card platform Wikipedia library" on august 19 (two months ago). I also checked my trash can with no success. I will follow your advice and email the Wikipedia library. Thank you very much for your help. Wish you a great rest of your day mate. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani - No problem; always happy to help! Keep me updated and let me know how it goes. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

"Pinehouse Photography Club" Page request edit/help

Pinehouse Photography Club has been nominated for deletion Good day! I tried creating this page but Im am stuck because Im told there is no notible resources, and I am a conflict of interest. I believe I published the page too quickly and didnt have time to complete it before it was nominated. I should have keep it as a draft until it was ready. Now I know lol. Im a nurse who started the organization a few years ago so I can see where someone would think I am a COI. But I have no ties or connection to it now for a few years. I basically just know about them and believe it meets the guidelines. Could you please look it over and give me suggestions? --Dreerwin (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Marlon James

You removed my addition to Marlon James the Jamaican author because I believe you said it was not constructive or similar. The addition was that he is openly gay. I'm sorry if that offends you, but the author is very proud of his homosexuality, and considers it to be a central part of his being. This is the 21st century. Being homosexual is no longer shameful - at least in my eyes nor in the eyes of the subject, even if it is in your eyes. I suggest you apologise for your homophobia to me and the subject and put back my edit. Rustygecko (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Rustygecko: It isn't a question of offense; it's a question of policy. Your claim concerning James included no citation of any reliable source to permit verification of the claim. Whether or not James is proud of his sexuality, whatever it may be, we require reliable sources for such claims here, and it is your responsibility to provide them with the claim. No apology should be forthcoming. General Ization ^Talk 23:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

As another (talk page stalker), I concur with the need for a WP:RS for this statement, but in reality, the argument here is a bit silly. The article already includes a RS for that, which says, James, an openly gay man.... So I'd say restore the statement and use that source as a citation for it. I also notice the article is already in Category:Gay writers, and several LGBT categories. Categories need to be WP:V just as much as anything else; if we didn't have a RS for the subject being gay, we'd need to address those as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Peninsula Beverly Hills starting at $289 per night...

Hi there. Are you able to do something called a "range block"? Several editors have spent years removing room prices added to hotels, particularly The Peninsula Beverly Hills, Hotel Bel-Air, and The Beverly Hills Hotel. The IP addresses adding the room prices all start with "99.203", and are located in the Atlanta, Georgia region. If you have a moment and could look at the history of these articles I would appreciate it. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Magnolia677 - Can do! Thanks for letting me know about this! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677! I'm just following up with your request for me to take a look into the concerns you expressed above. Your message indicates that each IP address begins with "99.203" - this translates into a CIDR range of 99.203.0.0/16. Can you take a look at the link (it will open a contributions page for that IP range) and verify if this range is still adding the disruptive content about hotels and prices that you mentioned in your message above? I'm still going through the contributions list for this range, and there's a lot to go through... I still need to pull some data and determine the kind of network and collateral damage that applying a block to this range would case (if such actions become necessary). Any additional information, diffs, and details you can provide will be greatly appreciated, and will be a lot of help. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Oh, wonderful..... this is a Sprint mobile network with a range of 99.200.0.0/13. This won't be an easy task... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP range of concern seems correct, though looking through the edits in the link above, I see many of them are positive contributions, and I wouldn't want to deny all these IP's an opportunity to edit because of a few vandals. I'd also hate to see you spend a lot of valuable Wiki time on this, as one of the articles I mentioned is already page protected, and most of the IP edits of concern are quickly removed by a number of editors. It' more of a nuisance really. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677! I appreciate your time looking into the range's contributions, and for your fair and honest evaluation of the situation. Okay, I'll go with your recommendation and hold off on looking into this further. Keep an eye on this for me, and please do not hesitate to let me know if any vandalism from this range starts to get out of hand, occur at a frequent rate, or if you believe that I need to step in and take any action. I'll be more than happy to look into things further. :-) Thanks again for the message and your request for input and assistance. Please message me any time you need help, and I hope you have a great day. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

CU

So, we seem to be the ugly ducklings. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith. Naturally I was disappointed, but I received good feedback from the committee as to the reason for their decision. There's apparently still a worry that I assume too much good faith and that I'm a little too quick with the unblock button. It's good to assume good faith; it's not a good thing as a CU to be naive, and some people are worried that I skew more toward the latter. They just want to see another year of careful work and improvement in that area; having measured, realistic, and careful interactions with new and blocked users, and having more work in SPI and clerking over the next year. I just need to build another year of demonstrable experience in that area, and I'm told that this will resolve their concerns for next year's appointment rounds. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

We should make up tee-shirts. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith - HA! That's funny... ;-) Did you contact the Arbitration Committee and inquire for an explanation behind the decision? I recommend doing so if you haven't. Then, you'll have the information and you can keep it in mind and use it to improve things over the next year. I was pointed to an example that I had completely forgotten about, and it really helped me to understand their thinking and why the decision was so. All I need to do is to show another year of continued work in the areas that was pointed out to me above: Having frank, down-to-earth, realistic discussions with blocked users who clearly won't be unblocked, the appropriate interpretation of good faith that doesn't skew too far, and continued work in SPI as a clerk. I just wish that I had asked for this feedback a year earlier so that I would've been able to resolve it for this last round of appointments. :-( Oh well, at least this time I have the feedback I need in order to be ready for next year if I decide to apply again...... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Return of Sock

Hi. Please take a look at recent edits to Sita page and Udit Narayan page. Sock of User:Ua7r seems to be back. Thanks.— (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jakichandan! Lovely..... lol. I definitely see where that Elis59 user was causing disruption to both articles. Fortunately, this was resolved and the user blocked. Have you seen any further disruption by this user to other articles and/or under different accounts? Let me know and I'll be happy to take a look and do what's needed to put a stop to the shenanigans. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Dilla Massacre Page

Hello, you assisted me with this page Dilla Massacre, here and left comments on my talk page regarding the page here , and mentioned I can ask you for advice and assistance regarding Wikipedia rules, because of your actions, I suspect it riled up some people and now the page is being put up for deletion, despite the fact it has a plethora of sources detailing the existence of the event. Please observe it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dilla_Massacre. I am not sure if the request for deletion is even valid, but nonetheless I will protect the page's academic integrity. Just would like some advice if it can be given. Aqooni (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aqooni, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns regarding the Dilla Massacre article and its article for deletion discussion. I'm obviously not sure of Koodbuur's true motivation behind the ANI thread they decided to create afterwards, nor their nomination for the deletion of the article. Yes, it's quite interesting to me that Koodbuur created these discussions after being blocked due to the edit warring on the article you were involved with, and I don't blame you at all for suspecting that his motivation for starting these discussions is revenge or malice. All I can do is refer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the actual evidence that I have before me.

Koodbuur, just like any other user or editor on Wikipedia, is entitled to create a discussion on ANI if they legitimately believe in good faith that a violation of policy is occurring that warrants administrative eyes and attention. Without going into detail about who was "right or wrong" - I believe that, while his underlying motivations might be questionable at best, Koodbuur legitimately believed that your actions were disruptive and a violation of policy (again, whether he was correct or not isn't relevant), and therefore was not being disruptive by creating the ANI discussion to report your actions. The same thoughts go for the articles for deletion discussion as well: We can only suspect that Koodbuur's motivation for nominating the article for deletion wasn't legitimate, we can't even begin to prove it. Given the fact that the discussion has received input by neutral parties and who are on both sides of the discussion ("delete" vs "keep"), and paired with his nomination statement given (that users have agreed with in the discussion), there obviously exists a legitimate reason to nominate the article for deletion process and have it discussed, and there's nothing that I can do about it.

