Smiley.svg



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 (~~~~) at the end.


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


EditEdit

Hi how do I add my profile Majozii (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Majozii! Are you talking about creating a user page? Just go to User:Majozii, and you'll be able to create one! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Bryan Konietzko birthdateEdit

Hello, You recommended I message you. Bryan Konietzko's actual birthdate is on Imdb https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1665983/ That was my source for the change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.171.89 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi there! Thanks for the message and for letting me know. If you need assistance with anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to help you! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

SPI case/Dogfish Head BreweryEdit

Hello Oshwah! I'm sorry for cluttering your talk page again, but wanted to make sure I understood the findings from the SPI case brought against me a few weeks ago. It looks like a clerk merged me with another case, and the IP's were already blocked, but I believe that means I can make edits where appropriate (with citations, of course,) and it was found not to be related to the IP's in question. I just want to make sure I understand correctly, I'm still a little new to this. On a side note, the resources you gave me a few days ago to help me with an edit on Dogfish Head Brewery have been more than helpful, so I'm working to make some updates on that page for anyone who may use it. Thank you again for your help with everything, I greatly appreciate it! Spf121188 (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Spf121188! Thanks for the message. Please accept my apologies for such a delay getting back to you. This last month has been very hectic for me, and I just needed to take a break from some things for a bit until things became less busy. That sounds correct; if you were found to be a sockpuppet account, you wouldn't be sitting here able to message me here. You'd be blocked, and you're obviously not, so breathe easy and move on. :-) I'm glad that the help I provided for you was valuable to you. If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to reach out to me and I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Labrador retrieverEdit

I edited the Wikipedia page the labradors because what I wrote was correct. I've read a lot of boos about dogs and they mentioned that labradors are from a province in Canada called Newfoundland. Like the breed, the other breed also named Newfoundland which is also related to the Labrador breed. Hope to hear from you soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.240.193 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi there, and thanks for the message. I understand, but you need to cite references if you're going to make the changes that you've been making to that article. Please review this guideline, and let me know if you have any questions. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello FriendEdit

—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Sakura emad! Thanks for the new doggy! Sorry it took so long to respond and to thank you for this. It's been a hectic month for me since August, and I needed to take a break from things for a bit while things were so busy. I hope you're doing well! Keep in touch, and let me know if I can help you with anything - I'll be more than happy to do so! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

HelpEdit

I'm just saying that Johnato3126 is a sock of blocked Johnjoshua1. He was already CU blocked on Wikimedia Common [1], with the same editing behavior. 220.126.9.232 (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Take a lookEdit

If you are not too busy could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince1917 and tell me what you think? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Kansas Bear! I apologize for such a delay with responding to your request here. I had a very hectic September, and I needed to take a break from things for awhile. It looks like a checkuser has confirmed the sock puppetry and closed the SPI case, so issue resolved. :-) If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Not a problem, Oshwah! I completely understand. My grandson arrived 3 weeks early so things have been hectic here for the past week. But he is fine and my daughter-in-law is doing well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Kansas Bear - Wow, three weeks early? Yeah, that can definitely be worrying and a bit stressful to go though. I'm glad to hear that he's fine and that the premature birth didn't cause any harm to him and his development. Congratulations! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

New message from PahunkatEdit

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Oshwah. You have new messages at Pahunkat's talk page.
Message added 15:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[]
Mail-message-new.svg
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.

Hello Oshwah, another email from me. I'm not sure if you're already aware of this, but I've just sent it to you in case you weren't. Pahunkat (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm an idiot, that should have been a ygm. Forgot to tick the right box on twinkle. Pahunkat (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello User:Pahunkat, I am still waiting for a reply to an email I sent to Oshwah the previous week so you may not be the only one waiting patiently. It appears he has not edited Wikipedia since 25 August 2021 except a single edit at the end of the same month. Only Oshwah knows if the reason for the break was Hurricane Ida or not, the user page does not reveal where he is. p.s. everyone makes small mistakes on Wikipedia which can be easy to fix while noticed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I hope Oshwah's alright given the hurricane. It's an OS matter related to Oshwah, but from a long time ago and I suspect Oshwah already knows about it and decided to do nothing. Pahunkat (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Pahunkat, Iggy the Swan! Sorry for such a delay responding to you here! It's been a really hectic September, and I needed to take a break from some things in order to get my affairs in line. I plan on responding to each message left on my user talk page here, then I'll tackle my email inbox next. You'll just need to bear with me for the time being, as my absence from Wikipedia since August has resulted in 146 Wikipedia notifications and 66 emails sent to my Wikipedia inbox. :-) I'll hopefully be able to get to your message soon; again, just bear with me. :-) Cheers - great to be back! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

AdminshipEdit

Based on my experience here, how likely do you think I'd be granted administrator privileges on Wikipedia?. Regards StarryNightSky11(talk) 21:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi, @StarryNightSky11, I think it's great you're interested in getting more involved in Wikipedia through adminship. Based on your current experience, however, any request for adminship from you is likely to be speedily closed (see Adminship is not for new users). The expectation for admin qualifications is quite high, as this humorous essay makes clear. You may want to read the answer to this frequently asked question. Happy editing! ––FormalDude talk 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@FormalDude: Thank you for your advice. Best StarryNightSky11(talk) 22:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi StarryNightSky11! I apologize for such a delay responding to your question here. Let's just say that September was a ridiculously hectic month for me, and I needed to take a break from some things so that I could get some affairs in order. :-) It looks like you've been given some good advice above. In my perspective, when people approach me about the prospect of running for adminship, here is what I usually say:
Administrators on Wikipedia are volunteer users who are given (literally) a few extra buttons in order to carry out advanced actions that, for obvious reasons, can't be given out to everybody. That's the only difference between a Wikipedia editor and a Wikipedia editor who is also an administrator. Administrators have to follow all of the same policies, guidelines, rules, and norms that non-admins have to, and they have absolutely no "authority" above other users or accounts, nor do they have any kind of access to hidden "special things" like any exemptions from certain policies or rules, or more rights or "status" above other users to edit articles and content. Apart from the few extra buttons that administrators have in order to carry out those few additional actions and tasks, they are absolutely 100% equal and are exactly the same as non-administrators in regards to everything else - authority, power, "status", importance, and the right to make edits and changes to articles and content. They don't make up rules, block who they want, protect what they want, or do whatever they want - their responsibilities are to carry out the tasks that the community has allowed and outlined in the appropriate policies to carry out and only in situations that are deemed necessary and acceptable by those policies.
That being said, the administrator user right is a senior-level toolset that's only given to highly experienced editors who can demonstrate many years' worth of above-proficient and consistent policy knowledge, judgment, community trust, appropriate use of tools and policy, and other requirements the community deems relevant to examine before giving their support. It is not a user right that's given to new, novice, or even established editors on Wikipedia. To give you a good idea and perspective: I've been an editor since the beginning of 2007 (14 years), and I've only been an admin since August 2016 (5 years) - meaning that I was an editor on Wikipedia for just shy of 10 years before I was considered for the tool. You can refer to this guide, as well as this guide - for more information about how users become administrators, the process, the various requirements, and (in a nutshell) how difficult it is in order to become one. Most requests by users to become administrators fail, even by users with years of good experience. There are many good editors and contributors on Wikipedia who will never become administrators (for various reasons), and there are many requirements before even being considered for the role or even having your request taken seriously. In a nutshell: It's not easy.
I hope my response has answered your questions and provided you with a good explanation of the role, the responsibilities, what admins are and what they're not, and the general requirements and process that users go through in order to become one. If you have any questions, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Best regards and happy editing - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

happy adminship anniversaryEdit

Wikipe-tan mopping.svg
Wishing Oshwah a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks Sakura emad! Wow, 5 years really do go by fast! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Oshwah hope you happy and healthy life. 😊 —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sakura emad - So far, so good! Let's just hope that it stays that way... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry I'm one day late, but happy adminship anniversary :-). Thanks for all the work you've put into the English Wikipedia and as well as throughout Wikimedia as a global renamer. SHB2000 (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi SHB2000! No need to be sorry - it's all good, man... ;-) Thanks for the message and for the kind words, and I hope you have a great rest of your weekend. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks Oshwah :-) SHB2000 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Wikipedia Administrator.svg
Wishing Oshwah a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia laurier anime.gif
Hi CAPTAIN RAJU! Thank you for the well wishes! I can't believe that it's already been 5 years... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Gerda Arendt! Thank you for the anniversary well-wishes! I'm just sorry that it took so long for me to respond to you with my gratitude. It was a very hectic September for me, and I needed to take a break from some things in order to get some affairs sorted out and in-line. Not to worry though! A lot of users have speculated and were curious about where I've been... I'm not retired, I didn't quit Wikipedia, and I'm definitely not dead. It's good to be back! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A barnstar for you!Edit

