Open main menu


Let's chat Smiley.svg

Click here to message me. I will reply as soon as I can. All replies will be made directly underneath your message on this page.

Please create your message with a subject/headline and "sign" your message using four tildes (eg: ~~~~) at the end.

Experienced editors have my permission to talk page stalk and respond to any message or contribute to any thread here.

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. LakesideMinersMy 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, 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. LakesideMinersMy 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)

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 (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 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

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate: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: 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 --DBigXray 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 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. (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 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 about the matter please. (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)@ 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)


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 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 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 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 Class of 2020.jpg

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. 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, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.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 (talkcontribs) 09:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


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)

A meerkat for you!

500px photo (122671683).jpeg 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)


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)


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)

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 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

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)
Return to the user page of "Oshwah".