The important thing you need to know about the articles for deletion process is that discussion revolves around whether or not the article subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which establishes whether or not a subject should have its own article on Wikipedia. In a nutshell, this means that the discussion talks about whether or not the article subject (the person, place, event, thing, whatever the article is about) is notable enough in order for it to have an encyclopedia article. It does not take the article itself into consideration at all. Sure, there are times where the sources cited in the article that help show the subject's notability and is mentioned in the deletion discussion, but for the most part - the article's quality, length, content, sources cited, how good it looks, etc will not impact the notability of the article subject, and hence does not matter. It's the existence of significant primary coverage of the article subject and in 'reliable sources that are independent of the subject that demonstrate whether or not the subject is notable, which is the central subject of the deletion discussion and whether the article will be kept or deleted. I'm explaining all of this to you in order to help you so that you learn, understand, and grow in your experience with Wikipedia and how it works.... as well as to emphasize the fact that spending countless time and energy toward editing, expanding, and improving the article will not change the discussion and save the article from deletion if consensus shows that the notability guidelines aren't met. Many new, novice, and even some established users will fail to understand this, dedicate hours upon hours of their time toward "fixing the article" and with the hope and false belief that it will change the deletion discussion and save it from being deleted, and wind up being left feeling frustrated, angry, and confused as to what they did wrong. The truth is... they usually didn't do anything wrong at all. They just didn't understand how things work and know what to look for in a good article subject before proceeding to dedicate time and energy toward creating it. :-)

Sorry for such a lengthy response, but I wanted to answer all of your questions, address your concerns, and explain how things work so that you understand and know what to expect. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) By the way, I just noticed the response that you left for me on your user talk page here. I'm sorry that I didn't answer it; I didn't know that you had responded with questions. Next time, make sure to ping me in your response so that I'm notified. I have many pages on my watchlist, so I can't use it to add talk pages and in order to look out for replies. I'd have way too many, and I wouldn't be able to keep track... Pinging the recipient in your responses so that they receive a notification is what will assure that they are seen, read, and replied to. :-) Just figured I'd let you know. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:53, 19 October 2019 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.LemonCroissant (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb, I have a bit of concerns for privacy :( please help

• Hi Oshwah, I've CU-blocked LemonCroissant, but their e-mail might clarify certain things for me. Can you please forward it to me? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Just emailed it to you. Sorry for the delayed response to your request here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I wanted you to forward the contents of the e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Ah, no worries.  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 - No problem. Hope it helps. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted page

Why did you delete my page "Andy bloom" is copywrited by me, I own it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardallnight420 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm Andy mother fucking bloom and I have likeness rights. All that information can be verified. Put it back up immediately to clarify who I am or expect a lawsuit for copywrite infringement!

Another settlement needs your help. I'll mark it on your map.

(I got the reference and wanted to respond in kind ... it was this or "nothing is true and everything is permitted".)

Thank you for the message. I have been dealing with this on and off for at least two years, and while I appreciate that there is only so much that admins can do and that there is a procedure that needs to be followed, you at least make me feel like my concerns are being taken seriously. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mclarenfan17! Thanks for getting back to me! You're very welcome; I'm always happy to help, and I'll do whatever is needed and within my power in order to make sure that this issue comes to a stop. Your concerns are serious to me because they really are serious, and they should be taken seriously by administrators when it's reported to them or when it comes to their attention. Nobody should ever feel unsafe, threatened, scared, or intimidated on this project, nor should anyone ever fear that they're likely to be doxxed, outed, stalked, or harassed for participating, editing, and volunteering on Wikipedia, and/or for their choices, decisions, or comments they make in good faith on Wikipedia. It's a shame that it happens in the first place, but... this is the internet... Nuff said. lol ;-)

There are many tools and resources available to aid administrators in investigating, handling, and responding to disruption on the project. Sure, there are relevant policies involving disruption and admin tool use that all admins must follow on Wikipedia (such as the blocking policy, protection policy, accountability and tool use expectations, etc.) - but in cases where someone is abusively creating and using multiple accounts in order to blatantly harass, insult, or threaten someone, there really isn't much in regards to "required policy or procedure" that gets in the way or that must be done before admins can take appropriate action. An account showing evidence of clear and unambiguous sock puppetry and use of t the account in order to harass, threaten, or attempt to doxx or out another editor has, is, and will always be met by me with an instant indefinite block to the account and with the relevant edits rev del'd or suppressed if they meet the appropriate guidelines and policy.

Like I said, the best thing you can do when you're currently the target of harassment is to completely ignore it, and go about your business as usual. Keep doing what you're doing; you're the target of harassment because of the good things that you do here. Your time and dedication to this project is making an obvious impact (whether you realize it or not), and your good work here obviously makes them feel threatened in one way or another - else they wouldn't be wasting their time in order to continuously harass you. Keep that in mind when you're faced with frustration and hardship in response to the harassment you receive. There's nothing to fear, and they don't have anything on you so long as you don't give them any clues or pieces. See this page for a list of things that will keep the chances very low (I've edited and significantly added to that list myself). If you have questions, concerns, or need me for anything - please let me know and I'll be happy to help.

Keep in touch and keep me updated. I hope things come to a stop, and I'll be happy to help should you need my assistance. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm glad that you got the reference! I don't know many others on Wikipedia who have played Fallout... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I enjoyed Fallout 4 for what it was, but felt it was trying to have its cake and eat it, too—on the one hand, it was trying to give me complete freedom as to who I sided with whilst still trying to make out that the Institute were evil. I actually sided with the Institute, then ran some mods to overhaul the lighting, noise and survival elements. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17 - Fallout 4 was definitely a different mix. I played twice - first siding with the Institute, then the second time siding with the Brotherhood of Steel. If you played the Far Harbor expansion, which I believe is the best one, there's many sides you can choose. I chose to have High Confessor Tektus killed and secretly replaced with a synth... LOL. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I had a similar experience in Far Harbour. On a separate save I destroyed the Children and told the residents about DiMA's crimes. It was definitely much more focused than Fallout 4. My theory is that the Institute were looking for people like Vance in Fallout 3 who had dangerous genetic abnormalities, and were replacing them with synths (who were sterile) to stop mutations from getting out. I never cared much for the Brotherhood, so aside from getting Danse's perk, I avoided them. I would have liked to know why Maxson basically turned them into the Enclave. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17 - So... The big question remains: Do you think Kasumi is a synth? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

A meerkat for you!

	Compare the meerkat
	For keeping a good watchout for vandalism everywhere as an administrator quickly and accurately. Simples. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 10:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Iggy the Swan! I appreciate the epic and unique pet that you've given to me! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Lucky. I love meerkats so much! Imagine petting one. El_C 05:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

El C - That indeed would be really cool to do! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

damage

Sorry for the error i made on your page, there's something wrong with the Wikimedia servers and my internet connection, so I screwed up your page by accident, sorry. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - No need to apologize. Accidents happen, and it's not a big deal at all. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Following up here, I left an edit clarifying my thoughts in the edit summary here. I believe that the dummy edit I left here earlier today caused confusion and led others to believe that I wanted the harassment left alone and not reverted by talk page watches and other users or admins. That is not true at all. I was simply stating that I, myself, don't revert such abuse, harassment, etc - because it gives the user recognition and acknowledgment on my part, and only gives the user what they want. So, please feel free to revert and remove that stuff should you see them appear anywhere here or within my user space... I just refuse to remove it myself as it will only show a reaction and encourage them to keep it up. ;-) Pinging El C and Acroterion, as it appears that my self-revert also confused them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, El C - Did you intend to semi protect my user talk page indefinitely? Let me know; I just wasn't sure of your plan of attack or if this was a strategy on your part. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I protected it for three days, I think you misread. El_C 04:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

El C - Yeeeeaaauuuuppppp... You called it correctly; that's exactly what happened... I read the wrong part of the protection log entry. I'm a buffoon....... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A buffoon with a meerkat (beats a buffoon with chipmunk!)! El_C 05:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