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
for friends only Spaceman6651 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Spaceman6651! Thank you for leaving me this barnstar! I'm happy that you consider me a friend - I feel the same way. I'm sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to you. It's been a very hectic September for me, and I needed to take a break from some things so that I could get some important affairs sorted out and in-line. I hope that you're doing well, and I hope you keep in touch. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Closure of AfD - Concern of premature closureEdit

Hi, could you check this AfD for me, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sethward, and determine if this was closed too early by the non-admin? I'm not sure if that should have been closed so early. If there is nothing wrong, then can I challenge the end result in RfD, and if so, what grounds would be feasible for discussion? GUtt01 (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Oshwah- if you do get into this at all, then Talk:America's Got Talent (season 16)#Sethward anchor should also be given a look at too. Magitroopa (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If you do, another question - should an Anchor template be used in the manner to help with a redirect, even if the information is purely brief? GUtt01 (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nevermind. Gonna wait out the matter on the talkpage for a while, thanks to suggestion given to answer some doubts I had. GUtt01 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi GUtt01, Magitroopa! I apologize for such a delay responding to your questions and your requests here. I'm just getting back onto Wikipedia after being away for a month, and I have LOTS of messages, requests, notifications, pings, and emails that I have to catch up with. :-) Typically, AFD discussions should be left open for seven days, though exceptions have often been made - usually when it's an obvious Speedy Delete, such as A7, G5, G12, or other obvious reasons. However, if the article doesn't fall within that obvious range, it should be open for input for seven days before it is officially closed. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions, and I'll be happy to do so. Again, I apologize for the delayed response. I needed a break from some things, and it feels good to be back! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Oswah!Edit

Thank you for your contributions and help on Wikipedia. I already believed that you are trying to respond to users' requests as best you can. By the way, your crazy hair got full marks from me :-) Tutsens Woman (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Tutsens Woman! Thank you for the message and the kind words. :-) Yeah, the hair was ridiculous, but what you're seeing is my natural hair style - other than being brushed and washed in the shower, that's what my hair naturally does when it gets long. I have no idea where this ridiculous trait come from in my family, and honestly, I don't wanna ask. :-P I hope you're doing well, and I hope you keep in touch. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

431x9719x2099863 and 2351x4513x13264529Edit

Why she blocked User:431x9719x2099863 and User:2351x4513x13264529? 2405:9800:BA31:F6:FD7E:6343:96DA:9CBD (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A simple answer: Evading an existing block which is known as block evasion. Some users use CheckUser to check if these accounts were registered under the same network of IP addresses before blocking. In addition, the edits made are not good for Wikipedia usage either.
I hope Oshwah returns soon for him to answer as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi there! I apologize for the delay responding to your question here. I owe Iggy the Swan a big "thank you" for responding and helping to answer your question while I was away from Wikipedia. Iggy the Swan is correct - these accounts were blocked because checkuser evidence confirmed them to be sock puppet accounts that were created in order to evade their block and cause disruption. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Marcel the Shell Director Dean Fleischer Camp Wikipedia PageEdit

Hi Oshwah! I hope you're doing well! Thank you so much for looking into this page. Kathryn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dean_Fleischer_Camp_(director)

TheDirectorTab (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi TheDirectorTab! I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. You're very welcome! If you need my assistance with anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me and let me know. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi,Oshwah! No worries at all! I've actually been dealing with some family issues so today is the first time I've logged on to wiki in a while. I did get a response from. aneditor who said my original article wouldn't be able to be approved. Would you be able to help me undestand how to try to pursue publication for this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dean_Fleischer_Camp
Also, I'm sorry for all. ofmy questions. I'm in my 20s but when it comes to computers i have the knowledge of a dinosaur TheDirectorTab (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi TheDirectorTab! I'm sorry to hear that you're going through family issues, and I hope that they manage to be resolved and with as little negative impact as possible. Keep your head up - everything will be okay in the end. :-) I took a look at the draft, and I don't see any issues that stand out at me. The only thing that I would have you do (if you haven't done so already) is make sure that you've read and that you understand Wikipedia's guidelines on notability - especially the notability of living people. This is the exact guideline that a reviewer will refer to when they go to review your draft and its suitability on Wikipedia as an article. I think that it's also important to note that I am not an AFC reviewer - I don't actively participate in the AFC review process, nor do I actively make decisions and either accept or decline any draft submissions. If you have any specific questions or concerns regarding your draft, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer them and help you. Other than that, make sure that you read through the notability guidelines, and definitely let me know if you have any questions regarding those guidelines. I can definitely help you out when it comes to understanding them. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wow Oshwah!! Thank you so much for your kind words and encouragement. Who knew Wikipedia could be such a nice space! TheDirectorTab (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Reversion of changes to Tunguska event pageEdit

Hello, I added a new section to the Tunguska event page because it was missing a section on references to it in film. I added a reference to the film "Greenland" and included a link to the scene in which it is mentioned on YouTube but it was reverted for lack of reference sourcing. Is a YouTube video of the film scene not count as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortega (talkcontribs) 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Mortega - Linking to a YouTube video that shows a scene in a movie is not considered a reliable source. This is why your edit was reverted. Please take some time to review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources that are secondary, and please let me know if you have any questions. I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank youEdit

Hi @Oshwah! I just wanted to let someone on here know that after some careful consideration, I have decided to semi-retire from Wikipedia for the time being. Thank you for being so kind and welcoming, which is why I'm leaving you this message. Editing and contributing on Wikipedia has been a thrilling experience! I hope my contributions and article additions have helped the project. It's just getting too stressful for me to navigate all the various policies that are in place for the (unfortunately) niche topics I wish to write about for my city here in India. I am just a second year university student working off of topics I came across when doing a college assignment, so I don't want to argue/contest with the decisions of the proficient researchers and editors who make this project so great.

I was given some great guidance on the individuals and families I was writing about by several experienced editors (you can see my now archived talk page discussions), and I have done as they have asked diligently. I still have 3 pending drafts, along with a few articles already in main space which haven't yet been reviewed. If in case I find online/accessible/rich sources in the coming few weeks/months for the drafts, I'll work on them slowly and move them to main space when I am confident about them. If not, I'll db-g7 them. I had a few biographies I was researching to add here, but I won't be adding those article because for some reason I feel my entries have been unwelcome.

I know you are very busy, so I won't expect you to reply to this, but thank you for everything! I just wanted someone friendly to know. Hope you have a good day wherever you are. AngryMushroom (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi AngryMushroom! I apologize for such a delay responding to your message here. I needed to take a break from some things in my life in order to get some important affairs sorted out and in-line, which is why I've been away from Wikipedia since August. I'm sorry to hear that you've decided to move into semi-retirement status with us as a member of the community. Yes, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be quite daunting to become familiar and proficient with, and they can perhaps even be intimidating when looking at them from a perspective of just how many there are. It's something that I hear about somewhat-commonly when users come to me with questions, or when they tell me that they've decided to leave Wikipedia. The feeling of being unwelcome or that your contributions aren't welcome to the community is also something I hear about commonly with users that decide to leave Wikipedia, which I completely understand... Having your hard work that you've spent hours - if not days - of time putting together for the encyclopedia criticized and leaving you feeling that it wasn't welcome, needed, or wanted - well, that can be devastatingly discouraging and disheartening. That feeling will knock the wind out of you in regards to your enthusiasm with the project and your desire to contribute to it. Your contributions, no matter how small they are or how often you make them, are welcome here and help to build and maintain an encyclopedia. Even though you've decided to semi-retire, please know and remember that you're very much still a member of this community. Should you decide to move out of semi-retirement and return, we'll be here and waiting for you, and so will the project. :-) I wish you well, and I hope that you find the community, place, or activity that you're looking for when searching for something to be a part of, volunteer your time to, and contribute to. If you need anything, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Thanks for the message - it'll be sad to see you go. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Your message to meEdit

Quick question for you, Oshwah. Since you profess to be so dedicated to keeping Wikipedia up to date, instead of removing my update that Rep. Kind had announced he wouldn't run for re-election, why not do a quick search on your own, confirm my reporting, and add the cite yourself? I would hate to think that you simply enjoy wielding power to quash the contributions of others more than helping to provide updated and accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.91.133 (talk) 23:34, 09 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi there, and thank you for the message. When it comes to providing reliable sources and references with changes made to an article, an important policy to keep in mind is the onus, or burden of proof, that someone must provide when making a change to the article. If you read this section of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, it states that "[t]he onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Another very specific policy that you should understand is this section of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which states (in bold lettering) that "[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This means that, when modifying an article's content, the burden for locating and citing reliable sources that support the content rests with the editor who is trying to add it. You can't go to the editor who questioned the content's validity and verifiability and removed it and then tell them that they need to go and find a reference for the content that you added. That's on you. As the person who is adding the content to an article, it's your responsibility to provide and cite reliable sources that support the information you're trying to add. Unreferenced or poorly referenced content that is added to an article (especially if the article is a biography of a living person) can be challenged and removed. Please let me know if you have any questions about these policies and their meaning, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I hope that you understand. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Croatian Air forceEdit