El C - I am definitely a level 47 buffoon with meerkat. Oshwah uses "read page log entry".... But it failed! (Pokemon gameboy game reference) LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

notif

I want to change the color of numbers on my notification bell, how to do it? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser! I don't believe what you're asking is possible to do... at least not easily. The notification system is an integrated Wikipedia web service and MediaWiki extension (see the Manual:Echo page on the MediaWiki website for more information), which uses MediaWiki and system code on order for it to execute and function. Why do you want to change the color of the number that's displayed in the notification? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

remember u tried it once?--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - I remember that we both looked into the possibility of being able to do so. If I remember correctly, I pinged MusikAnimal, who (I believe) responded and agreed that this would be hard if not impossible to do... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: The number badge appears to be styled with the .mw-echo-notifications-badge::after pseudoelement, so changing to green for instance, you could try .mw-echo-notifications-badge::after { color: green } in your common.css. I have not tested this. The kind folks at WP:VPT would probably know more. Hope this helps, — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Does global user script work? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Putting it there instead of your common.css page? It should work fine assuming you get it to work. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

can u edit my common js here for me? I don't want to mess some random shit up... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Sorry, I meant to say "common.css", not "common.js" above - I've fixed that now. It looks like you (or we) already had the function and elements already set up in your .css file, so I just modified the code here from "colorname" to now be "green". Let me know if this works. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Does not work at all, numbers are still red Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Does any of that code on that .css page work? Take a look at the other code and let me know... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - You currently have the "you have new messages" alert set to have its text be teal, and with the background color of the notification set to be orange... Does this currently work? If you change the background color in that .css from "orange" to, say, "blue" - does it change the background color of that notification box when you receive a new message on your user talk page? Or does it not do anything? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No banana man... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

[not stalking, but got here somehow] @Thegooduser: There are a lot of things wrong with your common.css. First of all, importStylesheet('User:Anomie/talklink.css'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/talklink.css will never work, because that is javascript import. To import a css file, do what you did just one line above - use the @import url() syntax. Next, css color names always begin with lowercase character. "Teal", "Blue", "Orange" are all invalid. Next, the use of nested block for setting inbox icon is just wrong. CSS does not support nested blocks. SD0001 (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

SD0001 - Thanks for the input and the comment. I've assisted Thegooduser with their code and was able to help him mostly resolve it and get it working. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

I received the request on my talk for help to care about and for the article about the flute concerto, and will do. Rather clever way of a request by the author who was blocked or banned, forgot what. Define trolling ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt! I'm not sure who that troll was, but he was definitely up to no good. Take a look at the user's other contribs; you'll see a clear pattern of disruptive and suspicious behavior. I'm wondering if this isn't one of a number of socks in this user's arsenal that they have waiting around... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore my initial response to you that I removed and replaced with the updated reponse above. I was looking at the wrong user talk page when I was looking into your message, and thought that you were maybe referring to a user in the past that was trying to suck you into getting involved in their COI shenanigans... LOL. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Back a while later: I only tried to explain, no need to change a thing. The article = user name (which made me smile) is on my user page, Sonata in A minor for Solo Flute, Wq. 132, I helped a new user to make a work of love presentable for DYK, then the user fell out of grace, and I didn't dig into it. The article is on my watch list, and I'll watch it for changes. No need to restore the message which certainly was block- or ban-evading but amused me nonetheless. - Wikipedia is not friendly to content editors, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - No worries! Thanks for the message and for letting me know. :-) Keep in touch, and I hope you have a great weekend! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and also to you. I plan to listen to a house concert around Clara and Robert Schumann, and Brahms. She is up for peer review. Funny how readers work: I had her and her husband and her piano concerto in a DYK hook, she was pictured and mentioned first, the concerto was bolded, then came her husband. The husband (poor article!) received more views than the concerto, and she had almost 11k, so more than the other 2 together, and more than on her bicentenary when she had the google doodle, - strange. She's up for peer review, - any comments welcome, especially from readers for whom that's an unusual topic. Great woman! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - Interesting! I hope that the peer review goes well and that she learns a lot , takes the feedback received to heart, and uses them to her benefit and to improve things moving forward. Keep in touch, and please don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can provide any input, assistance, or anything else that you need - I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

/* BBC IP - yet again! *

Hello Oshwah, I'm afraid the BBC vandal had re-appeared again making the same unsourced changes to a host of BBC pages, this time using 62.172.166.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but resident in the same area of the UK. This IP address has previously been blocked by several admins who do not seem very active at the moment, but soon after the IP block expires they are back again. Can I leave this with you please? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi David J Johnson! It looks like the IP user in question has been blocked for the persistent addition of unreferenced content to articles. Are there any other or additional IP users who are doing this that I need to look into as well? Let me know - I'll be happy to take a look. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah and many thanks for yours. Unfortunately, this BBC vandal appears to use various IP addresses - although most of them, but not all, are located in the south-western areas of the UK. In the last few months they have used 86.151.58.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 86.189.157.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 86.164.218.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 86.9.95.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is by no means a complete list. The "contributor" claimed in one post that he/she was a journalist, but looking at their English - I have my doubts! With thanks for all your help and friendship, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

David J Johnson - Thank you for responding with the additional information. I reviewed the WHOIS information for each IP address you listed, and while they all are from British Telecommunications PLC (with the exception of one), and are all from Great Brittan - they're each from different parent network ranges, all of which are very large. This won't be an easy person to block without zapping massively huge ranges and (likely) roping many innocent users in the lasso... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It appears that this "journalist" moves around quite frequently, but they are always the same, unsourced, changes and always on the same range of subjects. The only way to counter this is to keep watch on these pages and take the necessary action. With thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

David J Johnson - No problem! Always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterman–Smith Building

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterman–Smith Building. BigDwiki (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Null edit

Is there a way for me to revdelete the most recent version without an additional edit, because I'm stumped. El_C 04:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: If you want to hide the text, then no. But, you can still hide the username and edit summary of the most recent revision. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) El C - No, you cannot change the visibility to the revision text of the current revision of a page - though you are allowed to redact the edit summary and the username or IP of the user who performed the edit. Aside from the fact that, if this were somehow possible, doing so would break things at worst and render the page completely unviewable at best, it wouldn't even make sense to do so. Ideally, the content you want to have its visibility set to hidden should be in a past revision, else that means that you haven't removed it from the page yet. You ideally want to edit the page and remove the offending content in question or revert the article to a good revision first, then go back and hide the revisions where the content is present afterwards. Does that explanation make sense, or am I missing something specific that you're trying to redact and are having difficulty with doing so? Let me know and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. Indeed, I seem to not have thought this through to its logical conclusion (i.e. what would such a revision even look like — indeed!). El_C 04:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick followup: do the same rules as revdeleting revisions apply to suppressing them? El_C 04:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

El C - The same technical restrictions such as being unable to suppress the revision text of the current revision? Yes. Suppression is literally an extra checkbox that's visible on the revision deletion page that says "also make this a suppression". Other than that, everything is exactly the same. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That makes sense. El_C 05:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

El C - Of course; always happy to help. :-) Yeah, despite what most editors and even some admins believe, in regards to any extra "buttons" that only oversighters have access to - it's absolutely nothing significant, complicated, or special. It's just one extra checkbox on the revision deletion page and that's it. LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I made a script that should help, but I'm afraid to publish it in my userspace because I'm not an admin or oversighter, and I don't know how Special:RevisionDelete works. Am I allowed to publish it there? Invalid^OS (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

InvalidOS - Publish your script within your own userspace? Of course you can. Why would you not be allowed to do that? :-) You can also test it out on the Test Wikipedia as well... Have you been there before? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have. Thanks! Invalid^OS (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"I want to make baby!"

I tried this, but I got the following error:

% make baby

Make: Don't know how to make baby. Stop.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - We must write baby function! Instructions were unclear. I rebooted computer and drank from toilet - am I pergert now or do the stork deliver baby? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Deliver should work as long as the stork has its imap.conf correctly configured. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Y'all, I ran across this in the course of an Oshwah TPSing and have no freaking idea what the fork it is about, but it knocked me [up? no. surgically impossible!] so hard in the funnybone that I snarfed Taj Mahal-brand chai masala into my keyboard and emitted a noise that provoked Dear Paralegal to run into my office to see if I was okay, and I had to make up some crap about an asthma attack and fake a hit off my albuterol inhaler. Sorry. Carry on. Many thanks, though! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

relevantLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:YunShui is a DlCK

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Cahk -  Done. Thanks for the heads up! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A problematic editor has returned, this time with a sockpuppet

Hello Oshwah, sorry to message you again but remember that back on August I told you that "I didn't know if a conflict was over because the editor keeps re-igniting it it every two or three months? Well, said editor (Hueyxocoatzin) has returned and has re-ignited the conflict right as it was left two months ago, the only difference being that is using an obvious sockpuppet account this time: One just has to compare the edits and summaries of the account Hueyxocoatzin [1][2][3] and the account TexanAzteca [4][5][6][7] in the article of Mexico. Another question I have is that of given that is beyond any doubt that the same person is behind both accounts and the editor is editing the same thing as the last time, do you consider that TexanAzteca's edits count as 4 reverts?

Among other similarities I must also note that the names of both accounts make allusion to indigenous peoples, both accounts completely disregard and remove sources that contradict them (on my edit summaries I go as far as to name the number of the source and the pages on which the information is found but he don't cares) aswell as the fact that the account TexanAzteca, until yesterday, has been dormant for two years [8].

Another notorious behavoirial cue is the fact that, back in August when I undid Huayxocoatzin edits in the article of Mexico [9], hours later the account Wikiedro (Which I point on my SPI [10], is likely the main account) went and targeted the Spanish article of Demographics of Mexico as retaliation [11]. This time, I undid an edit in the Spanish article of Mexicans [12] (the account that made the edit also fits the sockpuppet criteria: single purpose, less that 50 edits and blatant removal of easily verifiable information [13][14]) some hours later the account TexanAzteca went and targeted the article of Mexico in retaliation [15]. As you can see, this editor has no interest on discussing his edits nor is he going to stop on his own for which I'd appreciate your intervention. Thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pob3qu3! Thanks for leaving me a message with an update to the ongoing issues with this user. I'm sorry to see that it's still continuing to be a problem. I recommend that you create an SPI case in order to report Huayxocoatzin and TexanAzteca, and focus on these two accounts primarily. Centralize your in-depth analysis and evidence to assert that these two accounts are sock puppets, as you have the strongest amount of evidence and supporting diffs for them. Then, you can mention at the end of your evidence description that you also believe that Wikiedro and others are also involved. Just start small, and start with these two users, and after they've been investigation and a determination made, you can decide where to go from there in regards to the others. Just use the exact information you provided to me in your message above, and expand any details and touch up any descriptions (if needed), and file a report. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll fill a new SPI report, thank you. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Pob3qu3 - No problem. Let me know how it goes. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Oshwah, regarding the SPI, well, nothing has happened yet, however when it comes to the editor (and this is the main reason I write to you right now), he is doing mass removal of sourced data in the article [16][17] just like he repeatedly tried to do in the article of Demographics of Mexico [18][19], what makes this actually bizarre, is that right before doing so he acknowledged that I presented sources where the term White Mexican was clearly used when refering to that segment of Mexico's population, but he removed them anyway [20]. I know that there's protocols and bureucracy that must be followed to deal with problematic users but what TexanAzteca/HueyXocoatzin is currently doing straight out falls on badly-intentioned vandalism tarritory. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Pob3qu3 - Okay, thanks for letting me know. The SPI process can often feel like it's going much slower than you want it to be, and for many reasons that are legitimate and necessary. Just be patient and keep an eye on things while the SPI report is open, and it'll be looked into and investigated. :-)

Regarding the edits you mentioned above: They don't appear to be blatant attempts at bad-fath abuse or disruption at first-glance, and the users do provide an explanation in their edit summaries as to why they're removing the content... If suspicions of sock puppetry did not exist, we would treat this as a content-related matter and dispute, and act within the appropriate policies and guidelines appropriately. In order to avoid digging yourself into any holes, and to avoid having things possibly get turned around and where you're the editor under the negative spotlight - if we don't have a reason to revert the edits for being a violation of policy (vandalism, blatant trolling, BLP violation, copyright issue, etc), we should treat these edits and this situation as if they were legitimate users. In this case, this is a content-related matter that requires discussion in order to properly resolve.

It's always best to keep different matters separate in these situations until findings are made and actions taken (if applicable) on the SPI report, and if it's not obvious or blatant attempts at causing abuse or disruption to the project. Say, for example, you happen to be incorrect about these user accounts, and they're found to not be sock puppets but coincidentally innocent users who are just misguided. If, after filing the SPI report, you had instead assumed that these edits were bad-faith disruption, and started reverting them in a combative fashion with them... With the ruling that these are innocent users, you're now seen as a user whose edit warring and causing disruption without attempting to discuss the dispute. Do you see how things can quickly turn around and come biting back at you should things not go according to plan? That's why we look at everything separately. You have enough evidence to prove suspected sock puppetry, but the accounts are making edits that raise eyebrows, but appears to be legitimate on the forefront? Great - file an SPI report with the evidence you do have, and don't let that factor into how you respond to their edits (unless there's clearly enough evidence to show that you can do otherwise).

Just keep an eye on things, respond appropriately to the edits and follow the correct guidelines in those aspects, and things will be looked into regarding the SPI report you filed, and the evidence you submitted with it. :-) Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any more questions, concerns, or if things start to turn obvious and that this user is being disruptive - and I'll be more than happy to respond and help. :-) Keep me posted, and let me know how things go. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The SPI is closed now and has been found to be inconclusive [21]... I think the issue with this and my previous case is that I'm in one side of the conflict whilst reporting, so to caught said sockpuppeter red-handed a third, uninvolded party would have to be the one to fill a case, or I would have to fill a SPI on sockpuppets that are not having an active conflict with me and hope he gets indirectly caught, but both things are going to be hard to do.
I have always been open to discuss matters and to take part on dispute resolution processes as you can see in this talk page [22]. It's the opposing editor the one that refuses to discuss or request a dispute resolution process (thing you have advised him to do in february and then again in August), I think he refuses to do so because he knows that, if we were to discuss arguments and sources in an organized manner, his arguments wouldn't get a pass, is because this aswell, that he has seemingly abandoned the conflict for now just like has done two times before (he thinks that, as long as he is not clearly declared the losing party he can try to change the article again months later).
You make a very important observation when you mention that I seem combative becuase I revert edits that at first-glance seem to be correct. But in reality they're not: In this edit he removed all mention of the fact that blond hair was the criteria in that study to clasify a Mexican as white, he only left the resulting percentage [23]. And in this other he asserts that the indigenous population in five years increased from 14% to 21% because of high birth rates [24], when in reality the survey he is citing put together people that declared to be indigenous and people who declared to be part-indigenous. In the format of a single edit summary I can't explain with detail why those edits are actually incorrect (this is why he refuses to discuss or go to DR, because in an organized discussion I could point the faults on his arguments right away) and the fact that he made those edits right after performing clearly incorrect ones [25][26] on which he removed all the government surveys and sources that clearly use the term "White Mexican" including the new ones I have just brought [27] makes me want to revert him as soon as possible, is something, I admit, have to work on in the future. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pob3qu3! Thanks for the response and for expressing your thoughts here. I agree that being a direct party involved with the reverts and in the dispute aren't things that are going to be looked upon as favorable when you're also the filing and accusing party in the related SPI report that involves the user(s) that you're reverting, and citing evidence and diffs from the dispute that you're involved in. We see many instances where users will become involved in a heated dispute and often with edit wars between another user, and will file an SPI report against the other and accuse them of sock puppetry. While many of these SPI reports will often have poor evidence supplied, or even clearly show that the filing party doesn't have an understanding of what sock puppetry is and what SPI is for - some SPI cases filed do supply in-depth evidence and observations, and do so quite well. Regardless of the quality of evidence supplied, it's never seen upon as favorable when we observe and establish that the filing and accusing party and the sock puppet accounts listed are all involved in a dispute.