Hi Oshwash, Listen. Can you please Make a Protection Page for Croatian Air Force. One of users IP starting to Revent many times about Rafale's Order for Croatia. Because it's not been Finalize the Contract. So will you make a 1 month or something ?. PTS 188 (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Some sudden thoughtsEdit

Having comments in User talk:Jimbo Wales#You made a mistake read, I suddenly think of what you had once told me (I mean those about "civility"). However, how should I introduce and explain it to a particular person who does not have any (correct) concept on it? (I mean, if it really happened) I also want to ask what the true concept of "consensus" is, because I have found that some have totally different opinions on the definition of "consensus", which makes a tie in the community. (Actually something related to an Office action which mainly affects Chinese Wikipedia, and being reported by various news agencies.) Sanmosa Outdia 12:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Sanmosa! I apologize for the delay responding to your questions here. I hope you're doing well and that life is treating you kindly. :-) The best way to approach someone on Wikipedia in regards to civility and their recent behavior (assuming that they've been responding and commenting uncivilly) is to do so in a peaceful and encouraging manner, and with words that the editor will interpret as being an attempt to provide them a friendly and informal warning about their behavior, and an offer to help them out if they need it.
There are a few very important things that you need to know and understand before you decide to approach anyone about their recent incivility or personal attacks made toward others. First and foremost, you need to understand that this editor will likely either be very upset, extremely frustrated, and in a very confrontational and in-your-face kind of mood. Because of that, they will likely mis-interpret any words that you use toward them - and that have even a tiny remote possibility of being negative, threatening, or confrontational - as being such, and they will very likely respond to you with the same level of unpleasantness that they believe that you made toward them. That's why it's important to pay very close attention and be very selective with the words that you use in your message to them. Be clear with your reason for reaching out to them, how you feel, what you're trying to do, your desired outcome from approaching them, and your expectations.
Another very important thing to understand, expect to have happen, and be prepared for is the fact that the user that you're approaching is very likely going to respond to your discussion negatively, uncivilly, and in a confrontational and battleground-like manner toward you in return. If this happens, don't take it personally - they're just upset with the situation, and they're upset that someone is now talking to them about their behavior. Consider this to be the typical and expected outcome of your discussion with them, and be prepared for this emotionally and psychologically. When this happens, don't make any further responses or replies to the discussion. Just walk away and consider the matter closed; you've told them about their behavior, pointed them toward relevant policies and guidelines, and were civil and offered to help them. The most important objective with approaching someone about their behavior is that you've informed them and that you've warned them; if anything, they now understand that they're violating one of Wikipedia's founding principles, and they can't come back to us later and use the "I didn't know" or the "I wasn't told" or "I wasn't warned" excuse if their repeated behavior results in sanctions or editing restrictions. Your ultimate goal and the desired outcome that you're aiming for is to receive a response from the editor that isn't unpleasant and full of uncivil personal attacks toward you. If that happens, consider it a bonus and a huge win towards you and how you handled things with them. My ultimate point with this paragraph is to tell you that a negative and uncivil response to your message to them about their incivility should be expected. Just don't let it get to you emotionally, and walk away when that happens. You did your job.
I typically approach others about civility with the role of a "concerned editor who just wants to help." That's given me the highest level of success when it comes to receiving civil replies in return (aside from having a highly respected standing and reputation with the community, but that's neither here nor there... lol). What exactly does that look like? "Hi [Username of editor]! I hope you're doing well and that your day has been pleasant. I just wanted to leave you a message in order to talk to you about some concerns that I have regarding some of your recent comments and responses toward other editors in some discussions. For example, the comment you made [here - provide a diff link pointing them toward their uncivil edits], and [here - list additional diffs as necessary]. These comments are [uncivil - provide a wiki link to WP:CIV], and they directly conflict with one of Wikipedia's [founding principles - provide a wiki link to WP:5P]. It's a real bummer to see a discussion turn into something like this, and I just don't want to see you get blocked or finding yourself in hot water with the community because of how you've recently behaved toward others here. I just want to quietly and informally give you a nudge on the shoulder about Wikipedia's [civility policy - provide a wiki link to WP:CIV] so that you can correct this behavior before it leads you into any trouble. If you need help with anything, have questions, or just need someone to talk to or to help you to calm any emotions down, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. I wish you well, and I hope that you'll take this as an opportunity to self-evaluate how you respond and communicate with others, and that you'll do what you need to do in order to keep calm, remain civil, and keep discussions positive and focused toward our primary goal of building an encyclopedia. Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Best - [signature]." Leave a message similar to this with someone who needs to be talked to about their recent lack of civility, and I think it'll have a good chance of turning out well.
Now, onto your other question: "What is the true concept of consensus?" That's an excellent question to ask; many editors have, at best, a partial and basic understanding of what consensus is and how to determine whether or not consensus has been achieved. But let's not start by asking what consensus truly is... Let's start by asking how that we can achieve consensus, and what the goal should be next when that level of consensus cannot happen. First, let's start with the very basic level of consensus. Let's say that you hypothetically make an edit to an article, add some content, and save it. If nobody objects to your edit, reverts it, or starts a discussion to discuss, challenge, dispute, or voice their opposition to it - you've attained the most basic level (but the most complete level) of consensus. You made an edit that nobody objects to - in retrospect, this is known as presumed consensus. Now, let's say that someone revises your edit a few months later. Unless someone objects to, disputes, or reverts that edit - it is now considered to have presumed consensus. And the cycle continues and continues... this is how Wikipedia and the encyclopedia can grow and expand over time.
However, this obviously isn't always the resulting outcome, and other editors will certainly raise concerns, object to, challenge, dispute, and revert edits that are made. When this happens, Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol outlines exactly how to work things out - from the very beginning of an objection or content dispute, we are expected to start a discussion with the focus and objective toward achieving consensus. What does that look like typically? To give you a very basic example: If two people are discussing a content dispute with one another, it's ideally reached by proposing a change, addressing the concerns raised by those who are opposed to it, proposing another change with these concerns addressed and incorporated, and continuing this cycle until a proposed change is presented that everyone involved with can agree on. Consensus is now reached, and that proposed change can move forward. The typical way that consensus is achieved in this example is that the two users work toward a compromise that everyone involved agrees with. In these situations, editors should work toward a compromise rather than an "all or nothing" approach; that kind of strategy and approach is almost never met with consensus, and typically results in frustrations and tensions between those on the other side of the dispute. Seek compromise where possible.
When it becomes more complicated and as more editors get involved, we turn to different strategies for presenting arguments for or against a proposition or discussion and determining if consensus has been reached in a discussion. Consensus decisions (that's when someone closes a discussion and decides if consensus is reached, and if so, what the outcome is) are properly made by taking the quality of the arguments made, their origin and history, and community policies and guidelines into account. A determination of whether or not a consensus exists is typically measured by examining each side of the discussion or dispute, examining the quality of the arguments and reasoning provided by the participants on that side, and whether or not their arguments properly incorporate, respond to, and address all of the legitimate concerns and objections raised by the opposing side. If this is found to have been achieved by one side of the proposal, it will typically be determined that consensus has been reached, and proceed with the actions necessary with implementing the decision that was reached by consensus.
Depending on the discussion, the number of editors involved, and the complexity or size of the discussion, proposition, or dispute - closing a discussion and making a consensus decision and a ruling is not an easy task that can be performed properly if done with haste, without properly reading through the entire discussion and each argument that is provided by its participants, or if done with the mindset that this has to be closed and with a "ruling" by a certain time or that it must be done quickly. Unless the closing administrator (or editor) has been actively following the discussion from the start and as it grows and as more editors add their arguments, reading through an entire discussion and making a proper determination can take days to complete. The key here is patience, knowledge of policy, diligence, and completeness.
As you can obviously see with my response to your question, as the proposition or discussion grows, and as more participants provide their arguments, and as complex or in-depth the discussion or proposition becomes or aims to implement, "true determination of consensus" (which is what happens when everyone involved agrees with a certain outcome) shrinks to a near-zero probability. We of course seek to incorporate all of the legitimate concerns raised in a proposition, and then seek consensus by making additional propositions that compromise and address those concerns until a proposal is provided that everyone can agree on, but there are often propositions and discussions where this can't happen and where this isn't possible. For example, you can't take an editor's request for adminship at RFA and come up with "compromises" and modified proposals until everyone is happy. Either you're in support for the proposal or you're in opposition to it (or you can be neutral of course and provide legitimate input as well), and in those cases, I've explained how determining whether or not consensus has been reached in this response a few paragraphs above.
Whew! This has got to be one of the lengthiest replies that I've ever provided on my user talk page! I apologize if you find my response to be overly large in length and detail, but I wanted to fully answer your questions and explain everything to you in a way that I believe that you'll understand completely and easily. I hope that my response here is helpful to you, and that it fully answers all of your questions. If you still have any questions, please don't hesitate to respond and ask them, and I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. I hope you have a great day, I wish you happy editing, and I apologize again for the delay with responding to you here. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks a lot for your reply. I am feeling much better now. Hope you have a good day. Sanmosa Outdia 09:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sanmosa - Good! I'm happy to see that you feel much better after reading my response. It was quite lengthy, but I felt that it needed to be in order to fully explain everything, answer your questions, and provide you with good information. Good luck with everything, and keep in touch! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you run into any more questions, or if you need any input or advice, and I'll be more than happy to help you. I hope you have a great weekend, and I'll of course see you around the project. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hope you're wellEdit