If you've created discussions on the article's talk page and pinged the user(s) involved in the discussion so that they're notified, and followed-up by messaging them on their user talk pages and pointed them to the discussion you started while asking them to participate, and the user(s) involved have not responded despite these efforts, but keeps reverting you and restoring the changes they made - leave a warning on their user talk page regarding edit warring. {{subst:Uw-3rr|ARTICLE NAME GOES HERE}} is a good template to use in order to accomplish this. If the user still refuses to discuss things and is still restoring their preferred version, report them to AN3. Provide diffs showing all of your efforts to discuss the matter, the diff where you left them that edit warring notice, and the fact that they continued to edit war and failed to respond to the discussion you started despite the warning you left. So long as you've done everything I recommended above, avoided violating 3RR yourself, and provided a good explanation in the AN3 report - you'll be seen favorably and the user(s) you've reported will be handled there. But, as I agreed above, I wouldn't file an SPI report against them unless you have an extremely compelling reason to do so, and can explain and point this out in the SPI (do so briefly and underneath the evidence information and diffs you submit).

It's very highly commendable of you to be so open about your thoughts and (most importantly) evaluating your actions and pointing things out that you need to improve upon so that you can do so. I see so many users and even some administrators who don't do this, are very bad about doing so, or need their arm twisted in a discussion calling them out for it, and some who even outright refuse to acknowledge mistakes, admit fault, apologize, and do anything to resolve the matter and improve thing moving forward. They continue to blame others and point fingers despite the number of responses by neutral parties and the mountain of evidence pointing out that they're wrong, that they messed up, and/or that the issue was caused by them. I just wanted to acknowledge you for doing this. Even if it's over something small, it shows a lot of good character in a Wikipedia user and editor. :-)

Just keep doing the right thing, follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and go down the necessary routes that I explained above. And, of course, please don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can help you with anything, or if you need my input and thoughts about anything. I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Thanks again for the message. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and support through this. If said editor returns I'll follow your tips and will again invite him to discuss in an organized manner. If he doesn't follow through I'll let you know. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Pob3qu3 - No problem; always happy to help. :-) Yeah, keep me posted and let me know if there's anything I can do to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thought you and fellow vandalism patrollers might appreciate this....

Vandalism art [28]. You have scroll to the bottom to see how it displays. I have to be honest, I am impressed! S0091 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree it's impressive, though not really vandalism. Presumably, that took some work. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

S0091, Chris troutman - HA! Indeed somebody spent a lot of time creating that... Well, it would definitely be vandalism if someone were to add that to an article... :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally. That is creative! El_C 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Not as much work as you think. banner (Unix) and myriad variations on that have been around for eons, and generate this stuff for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith - Hmm, alright, maybe not that much work then.... LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Trying to evoke NFO files commonly used by the warez scene, eh? Blake Gripling (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Blakegripling ph - Oh, you know it man... :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm feeling newsgroups' nostalgic. El_C 00:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

El C - Oh yeah, man... I used Newzbin and Newshosting to get stuff kicked to me. I remember using a certain reader that worked well too, but I don't remember what the name of it was.... lol It was NewsLeecher ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Newsleecher is great! By the end, I was also using it in conjunction with the news indexing sites that came later on... But I admit to not have opened an nzb file in many years now. Fond memories, though. El_C 01:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

El C - Same here... It's been at least 7-8 years since I've accessed the usenet or opened an .nzb file. I remember that I later decided to try coming back and using it again, but after I found out that Newzbin had shut down, I wrote the usenet off for good and haven't touched it since... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How to proceed

Hello O. I found these pages while cleaning up protection templates. They are both just copy pastes of Highland Park High School (Highland Park, Illinois). If they were in article space I would put an A10 tag on them but I know some leeway is given for drafts/sandboxes. I also know this is a newb so that adds to the leeway. The user name doesn't inspire confidence for me and why they need two of the same thing is odd. However you proceed is fine by me. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 00:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD! I wouldn't worry about those pages too much. Unless those creations were a clear attempt to be disruptive (for example: the user created 20+ draft pages with the same exact content over-and-over, or if the content was modified to add vandalism or abusive text, etc), or the user is discovered to be someone who is evading a block or sanction (situations where G5 could be used), G13 exists in order to clean these pages up after they've sat abandoned for some time (albeit six months, but hey... it's better than nothing), so we can always just tag it for speedy deletion under that criterion when the time arrives. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions or need my help or input with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to help. Thanks for the message, and I hope you have a great day! Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good O. Thanks for taking the time to fill me in on the details. MarnetteD|Talk 02:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD - No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Filter 51

I made a little change to your filter. See lengthy discussion at WP:EFN#Add exception to edit filter 890 for account creators. Basically all the username filters weren't checking action == "autocreateaccount" at all, but they were checking accounts made by accountcreators and admins. Should be back to normal now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow! Thank you for doing that, man! I appreciate it a lot! I wasn't aware of that discussion at all, but I do remember that there was a change made about 6 months ago to the system edit filter code that changed how statements with multiple conditions would return 'true' or 'false', which ended up breaking a lot of edit filters (including mine) that were dependent on certain conditions being true before it would examine things further. The workaround was to nest each condition inside of a previous one, which is why the conditions you just modified were coded the exact way that they were. I'm not sure if you remember that at all, or happen to know if they fixed it, but I was just happy that my edit filter was working again and I never kept up on the discussion about it... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I just searched for "createaccount" in the active filters and made almost the same change to all of them. The tricky part is that the MediaWiki change is breaking so many filters on so many wikis that it may be reverted soon, so the fix to the filters will need work either way. I expect that it will, but we shall see. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow - Yeah, that's definitely a poorly planned breaking-change - especially knowing that there's a possibility that it's going to cause everything to break twice if it isn't fixed properly (once with the initial change, and again when a fix is implemented on the back-end). I also remember being completely blind-sighted with the breaking-change that I mentioned above. I didn't discover that there was a breaking-change implemented until editors had come to me stating that the edit filter hadn't logged any hits in over six hours... That sucked. By the time I found out about the change and implemented a fix, I had lost an entire day's worth of evidence and data that I needed in order to investigate some important SPI reports, and keep track of a few accounts that I believed might be possible LTA users. I hope that we implement a better way to communicate upcoming breaking-changes like this in the future. We're absolutely shooting ourselves in the foot by maintaining the status quo... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please log your actions

Currently your ECP of Nausheen Ali Sardar has not been logged at here in accordance with the case you cited in your rationale. Please log your actions accordingly. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Buffs -  Done (diff). Sorry, it didn't cross my mind at all for some reason... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks!!! Buffs (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Buffs - No problem. Thanks again for the note. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How to get the attention of a CU?