I've noticed you haven't been active for a while, I hope you're doing well and I'll hopefully see you again here soon. All the best. StarryNightSky11  09:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

+1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I came here to say the same. Hope to see you back soon. Pahunkat (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The latest action or edit made by this user was on August 31, 2021 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AriianaGrande_and_fans_are_d3ad_people (see page history). FWIW, it has been a month, and I hope that he will return for the best of his abilities on Wikipedia. Mabuhay ka at sana ay babalik ka sa Wikipedia (Long live and I hope that you will be back on Wikipedia),----Rdp060707|talk 07:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
To the friends and fans of this user, do not place yourself in anger or emotion.----Rdp060707|talk 07:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi StarryNightSky11, Pahunkat, Rdp060707! I very much appreciate your messages and your comments. It means a lot to me to see that there are editors on this project who want me here, care about me, and care enough to leave me a message and ask how I'm doing if I've been away for awhile. Yes, this was quite a length of time to be away from Wikipedia. I haven't been on here since August - quite some time compared to my typical long-term editing patterns. When I observe my overall editing pattern, I see that I will usually participate, edit, and make contributions here for a few weeks, then break away for 1-2 weeks on average while things get busy, and then return again for a few weeks when things slow down. From there, the cycle repeats. This particular length of time of being away from Wikipedia was due to my typical reason - life and work becoming busy. However, this time, in addition to just becoming busy again, I had a few important affairs going on in September that I needed to take care of, address, and get in order. I needed to take a break from a few things in my typical routine - I just felt the need to step away for a bit, refresh, mix things up, do something different, and then return after I had my affairs in order and when I felt ready and had the desire to do so. It felt quite different when I did this, but not to worry! I wasn't injured or affected by Hurricane Ida (there were some editors who voiced concerns that I might have been), I haven't retired or quit Wikipedia, I'm still very much involved and plan on remaining involved as long as the community will have me, and I'm not dead. :-) I just needed to step away for awhile, and for a few reasons... It feels great to be back! A few things on Wikipedia that I'll be needing to spend my time towards right now and for the time being is to respond to all of the messages, pings, notifications, and emails that I received while I was away. I came back to Wikipedia with 146 notifications and 66 emails sent to my Wikipedia mailbox... so I'm going to be spending the next day or so focused towards getting all caught up with everything. :-) Don't worry, though... I'll be around and available if you need anything. Just leave a message on my user talk page or shoot me an email. You'll just need to bear with me as I get caught up with my messages and get responses out to those who are waiting for my input or my assistance. :-) Thanks again for the well-wishes, your concerns, and your messages. They mean a lot to me, and it's great to be back! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Good to know you're safe! —2d37 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, 2d37! Yup, I'm fine - just went inactive for longer than usual in order to just take a break, refresh, take care of some things, and come back when I was feeling ready to do so, and had the desire to get back to work here. :-) Nothing major, just needed a somewhat-unexpected extended time away from things. I'm glad to be back - I'm feeling good! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Welcome back! Glad to see you here again Face-smile.svg --CiaPan (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, CiaPan! It feels great to be back! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Help with tablesEdit

Hi Oshwah! Sorry to bother; I wanted to see if there was any way I could get some help with editing a table on the Dogfish Head Brewery page. They have some new year round selections available and I wanted to make sure the table on that page is updated for anyone who wants to view. Also, as I'm continuing to learn and edit cautiously, I wanted to ask if there was a tutorial with creating and edit my own userpage. Thank you and I appreciate your help as always! Spf121188 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi @Spf121188! What help do you need with updating the table? I'd be happy to lend a hand. As for creating and editing your userpage, there is a fantastic guide at Wikipedia:User page design center. ––FormalDude talk 21:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[]
Hi Spf121188! Thanks for leaving me a message with your request for assistance with that table, and your question regarding user page creation. I apologize for the delay with responding to you, and I have to give FormalDude a big "thank you" for responding and offering to help you while I was away from Wikipedia. Did you receive the help that you were looking for with that table on the Dogfish Head Brewery article? If you still need help, let me know and I'll be happy to do so. I also recommend that you visit the user page design center page that FormalDude provided to you above. It'll provide you with a ton of information, ideas, tutorials, how-to's, and other good content. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
HI Oshwah! I'm happy to see that you're back and well! Yes, FormalDude really helped me out and I was able to get updates to the Dogfish Head Brewery page with my sources and he checked the table for me afterward. Thank you for responding and again, I'm glad to see you're back! Thanks for offering help as well, I'll reach out again if I need help if that's okay! Have an awesome day! Spf121188 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Spf121188! Thanks! It feels great to be back on Wikipedia and to be back for more work here. ;-) Great, I'm glad that FormalDude was able to help you and that the table managed to get updated within the article. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you run into any more questions or find that you need help with something down the line. I'll be more than happy to lend you a hand. ;-) Cheers, and thanks again! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Discussion about removing the content reuse disclaimer from the universal editnoticeEdit

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn § Can we remove the content reuse disclaimer?. Inviting you because you were the most recent editor to make a substantive change to the message when you added an icon last December. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Sdkb! Thanks for the message, the heads-up, and for the invitation. :-) That's an interesting proposal that has a good point. I think there might be a legal aspect to having that sentence present in that notice though... I'll look through the discussion and provide input if I feel it to be necessary or that it will benefit the discussion. Thanks again, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. See you 'round! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Help needed for IP blocking or range blockingEdit

Hi Oshwah, would like to request your help in blocking these IPs from this archived ANI thread or 106.171.43.226 which is the latest known IP to have been editing disruptively on Cheongju for quite a while and recently on Ji-woo. The same user has been previously done the same with Chuu (singer) and Draft:Running Girls (temporary semi-protect till 7 Oct 2021), even though the latest known IP hasn't done so with the former. If it's possible, please help to range block as this has been happening for quite a few months, and user doesn't seem to be bored doing the same thing over and over again at random intervals at times or repeating the same thing immediately after I rollback their disruptive edits. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 13:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker)@Paper9oll: Sorry friend, this user or admin is currently inactive since the last day of August 2021. This means that Oshwah will not respond to you for this day; other admins aside from him can take action or handle on it. Please take note my words. Thanks,----Rdp060707|talk 07:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Rdp060707 Ah okay, thanks for the update. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 08:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Paper9oll! Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns and your request. I apologize for the delay responding to you here. I've been inactive since the end of August and for a few different reasons... But, the good news is that I'm back and feeling great! :-) Do you still need me to look into this, or have you reported this issue to another administrator or to a relevant noticeboard? Just let me know; I'm happy to take a look at things if it's still a current problem. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Oshwah, welcome back. I haven't reported this other administrator yet, I also didn't reopened the archived ANI thread. Currently the IP hasn't return back with any new IP or continued their disruptive edits using the old IPs in affected articles after I posted this discussion. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 10:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Paper9oll! Thanks! It's great to be back to work on the project again. ;-) Okay, it's good to hear that the IP user is dormant, or at least dormant for the time being. If this changes, and if the user returns to causing shenanigans, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look into the matter. If I'm not around (I eventually have to get some sleep sometimes throughout the week... lol), I highly recommend reporting the abuse to AIV or ANI so that it can be quickly looked into and handled by the next patrolling administrator who takes notice. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Oshwah Understood. Thanks you. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 16:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

You've been missed — hope all is wellEdit

Hey Oshwah. It's now been over a month since your last edit. You've been missed — hope all is well. Please feel free to shoot me an email in lieu of a response here. Kind regards as always, El_C 15:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

+1 - I hope all is well and look forward to see you back editing soon. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Same from me as well.
I hope this contribution drought is not the result of what happened to Ronhjones where it took at least a year to find out what really happened to him. Graham87 discovered via a friend of Ronhjones on Facebook that he was RIP, hopefully this is not the case from my point of view with Oshwah. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I hope that he will be well and his work will not be closer to the end. The truth why he is inactive since August will be revealed once he comes back, I hope.----Rdp060707|talk 07:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
To everyone concerned, he was increasingly active in the days prior to this lull in edits; one of his page stalkers (no offense intended at all,) helped me out with an inquiry I made and it was mentioned by him that Oshwah is likely taking a well deserved break. Hopefully that's the case! Spf121188 (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi El C, LuK3, Iggy the Swan, Rdp060707, Spf121188! I wanted to give you all a big "thank you" for your messages, comments, and your concerns here. I'll respond here by adding the response I gave to the other group of editors above who also messaged me wondering where I'm at and if I'm doing okay. :-)
It means a lot to me to see that there are editors on this project who want me here, care about my well-being and my participation with the project, and care about me enough to leave me a message and ask how I'm doing if I've been away for awhile. Yes, this was quite a length of time to be away from Wikipedia. I haven't been on here since August - quite some time compared to my typical long-term editing patterns. When I observe my overall editing pattern, I see that I will usually participate, edit, and make contributions here for a few weeks, then break away for 1-2 weeks on average while things get busy, and then return again for a few weeks when things slow down. From there, the cycle repeats.
This particular length of time of being away from Wikipedia was due to my typical reason - life and work becoming busy. However, this time, in addition to just becoming busy again, I had a few important affairs going on in September that I needed to take care of, address, and get in order. I needed to take a break from a few things in my typical routine - I just felt the need to step away for a bit, refresh, mix things up, do something different, and then return after I had my affairs in order and when I felt ready and had the desire to do so.
Daily life felt quite different while I stepped away for the length of time that I did, but not to worry! I wasn't injured or affected by Hurricane Ida (there were some editors who voiced concerns that I might have been), I haven't retired or quit Wikipedia, I'm still very much involved with the project and plan on remaining involved as long as the community will have me, and I'm not dead. :-) I just needed to step away for awhile, and for a few reasons... It feels great to be back!
A few things on Wikipedia that I'll be needing to spend my time towards right now and for the time being is to respond to all of the messages, pings, notifications, and emails that I received while I was away. I returned to Wikipedia and came back to 146 notifications and 66 emails sent to my Wikipedia mailbox... so I'm going to be spending the next day or so focused towards getting all caught up with everything. :-) Don't worry, though... I'll be around and available if you need anything. Just leave a message on my user talk page or shoot me an email. You'll just need to bear with me as I get caught up with my messages and get responses out to those who are waiting for my input or my assistance. :-) Thanks again for the well-wishes, your concerns, and your messages. They mean a lot to me, and it's great to be back! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Glad all is fine here. Just as well the archive bot did not remove any messages while you were away otherwise many conversations would have been left missed and unanswered. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Iggy the Swan! Yup, all is fine, at least for now. :-) I just had things I needed to take care of, and I needed to step away from my normal routine for awhile. Not just Wikipedia, but also other things that I typically did throughout my routine. I needed the break and the change, and it was helpful in many ways. :-) Yeah, I don't use any kind of automation or archive bot to perform the archiving or any "cleanup" of my user talk page at all. I manually move old discussions to their corresponding archive page myself and after I'm pretty certain that it has drawn to a close or has been addressed and handled. This way, nothing (hopefully) gets missed and is allowed to be left to go stale and without a response. It's rare, but I have accidentally missed responding to a discussion and managed to let it fall through the cracks without realizing it, and despite the manual processes I just carry out and perform myself in order to avoid that from happening in the first place. I guess no system is perfect; I just try and do my best... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Good to have you back, brother! Advise about correspondence backlog — oops, I guess it went into my spam folder... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Pwoblem solved. El_C 10:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi El C! It's good to be back, and it's great to talk to you again! I hope I haven't missed much while I was away... A lot can happen on Wikipedia and while you're gone for over a month... ;-) Yeah, my correspondence backlog and Wikipedia inbox... it's a doozey right now, but I'll get caught up... slowly but surely. I've managed to get through my user talk page and respond to everyone here... I guess I better get started on going through my inbox and start shooting some responses out to people who've been waiting for quite some time to hear back from me. Thanks for the welcome back - I appreciate it a lot! Keep in touch, brotha! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Bah, I thought I'd posted here a few days ago to say "hope all is well", but it must have been one of those edit windows I left without publishing anything. I am very pleased to see you're back, so I'll just give you yet another talk page message to respond to, in the middle of dealing with your inbox :p --bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Bonadea - HA! No worries. It's great to be back and it's great to see you again, Bonadea! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

What does it take to initiate a global block?Edit

I may have the term wrong, but I'm sure you know what I mean. I was looking at Special:CentralAuth/Ddragoner and at c:Special:Contributions/Ddragoner after seeing their block here, and noting that they are sailing forth into Commons and Wikiquote pushing one Hamis Kiggundu (upe?)