I need a CU to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KaranSharma0445 to validate a proposed range block. What's the best way to do that? Should I just add Category:SPI cases requesting a checkuser to the SPI case page? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith - Just change the open case status to "CU" in order to request that a CU take a look at it. A clerk will review and either endorse or decline the request. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Jay Heisenberg

This user appears to want to contact you: User talk:Jay heisenburg 1#Oshwah. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi AlanM1! Thanks for letting me know! I've responded to the user's message on his/her user talk page and provided instructions for how to get in touch with me. I appreciate the message and the heads up. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

2nd Opinion Please

Hi Oshwah. When you get a minute could you have a look at the note left at the bottom of my talk page and then have a look at the author's own talk page history and their contrib log. I am of the view that their record suggests a long pattern of disruptive editing despite multiple warnings they are continually blanking from their talk page. At this point I think they are a net negative and am inclined to indef them. However since they did drop this lengthy quote on my talk page and out of an abundance of caution, I'd like a 2nd opinion. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem! Sure, I'll take a look right now. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - Wow. This user has an extensive history of disruptive editing that goes back quite some time, repeated warnings for these behaviors, and repeated disruptive behavior that has continued despite these warnings. It's one thing to remove warnings, messages, etc from your own user talk page (since this is allowed, even though it's not seen upon as favorable to do), but it's another thing to do this and then repeat the same disruptive behaviors (whether it be soon after or sometime later). The later is what this user has done, which clearly shows to me that this user does not care about improving the project, and that it's highly likely that these behaviors and problems will only continue to occur if the status quo is kept - especially when warnings are met with uncivil personal attacks in response, like what this user did to JesseRafe (diff). I recommend starting a discussion at ANI with your proposal so that others can comment, but honestly... if you were to act unilaterally and apply an indefinite block to this user, I wouldn't shed any tears. ;-) Let me know what you decide to do. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah. I completely agree with your analysis but wanted another admin's opinion given they just dropped that wiki-lawyering post on my talk page. And I value your opinion because I think we have a similar outlook in our general reluctance to "drop the hammer" except in obvious and egregious cases. But yeah, this editor's track record is pretty awful and I have no real hope that they will become a productive contributor. Under the circumstances I'm not going to waste the community's time at ANI. Your review confirms my judgement and I'm going show them to the door. I am taking it for granted that there will be an unblock request. Sigh. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - Thanks for responding with your thoughts and your decision. Again, I'm not going to shed any tears. ;-) Oh well... If the user does create an unblock request, it'll most likely be insufficient and lack enough of an any argument or convincing statements that most reasonable admins would require before they consider accepting the user's request. I see no need to worry about it if he does... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hogs-related

Hello, Oshwah. You have new messages at El C's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

El_C 06:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

El C - Thanks, I've responded. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Just how experienced are you, I would love to have a distinguished editor such as yourself help me in editing if that’s ok with you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay heisenburg 1 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jay heisenburg 1! I'd be happy to help point you in the right direction! Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. You definitely should go through and complete this tutorial completely. Afterwards, if you have any questions or need additional help, let me know and I'll be happy to help you from there! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude Oshwah but I was just wondering about 2 questions,

1. Why do my factual edits keep disappearing

2. When will i be able to edit all articles as I have a bunch of more edits to make on more popular pages so people can be informed.

Thank you so much

Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay heisenburg 1 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Jay heisenburg 1 - What "factual edits" are you referring to that you believe keep disappearing? Can you point me somewhere specific so that I can look? You'll be able to edit the majority of all articles and pages without issue once your account becomes autoconfirmed (meaning that your account is more than four days old and has made at least 10 edits). You'll become autoconfirmed in about two days, so just sit tight for now (and use these two days to go through that tutorial I linked you to above). ;-) Once you respond and provide me with some examples that you're referring to in your first question, I'll be happy to respond and help explain those. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What in the name of the time lords is going on here?

Can you at all make sense of what on Gallifrey is going on here? All I can seem to understand is that there is some serious COI going on but other then that, i have no idea really what should go on and what I can do here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0brahim_Do%C4%9Fu%C5%9F&action=history LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi LakesideMiners! Wow. There's a lot happening on this article. Well, one important thing to note is this diff, where one of the editors involved claims to be the article subject. The editors involved are reverting one another, making accusations of conflict of interest, and edit warring over this article. I've added extended confirmed protection to the article for two weeks in order to stop the disruption and prompt all users involved to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. I also that COI issues are investigated while the article is protected as well... Thanks for letting me know about the shenanigans going on there. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, Could you also possibly drop a message on proper talk page formatting as well? One of them seems to be putting the ~~~~ at the beginning of there messages, another seems to be putting his responses at the top of the section and changing the title of the section as well. And possibly other things I am missing. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

LakesideMiners - Heh, alright, let me get some high priority tasks finished and I'll look into doing that today... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"William B. Taylor Jr." Vandalism?

Hello. You protected the William B. Taylor Jr. article from vandalism with few edits. What vandalism did you respond to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocRuby (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi DocRuby! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your question. Most of the vandalism I found was small, but some include this, as well as this, this, this, and others. Aside from the vandalism I found, this article is a biography of a living person, as well as related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people - both of which are areas where discretionary sanctions are authorized by the Arbitration Committee, which gives uninvolved administrators the ability to exercise additional actions they see fit and in order to maintain a collaborative and peaceful editing environment. Since this article significantly relates to "Trump" politics, I felt that it was fair (given my observations) to apply protection to the article. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing! :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. And for pointing out those edits. I agree that your action was warranted. Indeed, several of the pending edits appear to be, if not vandalism, then partisan editorializing rather than edifying contributions. DocRuby (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

DocRuby - You're welcome! Always happy to answer questions and help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Ibrahim Dogus" page locked

Hi I'm concerned that this page has been locked after verifiable properly sourced information was deleted by the subject of the page himself (Waggaford/Ibrahim Dogus). Waggaford (and another brand new editor who is involved in his election campaign MattVauxhall) made substantial and significant edits on the page, adding large amounts of material and removing stuff he doesn't want people to know about, but which is factual and was properly referenced/sourced (I didn't think the subject of an article was allowed to do more than relatively minor edits on the page?). Would it be possible for you to unlock it? Basically the guy is contesting an important internal election, with the vote taking place this weekend. It doesnt seem right that he has altered it, removed properly sourced material, and then luckily had it locked before any of his changes could be undone. Alternatively could the page be temporarily removed or suspended until Monday? Or a note put on it that the content is disputed and possibly one-sided? Ive only been editing a few months so don't know all the protocols thanks ClarityRandomClarityRandom (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think if there's allegation of editors up to no good, this ought to be discussed at WP:COIN. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi ClarityRandom, and thanks for reaching out to me with your questions and concerns regarding the protection of Ibrahim Dogus. I completely understand your thoughts and concerns regarding the ability for the user, who claims to be the article subject, to delete and modify content to his liking and that these changes were published to the revision of the article that I applied protection to. Unless the current version of the article contains any serious violations of policy (such as BLP violations or copyright violations), I cannot modify, revert, or restore the article to a preferred revision once I apply protection to it, unless everyone involved comes to a consensus on the article's talk page and agrees that it should be a different revision, as well as the revision it should be changed to. Otherwise, once I apply protection to the article - that's the "luck of the draw".

The protection was applied to the article in order to stop the edit warring and back-and-forth reverts and accusations that were being thrown around by everyone involved, and to facilitate everyone toward the article's talk page in order to discuss the issues and disputes, and resolve them properly though consensus. It is up to you, as well as everyone else involved, to discuss the disputes peacefully and properly, and/or report issues to the proper noticeboard. I obviously cannot take a side or give anyone an advantage, favor, or any kind of unequal treatment over anyone else, and it would be a huge violation of my duties, as well as the expectations and trust that the community has given to me if I were to use any administrator tools or abilities in order to gain an advantage in a dispute, or help others do so unfairly. The community's trust, my proper use of administrator tools, the demonstration of proper conduct at all times, and my compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - are all conditions of continued adminship on Wikipedia, and is why I cannot modify the article revision without consensus from all editors involved (assuming no serious policy violations are present on the current revision).

I hope that my response has helped to explain things. As Chris troutman said above: If there are accusations being thrown around regarding conflicts of interest, a report should be filed at this noticeboard so that the matter can be investigated and proper solutions found. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. Thanks again for the message, I wish you a great day, and I wish you good luck with resolving the issues and disputes that are currently ongoing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

something

Why didn't I receive a notification for my 10,000 edit?--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - I don't think there's an automatic notification event for that. Heck, I know for sure that there wasn't when I hit 10,000 edits about 11 years ago... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"you've reached your 1 trillionth edit, your account has been blocked as a suspected bot account" --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Thegooduser. If you aren't already aware of it this is one place where number of edits are tracked Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. There are a couple other tools out there as well but there can be some variation in their totals. Over the years some editors have taken it upon themselves to acknowledge when someone reaches 100,000 edits but it is not an "official" notification. It is mostly done in fun and I'm not aware of any notifications for any other total. For your own info there are various userboxes like this one {{User contrib}} where you can keep track of your edit totals. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

scripts

are my user scripts screwed up? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Which scripts are we talking about exactly? Where? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see The messages above in the notif section... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Let's see if what I did here fixed everything... ;-) Let me know if you see any different colors in your notification inbox background, alert inbox background, the number in your bell and inbox, etc are different... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, you need to leave a test talk page message, lol Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It is orange for the "you have new messages", I always have blue light filter on, so i don't know if this is the normal color.Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - I just changed the background color of the new messages alert text in your common.css file to be green instead of orange. Let's try testing again... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see the green now! but the you have new messages is covered by the green, so you only see a green bar. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - I've changed the text color to be black so that you can see and read it. I'll need to play around with the other colors, but other than that, it looks like everything is working so far... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

thank You! By the way, do you still have the crazy hair? And do you ever think Walmart Rollback is a Wikipedia Rollback 'knockoff'? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Nope, been keeping it cut lately. Been obligated to look professional for my job, unfortunately... HA! I'm not sure. I've always had the real thing... You might have to go acquire a rebranded knock-off "rollback" and let me know how different it is... :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you like Walmart? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - I have nothing against Wal Mart. To me, it's just another store to grab your beer and groceries at. That being said, I haven't been to a Wal Mart store for many years... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I only go for hot wheels, but the kids and others raid the shelves before I do...Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia store

Isn't Wikipedia advertising themselves, by having a Wikipedia store link? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - I wouldn't call that advertising, no... It's there so that if we choose, we can support the organization by buying things from the Wikimedia store... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You bought anything from the store yourself? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - T-Shirts! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be an Oshwah t-shirt in the store too... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - HA! Good luck suggesting that to them... :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Email

Did you get my emails? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - I haven't gone back and looked at my email yet. Will do so tonight... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

this is off topic, but is Windows 10 PRO useless if I only surf the web and use Virtual Box? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - What do you mean by "useless"? Are you asking if the Pro version of Windows 10 contains any features that you'll utilize if you only use your computer to surf the web and use Virtual Box? I believe the answer to that is "no". Your CPU should just need the virtualization bit set to be 'enabled', and Virtual Box should be able to work with any consumer or business version of Windows 10 without issue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft store says I need to pay $130.00 to upgrade, I want to do some testing on Windows 10 in virtual box, but I don't have any more licenses/product keys. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Yeah, you're gonna need to have the licensing figured out for that machine. If it's a pre-built system like Dell, HP, etc, then (unless you reformatted and installed a different version and license of Windows and not the one that came with your system) you shouldn't have any problems or be poked to buy a Microsoft Windows license... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I use the same product key for virtual machine? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - No. That's an OEM license to Windows 10 you have, and it's licensed only for the physical machine that it came installed with. You cannot install or use that copy or that license on any other machine, whether they be physical or virtual. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I install with no product key? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I threw the hard drive out and replaced it with an SSD, so it's not the 'original' Windows 10 the system came with Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - It may let you do that and for a period of time (usually 30 days), but it will eventually poke and prod you to add a license key... Replacing a HDD shouldn't be a problem. If you have a restore partition or a restore DVD or USB drive, Microsoft won't count your system as a new one for replacing the hard drive. It usually ties the license to the motherboard and CPU. So, if you were to swap out your CPU, Microsoft counts that as replacing the entire system. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I know someone who had the activate windows mark on the bottom right of their pc, but they managed to change their wallpaper... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Check your email

Just left you a message there about the contact info I was asking over at IRC. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Blakegripling ph! Okay, I'll check it tonight. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Aight man. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Blakegripling ph - Just replied. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Syed Muhammad Asim

Hi Dear Can You Please Tell Me Why You Have The Deleted My Page :(

Without Any Reason :( You are a king bro Help me to restore the page thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim143 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Asim143: It wasn't "without reason". We presented many reasons for it to be deleted. Suffice to say, please do read the full discussion for our reasons. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Asim143! Are you referring to the Syed Muhammad Asim article? If so, I did not delete it. It was originally brought to my attention that you were repeatedly moving it back to the mainspace from the draft space, and I originally moved it back and left you a message about it to ask you to stop. Another editor raised objection and asked me to move it back to the mainspace so that it can be nominated for articles for deletion, which I did. Please see the deletion discussion that was linked to you above. If you have any questions about the articles for deletion process, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

reverted submission

Hey you, I'm Pelagius. I wanted to let you know that I re-reverted a valid contribution. FYI I just saw this - you reverted a contribution I had submitted under "Radio, television and other entertainment", which detailed a mention of 'Sanka' in a very popular TV show, "The Sopranos". Not sure what bunched your undies but this was a clear reference to Television which, to you, appeared not to be constructive. I don't know what you meant by that but another recent post from 2019 mentions a similar situation. Sit on some ice, perhaps...cool it down. Your time would be better spent in a library checking chronicles and verifying the validity of their online wiki-promulgation. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message in your imagination.

Thaanks Oswaa,

Rex Pelagius ________________________________

"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 Sanka— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)"

172.250.200.206 (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps your time could be better spent by improving the encyclopedia project with sourced, relevant material, rather than disconnected trivial comments in articles, followed up with snark directed at the people who have to clean it up. Acroterion (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! The reason that I reverted your changes to the article was because they were not supported or referenced by any reliable sources. This is an important thing to do if you're going to add or modify content on any Wikipedia articles. Please review the policy I linked you to here, and let me know if you have any questions. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Finger gun

Your picture is on this article... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - HA! That's awesome! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:CptViraj

Hi, Can you please EC protect my userpage? -- CptViraj (📧) 10:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

CptViraj -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. -- CptViraj (📧) 02:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

CptViraj - No problem! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please undo ECP on this page. Contrary to the rationale, "User request within own user space: Vandalized in the past. Will help stop future abuse," in this user page's entire history, there is no evidence of vandalism. There is one dispute from an active user, but I hardly think that qualifies when it was undone with no followup action. Standard EP should apply. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) this pertains to CptViraj's user page, not their user talk page. "User request within own user space" is a perfectly sensible rationale for ECP of a user page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, no. WP:ECP says specifically otherwise:

"Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred..."