This is well above my notional pay grade, yep, zero, like the rest of us! FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Timtrent: see meta:Global locks, however in general socking along is generally not a reason to globally lock an account or set of account. — xaosflux Talk 13:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Might qualify for locking for xwiki abuse due to the blocks at enwiki and simplewiki. JavaHurricane 14:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Timtrent! As others have pointed out above, Stewards have the ability to set a global lock (not a global block, which would work much differently anways) on a Wikimedia user account. I'm going to respond with a ridiculous amount of information that you didn't ask for, but I wanted to write this out in order to explain how everything works in case there are users who don't understand how locking works "under the hood" and would like to learn a bit about it all. If you just want to read the direct answer to your question, skip down to the second paragraph from the bottom of my response below. Otherwise, if you want a good crash course on how accounts work across multiple Wikimedia projects, how we got to the system we use now, and how locking works, read on. :-)
To completely understand how a global account lock works, you'll also need to understand how unified accounts work across multiple Wikimedia projects. To begin, we start with a short history lesson. :-) Before the Wikimedia Foundation implemented "global accounts" (that is, where you create an account on a Wikimedia project, and have that account across all Wikimedia Projects), users who created an account on the English Wikipedia, for example, did not also have an account created for them on the Simple English Wikipedia, or the Spanish Commons Wiki, the French Wikiquote Wiki, etc. Someone on a different Wikimedia project site could create an account on that local project and with the same username as yours that you created here, and it would belong to them and be theirs to use freely. There was no unification or any method of retaining a single "account" that would automatically come with you across multiple Wikimedia projects as you visit and contribute to them. You'd have to create a new account on each project that you visit and decide to contribute to, and you'd have to hope that somebody else didn't already take your username there. If someone did, it was a headache to keep track of and collaborate with other users who also contributed across multiple projects. It sucked; it was inefficient, your username couldn't be used for identification or validation purposes (since someone else could just register an account and take your username), and it led to many additional difficulties, headaches, and challenges that could've been avoided had a system been put in place when it became recognized as a potential problem. I mean, how do you recognize someone you know from the English Wikipedia that has the username "Oshwah" and the same person on the English Commons website if their username was taken, so they had to settle with "Oshwah2" on that project? Clearly, it was a problem, something needed to be done in order to address this, and it needed to be addressed as soon as it could be put together, implemented, and released into production. This would only become more of a problem and a complex issue as Wikimedia projects grew, and new languages and projects were created and brought online by the WMF over the years.
Then, in April 2015, something was thankfully done, and this username and account issue was all changed when the Wikimedia Foundation announced the single user login finalization project, and announced the plan to implement and deploy "unified accounts" to everyone across all WMF projects. This new "unified account" feature would be implemented to the entire WMF project and to all local Wiki sites in two steps: First, the "single user login finalization" project, followed by a project that, when executed, would move all existing MediaWiki accounts to the "unified accounts" system and then make any new accounts created after the change was completed use the "unified account" system by default. When the "single user login finalization" project (the first of two phases) was deployed, the WMF systematically searched for and located any local accounts that existed on any individual Wikimedia project that matched the username of another local account that existed on a different Wikimedia project site. After all of these conflicting local accounts were found, the WMF then automatically renamed both accounts and appended "~enwiki" (or the name of the local Wiki that the account was created on) to the end of the username. The end result when the first phase of the new implementation completed was that all local accounts across all Wikimedia project sites now had unique usernames that were not the same as any other local account that existed somewhere else. This was an important step to perform before the next phase of this new login system could be implemented.
After the finalization project completed, the "global account" or "unified login" system was implemented, which still exists and is used to this day (though many updates and improvements have been made to it over the years and as more features get released). How exactly does this "global account" or "account unification" system work? This is where things become a little bit more in-depth and detailed, but keep reading - I'll explain it to you in a very simple way and with an easy example to help you. :-)
Let's say that you're brand new to the Wikimedia project. You don't have an account with us yet, but after becoming interested in contributing to the English Wikipedia, you decide to create a new account while you're currently on the English Wikipedia website. While filling out the new account creation form, you provide a username that you'd like to have. The MediaWiki software checks if your chosen username is already taken by querying the list of accounts that exist on the Meta Wikimedia project. If an account exists there with the same username you requested using the form, you'll be told that your chosen username has already been taken and to choose a different one. When you've chosen a username that hasn't already been taken, your account will be created on the English Wikipedia as usual and just like how things worked before "unified login" was implemented. However, with the new "unified login" system in-place, a "global account" is also immediately created and saved to the Meta Wikimedia project. Afterwards, the account information that you provided using the new account creation form is synchronized from your local English Wikipedia account and saved to your "global account". If you're following my explanation correctly, there are now two accounts that get created when you created your your brand new account - a local account on the English Wikipedia, and a "global account" created automatically on the Meta Wikimedia project and with the account information you submitted copied over and saved. Got it? Great, let's move on... :-)
The Meta Wikimedia project site is where your "global account" exists. It retains all of your current account information - your global settings, global preferences, your password and confirmed email address, your username, global .js and .css pages, and other account information. Continuing from the example scenario that we started in the last paragraph above, and while logged into your shiny, sparkling, brand new English Wikipedia account that you just created - let's say that you now decide to visit another Wikimedia project website for the very first time - for example, the Spanish Wikipedia project. Upon visiting the website for the first time, the MediaWiki software on the Spanish Wikipedia will find that you're currently logged into a local account on another Wikimedia project - the English Wikipedia (browser cookies). From there, the software then looks at its list of local accounts and finds that none exists for you on the Spanish Wikipedia yet. Upon noticing this, the Spanish Wikipedia will then query the Meta Wikimedia project for a copy of the account information stored onto your "global account". From there, it will validate the login information from your browser cookie to verify the authenticity of your user session (security purposes), and upon getting the "all clear", the Spanish Wikipedia will then create a new local account on that Wikimedia project site for you, save a copy of your global account information to that local account, and it logs you into the account. From there, you'll be editing and contributing to the Spanish Wikipedia with the local account that now belongs to you, and just like the English Wikipedia, it is linked to your "global account".
Okay, let's finish the lesson on how "account unification" works with one final scenario: Using the same example that we put together int the last two paragraphs, let's say that some time has gone by since you created that sparkly shiny new English Wikipedia account. Your account is established throughout the Wikimedia project space, and you've visited quite a number of different projects and have made a number of good contributions to each one. One day, while you're on the English Wikipedia and making some contributions there, you decide to change the password to your account. You go to your preferences, click on "change password", enter your old and new password into the fields, and click on "save changes". The first thing that happens when you submit this change is that it is saved as a modification to your local account on the English Wikipedia. Immediately after saving your changes to your local English Wikipedia account, the modification to your account will then immediately be pushed to your "global account" on the Meta Wiki, which will immediately validate the change for authenticity, and then update and save your changes there. When this is done, each individual project that you have a local account automatically created with will synchronize with your "global account", and that password change you made will propagate to all of the other local accounts that exist for you across each and every Wikimedia project. This update and synchronization process happens very quickly from start to finish, but it's important to detail this scenario so that you understand how accounts from each individual project link to your "global account" and how things are linked from there.
Anyways, the reason that I explained how accounts work across the Wikimedia project space to you is so that I can now explain how global locks work "under the hood", and you'll be able to understand exactly what I'm talking about. ;-) Okay, when a steward sets the flag to lock your account, this change is applied directly to your global account on the Meta Wikimedia project. As explained in the previous paragraphs above, this global account is what every other Wikimedia project site references when they each go to query for any changes or updates that you've made to your account so that they can be synchronized with all of the various local accounts that exist throughout each project site that belong to you. If you're adding 2 and 2 together properly by now, you'll know what happens from here... ;-) In case you don't, I'll explain: When a steward locks your global account, that modification is then propagated and synchronized to all of your local accounts that exist across every individual Wikimedia project, and this synchronization occurs very quickly after the change is first made and the lock first applied.
To explain it in a simple way that answer your question directly: when your account becomes locked on a project, you are immediately logged out and any active sessions are immediately set to expire if you're currently logged in to any projects somewhere. Then, from there, any attempts to log into your account on any Wikimedia project Wiki will be rejected. Essentially, you are completely locked from being able to log into any of your accounts that exist on any Wikimedia project, and your account is completely inaccessible and unusable until it is unlocked. Stewards will typically lock accounts in cases of cross-wiki abuse, cross-wiki long term abuse, cross-wiki spamming or spambot account control or use, or other reasons that they find to be necessary for locking depending on the circumstance. You can request a global lock of an account by visiting this page and filing a request. If your request involves an IP address or IP range that's causing cross-wiki abuse, a Steward would instead implement a global block of that IP address or range, which essentially blocks editing by the IP address or range across all Wikimedia projects.
I apologize for responding with such a wall of details, history, and information about how accounts work and what really happens when you navigate between different WMF project websites. I wanted to be thorough with explaining locks, how they work, and when they're used when requests are filed. If you have any other questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Don't worry, I'll try not to respond with an entire chapter if you do have more questions. ;-) Thanks again for your message, and I wish you a great weekend and happy editing. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Surprisingly(!) I am, grateful for the amazing amount of information, much if which I knew or assumed already, yet having it concentrated in a single area has been very informative. Thank you. And, by the way, welcome back. I count you as a good Wiki-Friend and felt your absence.
I have decided to leave this particular user, group of users, possibe sock or meat farm, to others. My feeling is that I am less likely to make a fool of myself by letting others find the inspiration to pursue it than by seekkng action myself. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Timtrent! I'm glad that you gained something good from that big wall of text that I threw at you! ;-) However! (lol)... Since writing that response to you yesterday, I actually spent a bit of time and re-looked through all of the MediaWiki extensions involved with Unified Login, along with their code, the historical implementation of Unified Logins, SUL, CentralAuth, and a bunch of other involved tools and methods on top of it. I don't know what made me want to suddenly spend a bunch of time doing that, but I did - probably in order to make sure that I wasn't blatantly incorrect about what I said so that I didn't look like an idiot. ;-) But... I found some interesting tidbits out!
In a nutshell, and without explaining every code function, technical process, and database under the sun - I was... mostly correct... with what I said above. There actually is somewhat of a CantralAuth database that does hold some global account information that all Wikimedia wiki projects reference for global information with users, but in Wikimedia's specific implementation of wiki projects, it's mostly just limited to cookie, session data, authentication, and user session information. It basically helps with moving from one wiki to another. But, here's something that's cool: Since after we deployed Unified Login on ourselves and published the CentralAuth extension on the MediaWiki project site for developers to download, the WMF has since created a way for developers who have multiple wikis under the same domain to just create and link a globally shared database that handles everything for you when it comes to implementing a unified login experience. It's located here if you happen to be curious and want to see it. The reason that we can't use it (and really never will) is because it's recommended only for developers who are implementing a brand new farm of wikis for the first time, and aren't in a situation where they have a huge number of accounts that will have to be migrated. It also apparently has major issues if your wikis are across different domains - like most of the Wikimedia wiki projects are ("wikipedia.org", "wikimedia.org", "wikiquote.org", "wikivoyage.org") as opposed to ("a.oshwah.com", "b.oshwah.com", "c.oshwah.com", etc). But, what gets weird in a way is that we've .... kind of implemented it? Basically, over time and as years have gone by since we first moved over to Unified Login, we've implemented a unique mix between the two where we do use some things from shared databases, but not a lot. It's... weird... lol. ;-)
Anyways, I wanted to respond and thank you for the kind words. :-) While I definitely needed to spend that time away for many different reasons, it was nice in a way to be able to refresh and do something different with my daily routine for awhile. It feels good to be back, though! While I'd obviously would never want to cause the community or anyone here I consider to be friends and who I'm close to any sort of worry, concerns, or feelings in that regard, I'll admit that it was very humbling (and quite frankly something I never unexpected) to read the messages and from so many users voicing their concerns, and how being away impacted them. Thanks again for the response, and I hope you have a great rest of your weekend. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I do happen to run a number of MW installations at http://spottingworld.com initially based on WP articles, though omnltyh three got off the ground. That information would have been useful when setting them top and when fighting the waves of spammers. We locked them in the end, but never quite had the heart to close them down. MW installations attract spammers by the ship load.
I can quite see how having a swathe of legacy accounts would make the deployment of the full central repository uneconomical.
We all need to take breaks from here. It gets too intense. I took a several year break until relatively recently because I found I had become too absorbed and was finding tasks here to be urgent. They are not ever urgent. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Timtrent - Oh nice, that's actually quite an intriguing set of projects that you got going... I hope you don't mind, but I did a little poking around. That's great that you have this running. :-) Who does your hosting service? Or do you do what I do and have a server running where you live and just host everything yourself? Yeah, is was a break that I needed to take, and for many different reasons... I'm just glad to back and feeling refreshed. :-) I'm getting back into my typical "projects, patrols, vandal fighting, and keeping an eye on the front lines" a lot slower than I expected to be, but I'm not worried - I'm in no rush, and if it takes a bit longer for me to pick completely back up and resume from where I left off, then hey, I guess it just shows me just how much time I've been putting into this project and how many different things I've been doing simultaneously... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've used routerhosting for the last many years since they were rather small. When they started I expected good popularity. The projects are aimed at enthusiasts. At the start they did very well, but the community never grew into a self sustaining one, and no-one except me fought spammers and spam bots. When it turned into a job I let it lie fallow.
The advertising revenue is non existent. The bottom fell out of the Adsense market some years ago.
For a time, and a year too late, I had a dating site on the server. It started to take off in a small way, but I don't have the money to throw TV advertising at it. It was also beset by credit card fraud, Russian Bride fraud. After several thousand pound worth of Google advertising that almost broke even but somehow never did I consigned it to the great bucket of zeros and ones. Had I been a year earlier it probably would have flown. It had several uniques, including location matching by algorithm. Such is commerce.
When the credit card fraud clawbacks exceeded income I knew it was time to pull out. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I just checked. I've been with them since April 2012! That's a a long relationship with a hosting company FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Timtrent - I took a look at your hosting provider's website - they have a very interesting implementation of virtual hosting servers. ;-) Yeah, making actual revenue from web-based products isn't easy. It sounds like you financially came out even (or maybe a small amount above) - that's a decent outcome, even if it disappointed you. There have been many people who tried to start something, and were very unwise with the money that they tried to throw at it. Many, if not most people who start a web-based product of their own and try and fund it themselves wind up leaving with butt-loads of debt as a result - if anything, you should consider yourself lucky! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
A minor loss, that I was able to set against tax, thus it became more minor. I saw it as a high risk investment. I had a "stop loss" threshold. I guess it was planned luck FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I need your help!Edit