So, no, it shouldn't. Buffs (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Will you be undoing this? Buffs (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Buffs - As you know, I started and held an open discussion about this on AN (permalink, archive) back in September. The overall consensus established there was that administrators were okay to accept and process requests from users to have their own user page or any specific pages within their own user space (excluding their main user talk page; we have much stricter guidelines for user talk pages) protected if they've been the subject of threats, trolling, or abuse in the past, or where the specific page has been the subject of vandalism or disruption. It was also generally noted that discretion by administrators was acceptable as well. Hence, I believe that my administrative actions protecting CptViraj's user page was appropriate, and I do not plan on reversing the action unless community discussion calls for me to do so. If you believe that my user of administrator tools here was against policy and if you wish to report and discuss it, it's absolutely within your right and your prerogative to do so. I would never hold a personal grudge or hold anything against you for doing what you truly believe is the right thing to do on Wikipedia, even if it involves reporting my use of admin tools. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Message

Hey, I'm just wondering whether you got my message. Noah^Talk 21:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hurricane Noah! I did just a bit ago. Sorry for not getting back to you right away. I'll take a look once I'm back at my desk in a few hours. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, could you please make my user page extended confirmed? I just don't like people changing and/or adding things to the page. I don't think it is really their place to add items to my page. I noticed there were a few instances of it when I checked the history of the page to retrieve an item. Noah^Talk 21:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah - I'll take a look. After discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, it was agreed that user page protection is okay, but only if it's been subject to vandalism and abuse. I took a look earlier and didn't find any instance of this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Two instances on March 13 of someone adding in things without permission, 1-2 last year, and an award added in August (I just take issue with not being notified at all on that). People need to leave things on my talk page and it causes problems if they simply edit the page rather than notify me. Noah^Talk 01:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah - Alright, I'll take your word for it.  Done ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi Hurricane Noah. You are aware of WP:UP#OWN right? Most experienced editors will leave your user page alone unless there's a problem which needs addressing, but they don't need your permission to do so if they do. It's unfortunate that others have been inappropriately editing yours, but in that case you might be better off seeking assistance at WP:ANI asap if they continue to do so after being asked to stop. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Page protection needed on Sebastián Piñera. Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

KH-1 -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Page protection needed on FC Barcelona B and Sevilla FC. Again Sockpuppet User:GARY_809 and User:AH999. Thanks. -Fcbjuvenil (talk) 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. It looks like this issue has been handled. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I just request stewards to lock Royer2356 account for long term abuse

Hello @Oshwah. I just request Steward about couple few days ago and one of the stewards just lock down Royer2356's account. Would that be fine for you as he is a long term abuse? Sarah Carvalho (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah Carvalho! Filing a request for a steward to globally lock a user account due to long-term abuse is completely fine to do, if not encouraged for anybody to do if they run into those kinds of accounts. Thanks for filing that report; it looks like a steward has locked the account (since the action is dated in October 2009). Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any more questions or would like my input or assistance with anything else. I'll be more than happy to respond and help you with anything that you need. :-) Thanks again for filing that report, and I hope you have a great day. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

82.47.71.162

82.47.71.162, a user you just blocked on the 24th, has vandalized another article, blanking this one. They should be suspended again—they clearly haven't changed at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonDays64 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi DemonDays64! Thanks for the message and for letting me know about the continued actions by this IP user. I apologize for such a delayed response; I was busy with real-life things, and I'm just getting over being sick this week. Fun times... lol. It looks like this IP user hasn't made any edits since October, so I can't do anything now. However, if this user makes any more edits that are disruptive or blatant vandalism, please let me know or (recommended) file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so that any administrator can review it and take action. Thanks again. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Oshwah:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – DBigXrayᗙ 15:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hi DBigXray! I apologize for such a delayed response; I was busy with real-life things, and I'm just getting over being sick this week. Fun times... lol. Thanks for the Halloween wishes! I was working on that day, and chose to spend the evening relaxing at home... lol. I hope that your Halloween was fun and safe, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, better late than never . Glad to know that you are recovering. It seems to me that kids are more enthusiastic about it than adults. Here are my thoughts on the festival at User_talk:Ivanvector#_Boo!--DBigXrayᗙ 05:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Incivility

I'm not familiar with how to deal with incivility. Are these comments by Sepehr.Sǎsǎni something that would normally lead to a block for incivility? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(Redacted) Sepehr.Sǎsǎni (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know the answer now. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi ZLEA, and thanks for leaving me a message regarding this user and his/her uncivil behavior and use of personal attacks on Wikipedia. I apologize for such a delay responding to your message here; I was busy with real-life things and I'm just getting over being sick this week, and I'm just now getting all caught up with the Wikipedia messages, emails, requests, pings, and responses that I've received. :-) To answer your question (even though it seems that you know the answer now): All behaviors, messages, comments, responses, edits, communication, etc are expected to comply with Wikipedia's policy on civility, and be free of any kind of personal attacks. This policy is a founding principle and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and it is a violation of policy to repeatedly fail to comply to these expectations. In the case of the user that you messaged me about above (Sepehr.Sǎsǎni), his/her comments are an absolute 100% clear example of repeated violations of this principle and policy, and Sepehr.Sǎsǎni's conduct and behavior was absolutely unacceptable - it has absolutely no place here on this project, and the user was indefinitely blocked for this reason (a big thanks to Ponyo and Alexf for taking the appropriate actions). I'm sorry if you were the direct subject of this user's uncivil behavior... absolutely nobody should be talked to like that - especially here on Wikipedia. If you see or observe this kind of behavior or conduct from anyone else, I always recommend responding to the user and asking them to stop the behavior in a professional, respectful, and cordial manner. If the user continues with the behavior despite the attempts to warn and ask the user to stop, you're more than welcome to message me and let me know about it, or (recommended) start a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so that the community can look into it and the proper actions can be taken. If you have any more questions or need my input or assistance with anything else, please do not hesitate to message me and let me know. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I hope you have a great day. :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Managing Problematic-ish Users (e.g. user:Drpdw)

As a casual fixer of generally small errors, broken links, punctuation, etc., I really stepped in it last week when I dared to remove (sarcasm) where user Drdpw had awkwardly inserted a bit about Bill Clinton into the introductory paragraph of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. It didn't fit, and felt more like a personal political thing. Drdpw reverted w/out note; I re-deleted w/ a note; Drdpw reverted w/out note... finally Drdpw invested himself a little, and added it as a final sentence to the intro section. Fine. I suppose this has value now. I just saw where you warned Drdpw in Feb-19 against "edit wars" (not sure where, now). It looks like Drdpw has since skated the line of acceptable, while continuing to grind his political ax across Wikipedia. I wondered about asking you to ... do something. Well, never mind. He seems determined, and destructive only insomuch as making Wikipedia read less like objective/balanced, and more like a playground/battlefield for warring nut-jobs. It makes me wonder what you see/think with your experiences. :-) Thanks for your multitude of quality contribs & ...user management. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justapersona (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justapersona, and thanks for leaving me a message regarding Drdpw and his edits to articles on Wikipedia. I apologize for such a delay responding to your message here; I was busy with real-life things and I'm just getting over being sick this week... I'm just now getting all caught up with the Wikipedia messages, emails, requests, pings, and responses that I've received. :-) It's definitely not an unusual thing to see users attempt to make edits like this on Wikipedia and to articles involving United States politics (whether they're acceptable or not). In this case, it looks like Drdpw added this information here back in June 2019. Edits made to it afterwards by Drdpw were reverts to vandalism, disruption, or content changes that didn't appear to be improvements. You certainly didn't do anything wrong by removing that content; it did make the sentence improper and feel rough and incorrect. However, I believe that Drdpw's revert to your edits here may simply have been a mistake on his part. I don't interpret it as a malicious attempt to restore his "preferred version" of the article. The edit history of this article shows that he's made significant changes to it, but also shows no history of blatant edit warring or violations of policy on his part. My edit warring notice left to him on his user talk page was met with agreement and cooperation on his part in response, and (as far as I know) the issue didn't continue. I think that the best way to resolve this issue and your concerns is to reach out to Drdpw directly on his user talk page and discuss it with him in a respectful, positive, constructive, and cordial manner. Let him know what other edits have you feeling concerned and talk about it with him. I believe that he'll respond and be completely open about discussing them with you, and I believe that he'll work with you to make improvements together. If there's any more issues with edits you make that Drdpw reverts afterwards, you want to start a discussion on the article's talk page and ping Drdpw directly so that he can respond and work with you. You'll also want to message him and let him know about the discussion. And, of course, if you believe that there are issues with either this user or any content despite your efforts to improve them and work with Drdpw, you're welcome to message me and let me know. I'll be more than happy to help resolve the specific issue and make sure that things are worked out peacefully. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing and good luck with having this matter resolved. Keep me updated and let me know how things go. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)