Hey Oshwah, I hope you're doing well throughout these times. As you're the individual I trust the most here on Wikipedia, I would need some help from you as I am still considerably new to this platform as an editor. Few months back, I've written two articles regarding biographies of living people. The first one was Ronnie Jupiter, a Malaysian musician, here is his page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ronnie_Jupiter, the second one was Alvin Soo Qwan Zhou, here at - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alvin_Soo_Qwan_Zhou. The part where I need help is - these two articles were created few months back, but however when I Google their names their Wikipedia pages did not appear. Just curious, is it a matter of time or search optimization, or there's something I'm doing wrong? As from what I know, articles that were created on Wikipedia should yield a strong search engine optimization (SEO) and have a knowledge panel when searched up on Google. I had been waiting to see these results for quite a while now, however they are still yet to appear. Any way you can help me? Do get back anytime! Cheers, MarkieC07 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(talk page watcher) Hi MarkieC07, Oshwah isn't active right now. Regarding your question, both of those are draft articles. After they have been accepted and moved to mainspace, they will be reviewed and then will be indexed by search engines. Drafts are not picked up by search engines. Schazjmd (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hey Schazjmd, thanks for getting back - no problem, I understand your response. Just a question - I realized you've placed both of the articles to be review by volunteers/editors of Wikipedia. As you can see Ronnie's draft was declined twice. Since I do edit around Wikipedia often, can I create these articles and make them in the article space instantly without submitting them for review? MarkieC07 (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
As a confirmed editor, you can move the article from draftspace to mainspace. It will then go in the queue for new page patrollers. It will not be indexed by a search engine until either a patroller reviews the article or 90 days have passed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Understood again, Schazjmd. So that's the case for Alvin Soo Qwan Zhou's article for now? MarkieC07 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Draft:Alvin Soo Qwan Zhou is in the queue for AFC reviewers. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Alright thanks for your assistance Schazjmd, I wish you have a good day. MarkieC07 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(talk page stalker) - Gentle reminder, Markie: that is not and never will be "Alvin Soo Qwan Zhou's article": that is an article about Alvin Soo Qwan Zhou. The distinction may seem trivial, but in fact it's vital. This is not MySpace or Facebook, with profiles of people, bands and companies - this is an encyclopedia, with articles about subjects of encylopedic interest, some of which happen to be human beings. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hey Orangemike, thanks for the tip, really appreciate it. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and definitely willing to learn more. MarkieC07 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi MarkieC07! Thanks for leaving me a message here. I apologize for not being able to respond to you until just now, but I have to thank Schazjmd for doing an excellent job and accurately answering your questions and explaining how things work while I was offline. If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to leave me a message and let me know. I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you in any way that I can. :-) Thanks again for your message, I wish you a great day and a great weekend, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hey Oshwah, welcome back, nice to hear from you again :) No worries regarding the delay as it's understandable that people can have a busy personal life. Anyways an additional small favor I'd like to ask - I had tried creating three articles on Wikipedia but however all of them are declined due to a lack of notability. I am hoping to at least write an article (preferably BLP in the niche of musicians/performing arts) but couldn't find people to start, nor know anyone notable that I can write. Do you think you could help me with this? MarkieC07 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Carmaker1_and_verifiabilityEdit

In 2018 you blocked Carmaker1 for edit waring/content dispute and adding unreferenced content. A porposal has been made at ANI for a topic ban or indef block, if you'd like to weigh in now is the time. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi TomStar81! Thanks for the message and the heads-up. I'll take a look at the discussion if it's not already too late and not already closed. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A book, may be...?Edit

Re your reply at #Some sudden thoughts – did you ever consider writing a Wikipedian's Complete Guide...? Face-grin.svg All the best! --CiaPan (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

And this #What does it take to initiate a global block?, too! --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi CiaPan! HA! I would, but I'd spend way too much time on it, and I wouldn't even know where to start, where to go, and where I'd stop! ;-) Those responses we're a bit lengthy, and when looking back at this discussion, perhaps even a bit too in-depth and unnecessary (which is why I let people know where to skip to if they just want to read the exact answer to that question and nothing more... lol). I guess I sometimes get into that focused mode where I feel the need to explain the concept and give a crash-course from the beginning in order to properly and accurately explain - especially if the questions (like the ones asked here) are very open and require a well-rounded and detailed response in order to fully answer and be of any kind of actual help that they're looking for. Oh well; if anything, I answered their questions and included like a 90% bonus to their answer with information, background, and how it all works. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Good to see you back at itEdit

I know a month and a bit isn't really a long time to not edit, but for you it is! For whatever reason you took a break;

  • Good! We all need a break from time to time 😊
  • Hopefully all the above praise and well-wishes highlight just how much of an impact you make to our odd little project

Keep well, and see you out there ~TNT (she/her • talk) 14:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi TheresNoTime! How've you been, buddy? :-) It's great to be back, and it's great to hear from you! Yeah, I guess a month of temporary absence isn't really that long, but compared to my typical long-term editing pattern, where I'll edit, respond to messages, remain active, and contribute for a few weeks, then take a break for 1-2 weeks, and then return and start that cycle all over again, and again... it is a bit unusual for me to suddenly disappear for that long. ;-) I'm very humbled and extremely grateful toward everyone who expressed concerns after seeing that I've been inactive for that amount of time, and who messaged me to welcome me back after they noticed that I've started contributing here once again. It absolutely does make me feel like I'm a true part of an extremely unique and committed community of members and people who stand behind and work to contribute to (what I, at least, believe) to be a damn good cause, and who look out for those they care about and make sure that they're okay. I try my best to do the same for others if I notice that I haven't seen them around for awhile. Just looking at the number of editors who came here to ask about me and if I was okay, it's obvious that I'm not the only one who tries their best to do this for others. Thanks, TheresNoTime - you're a great pal. It's great to be back. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

No subjectEdit

Hi! I'm a new user. I've joined in 9 october 2021. I want to edit my user page like a professional. But I don't know how to do it because I'm a new user. So please help me. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razin71 (talkcontribs) 14:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Razin71! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to join us and become a member of the community! I hope that you take off your jacket, pull up a nice comfy chair, and stay awhile! :-) If you're looking for an awesome resource that you can go to in order to get help with designing your user page and making it look amazing, I recommend that you visit the Wikipedia user page design center. It'll provide you with a ton of information, ideas, tutorials, how-to's, and other great content. If you run into any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I welcome you again to Wikipedia. I hope you have a great weekend, and happy editing! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Renamed on VikidiaEdit

Hey, Oshwah,

I noticed on your “sandbox2” page that you created an account named “Oshwah1” on Vikidia. While Linedwell renamed you to Oshwah, you were then subsequently renamed to “!USURP 2021-01-12”. Do you know why this happened? Thanks. 3PPYB6 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi 3PPYB6! I hope you're doing well! :-) This was done to the other account that had the "Oshwah" username, not toward me. On their wiki project, bureaucrats perform all username changes - so the bureaucrat, in this case, took the other account with the username "Oshwah" and renamed it to "!USURP 2021-01-12", then renamed my account from "Oshwah1" to "Oshwah". What you're just seeing is what the bureaucrat need to do in order to free up the username so that I could have it. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah, I see. Now that I come to think about it, having “Oshwah” renamed to “!USURP 2021-01-12” at 15:48, and then having “Oshwah1” renamed to “Oshwah” at 15:49 seemed kind of sus. I should have known before posting this out of impulse. :P Well, thank you, Oshwah, and have a nice time editing. 3PPYB6 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
3PPYB6 - Hey, no worries, my friend... logs like that, where modifications are being made to the unique identifier that distinguishes one account from another, they can be quite confusing to look through and understand what's happening... at least until you've gained enough time and experience to know what to look for. Don't feel bad or kick yourself in the foot too hard; remember that I have 14 years of experience on you. ;-) Just like with anything else, it just takes time... you'll get there. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, considering I have 34 days… or 0.093 years of experience… combined with only 76 edits (including this one!)… that pales in comparison with you. :P Also, I’ve been noticing you might be following Oshwahnism. Is that correct? Also, thanks for the reply! 3PPYB6 (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
3PPYB6 - Hahahaha... "Oshwahnism"... Yeah... and another group of editors made a WikiProject about me, too... Ahh, good times. Always gives me a good chuckle. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, it was nice chatting with you. Thanks for being here! 3PPYB6 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
3PPYB6 - Likewise! :-) Well, if you run into any questions, or need any input or advice, don't be a stranger! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Controversial username detectedEdit

Hey, Oshwah,

I’ve run into a question. If you don’t mind me taking your time, according to the user creation log, I’ve seen this user named “Trump 2024 or ron desanto make usa like florida”. I don’t necessarily know if this violates the username policy, so I would like an administrator to take action before I go around biting users by sending random warnings. According to what I see, this is a sensitive username that could be controversial amongst other users. Should this user be warned? Thanks. 3PPYB6 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@3PPYB6: Hey! This user has been blocked, so we're all good. Hope you don't mind me responding for you Oshwah. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 01:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Actually, no problem, @The4lines! I’m glad to see that action has been taken for this user. 3PPYB6 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh, yeah, and one last thing: is there a page where I can report controversial/unacceptable/doubtful usernames? I’m asking this so that I can stop flooding administrators’ talk pages. Thanks. 3PPYB6 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(talk page stalker) For cases needing no discussion there is WP:UAA, which also has instructions for less-blatant cases. —2d37 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi 3PPYB6! It looks like The4lines beat me to the party and was able to respond and answer your questions. ;-) If you have any more questions or if you need any more assistance with anything, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Reply ToolEdit

I've noticed that, twice recently here (1, 2), you've posted a comment and then reverted and re-posted it after typing too few tildes at the end. Have you tried the WP:REPLYTOOL? It's a small step away from the traditional method of replying in talk pages (intentionally a small step, unlike m:Flow etc.) that I think works generally very nicely, and it cuts out some small but annoying issues like needing to be sure to enter exactly four tildes. —2d37 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker)@2d37 I've always wondered why the reply tool is not automatically enabled on this wiki. Apart from meta and commons, every other WMF project I usually edit has the reply tool automatically enabled since the start of this month. SHB2000 (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think it's generally considered prudent to test changes (including changing something from opt-in to opt-out) for a while (more than twelve days) before deploying them to the largest and most prominent wiki of all. Face-smile.svg If one reads m:Tech/News, one can see how changes are deployed first to some smaller wikis, then (if they turn out to work in practice) to some larger wikis, and finally to the largest wikis, such as this one. —2d37 (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The short answer is "Because Ops said so". The Reply tool is enabled by default for all except 10 of the wikis, including the three biggest Wikipedias. But maybe soon. If you want to keep track of it, then you can put the Wikipedia:Talk pages project on your watch list. (The Beta Feature has the Reply tool plus several other tools; only the Reply tool itself is about to be deployed.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Whatamidoing (WMF) - Welcome to the party! :-) Thanks for taking the time to join in on the discussion and offer your response, and for the explanation and insight that you provided. It's pretty well-known amongst Wikipedians and experienced users that the English Wikipedia, due to its prominence and size, has been (and will always be) the project where the global implementation of updates, new wiki versions, features, skins, and other items go live and into production very last. Not only are we by far the largest WMF project, there are many experienced users who are sensitive towards - and often opposed to - having changes and new features that were not requested as a result of a community discussion or proposal that achieved consensus to have implemented and enabled by default. These things, among many others, have to be considered before rolling something out across all projects - especially when it comes to testing and the possibility of issues, bugs, and other problems being discovered that originate from those changes. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Perhaps we know lots of things that aren't so, then. The visual editor was deployed first to the English Wikipedia (I think you were busy with school at that time). There are still half a dozen wikis that still have access to the visual editor only in Beta Features. More recently, Special:NewPagesFeed exists only here, and therefore was deployed here first. Small changes are routinely deployed everywhere at the same time. Every project is different, but one pattern is smaller Wikipedias, larger Wikipedias, and last non-Wikipedias.
My team has pushed hard for the English Wikipedia to not be the default first project, and I think we have mostly been successful. As a rule of thumb, I believe that it is best to start larger projects by partnering with mid-sized communities. AFAICT the first time this was done intentionally for a software project was the deployment of mw:MediaViewer. I think this approach helps Product teams pay attention to communities that don't speak English as well and to build for the middle-of-the-road use cases, rather than the most complex environments. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi 2d37! Good question! Probably because of the fact that I've grown to be used to making manual replies using the Wiki source code... That's probably the best (and only) reason that I can offer. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
In case it's not clear enough, I'll note that the Reply Tool is not tied to the Visual Editor. I'm using the Reply Tool with the wikitext editor now, as I always do. (I hope I don't seem like I'm trying to push you to use Reply Tool! I thought it could be helpful and maybe you hadn't thought to try it Face-smile.svg) Also, er, no offense intended, I know you get many newcomers here, but I feel I should point out that WhatamIdoing is not one of them, and indeed has been closely involved with the deployment of these tools.2d37 (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You can try it out here by clicking on this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oshwah?dtenable=1 It'll probably default you into the wikitext source mode, with live preview and automatic signing. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Notification of user page editEdit

Hello Oshwah,

This message is to inform you that I've made a small edit that I believe you'll consider helpful to the page transcluded onto your user page. Your user page was out of date as you are currently (and have been for a while) placed 40th on the list of Wikipedians with the most edits and your userbox still said you were in 41st place, so I took the initiative to fix the userbox for you so your user page is once again correct- besides this no changes were made. Redactyll Social pub of talking 18:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Redactyll - Hahaha! I appreciate your attention to detail and your diligence - thanks for updating that information for me. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

SandboxEdit

Hi Oshwah! I'm sorry to bother you, I know you have alot to catch up on! I wanted to ask if there were any resources you could send my way about how to use my sandbox. I know it's a useful tool with regard to learning how to edit, and I'm still trying to learn how to use all the tools at my disposal to contribute as much as I can. I appreciate your help as always, and especially appreciate how kind and willing you've been! Thanks again! Spf121188 (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Spf121188! Have you seen this page? There really is no secret and there isn't really much to it - your sandbox (located here) is simply a place where you can test anything you want and to your heart's desire! Check out that page and let me know if you have any questions. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Think I got it figured out! Just want to test a few things before making any edits since I'm still figuring everything out. Thank you again! I'll reach out if I need any more help! Spf121188 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Difference between being banned by the community and being banned by the Wikipedia FoundationEdit

Hey Oshwah,
I would like to know the difference between being banned by the community and being banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. To be clear, I don’t anticipate any of these things to happen to me in the near future. I try to do everything in my power to prevent something like this to happen. I was hoping you could clear up what these terms mean. Interstellarity (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker) @Interstellarity: some reading while you wait for Oshwah's reply :)
  • meta:WMF Global Ban Policy are WMF bans, literally the owner of the servers saying you may not use our servers anymore. May also apply to in-person activities sponsored by the WMF (a trespass notice). These may be enforced by volunteers, or by staff.
  • meta:Global bans - are community bans that apply to all affiliated projects, in this case it is the global inter-project community deciding that a contributor is no longer welcome. These are enforced by volunteers.
  • Wikipedia:Banning policy - details community bans that are managed, enforced, and apply only here on the English Wikipedia (and has some information about the other ban types above). These may vary in scope from banning a specific action, or banning all actions. These are enforced by volunteers.
  • Other odd things, mostly of technical natures, could be considered bans - but are not normally referred to as such. Examples would be restricting access to things in response to technical or security events - such as "banning" something from being used via the editapi. This is also generally the only class of things that would apply to "reading" of things (banning some connection that is destabilizing the servers).
Hope that helps in the interim! — xaosflux Talk 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Can you block this range again?Edit

Kia ora Oshwah, previously on the 6th August, you blocked this range for their disruptive editing on football articles. They have come back and are just doing the same as you can see from all the reverts. Possible to get them blocked again or a topic block from football articles? — NZFC(talk)(cont) 21:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Woah a pupper!Edit

Hola Oshwah! Been a while, huh? Thanks for all you do. I hope you enjoy your new furry friend! KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 03:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

hi i need help on labor day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.85.216.190 (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]