User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2016-12

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

These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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

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

User:Wiki-john836

Hi Oshwah,

Given this personal attack that this editor made on another user's talkpage, you may want to change their block duration to indef. Looking at their other edits, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. 2601:1C0:103:976A:3464:725E:953E:6BFA (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Weird, that's what I meant to do in the first place. Oh well... fixed :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WARNING!!!!!!!!!

who is 39.43.44.18? he edited "Toyota" and it was deleted. L.S. inc. (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

suspicious user reported: 73.206.252.27 L.S. inc. (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

suspicious user reported: 72.221.79.111 L.S. inc. (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

suspicious user reported: 50.186.85.75 L.S. inc. (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

user reported doing vandalism: 39.43.44.18 L.S. inc. (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

suspicious user reported: 2602:306:32DA:4650:688D:A311:E808:8138 L.S. inc. (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@L.S. inc.: This is not the place for this. Please bring this to WP:AIV. 73.96.115.103 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CCS at K-bap

Hi, Oshwah. For the record, I felt that what was said at K-bap had such restrictive qualifications, and such mundane ones, tacked onto it that it could hardly be called a credible claim to be significant. It's the first Korean restaurant

in West Kalimantan
which is maintained and served directly by Korean people
who also brought original ingredients directly from Korea.

My reaction to these details was "So?". To me this is akin to being the first Asian restaurant in Fairfax County, Virginia, to put low-sodium soy sauce on the tables. It kind of undermines the meaning of the word "significant"; it's a weak advertising claim. That's my take, anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Largoplazo - Hmm... your view is quite understandable, and I'm actually inclined to agree with you. Let's do this: Go ahead and re-tag the article for A7 as it was before. I'll let another administrator either agree and delete the page, or decline the tagging if they also feel that the article isn't eligible. Thanks for the message; I appreciate you for being open and expressing your thoughts about this article :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm in no rush. :-) I put it up for AFD; maybe someone else will speedy it in the meantime. Thanks much for your reply! Largoplazo (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You got it :-). Let me know if I can do anything to help. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Look who's back

And so it begins again their back Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of who I am, my purpose was to remove a source that is unequivocally banned from pro wrestling articles per WP:PW/RS. 188.95.52.251 (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing That was an LTA sock. Aaaaand he's gone! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

He returned!!

TheErectile has returned today in full force! Looks like their edits almost didn't get recognized by the other editor on the article - I saw it immediately as him though! :-D -- Dane2007 ^talk 16:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag Removal

Thank you for your concern in my article. I was instructed by another administrator to remove the speedy deletion tag manually myself. Unfortunately, the administrator was unable to remove the tag them self due to system issues. Therefore, they enlisted me help. I would never attempt to remove a speedy deletion tag without the permission of an administrator, all of which are far more experienced than myself. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeroe03 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Roeroe03 - Really? Where did this happen? Because the only person you talked to about this article was Ritchie333 here, who restored the article to a page on your user space here. According to this, he absolutely did not tell you that it was okay to re-create the article again, and then remove the speedy deletion tag after it was tagged. If you've talked to another administrator who told you to do this, please tell me who it was and provide me with the URL to where he/she said that... I'd be very interested to see this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah - Keep in mind that she could've contacted an administrator another way, such as email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannon212 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrative Permission

I did not contact an administrator through a talk page. I spoke to a Wikipedia administrator over the phone and she walked me through the steps of restoring an article and removing a deletion tag. I can't remember her name, but I think it started with an S. If it would be of help to you, I can try and find the number I called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeroe03 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hacked Account

I'm incredibly sorry Oshwah. My account has been hacked repeatedly all day, as someone unfortunately found out my password. I already had an hacking issue sorted out with another administrator, but it appears my account has been accessed once again. To be clear, I did not personally edit a Phillipa Soo article, vandalize a feces article, or create/ restore "Lucaso the Voyager". I plan on creating a new account and hopefully avoid this problem again. Thank you, and I am once again terribly sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeroe03 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Lipstick And Luggage

Hello Oshwah, And I'm Lipstick and Luggage, first of all, I am new in Wikipedia and I would like something to do in the future at Wikipedia, to me I would love to be an Wiki Admin in a year while instead waiting, can I be a rollbacker first, Do rollbacker requires how many edits? Thank you. LAL (KB) (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lipstick and Luggage: First of all you should read the welcome page, and more precisely the policies and guidelines. I'm adding it to your talk page so you can have all the links in a single place.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer, thank you for this one And I will review this. LAL (KB) (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please let us know if you have any more questions or need anything. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Muscovy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy_%28disambiguation%29

Oshwah, you wrote me when you blocked me : During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. Shouldn't that apply FIRST to the ones who reverted mine first whithout any talk/consultation? I want to report Eriba-Marduk and Restoring Pages (and Autohistory which last 2 seem to at least pretend to be admin-members) , for inciting editwarring and replacing FACTS with fiction/propaganda with discussion and or sources/proof, shouldn't that outweigh the fact that I, admit blame and shame for that, violated 3R rule and perhaps if possible also seek protecting for the description as was there from 2008 - 2015 as which btw is FACT and can be proved as I did on my talkpage.

17:42, 30 November 2016 User account Restoring Pages was created appareant in collaborating with user Eriba-Marduk

BTW I won't revert it anymore. I get hopefully those 2 reported and or some form of protection for that page.

Ever tried that btw, seeking consesus with PAID kremlintrolls? I'm on (social) media all day English-Ukrianian-russian (I'm dutch myself) and try to weed out fake("news"/"facts") and put FACT news on my reddit. Ceesboogaart_(talk) 16:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, Ceesboogaart, the burden of proof is on the editor adding or restoring the content to provide a reliable source within a citation. The first two links lead to Wikipedia policies, and the last one leads to a Wikipedia how-to on creating correctly formatted references within Wikipedia. — Gestrid (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually Oshwah, this paragraph was already on there from May 22 , 2008 till June 5, 2015! https://web.archive.org/web/20150515000000*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy_%28disambiguation%29 so I was not the starting editor in fact AT ALL, biggest part of that paragraph was on there https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muscovy_(disambiguation)&diff=587444509&oldid=569245996 I just linked to it earliest 1 year ago, and if that entry/paragraph was not proved (most are internal wikipedia-links) then wikipedia admins/contributors/members should look for other work or hobby, not doing what they supposed to do. Just check history of the page thats why I think it needs protecting comparing the 10 versions in webarchive.

And same burden of proof and citations apply then also to Eriba-Marduk and Restoring Pages for replacing/adding other entries instead which despite my enclopedic knowledge I can't find any evidence for, as I've show contrary evidence on my talk page! They provided no proof-citation whatsoever.. (made typo in my first msg saying with, came back to correct that) and adding that since i'm registred member never had a block before.

Further proof more, that from first msg from Eriba-Marduk, I tried to communicate on their talk page, they quickly blanked that. And as said 17:42, 30 November 2016 User account Restoring Pages was created appareant in collaborating with user Eriba-Marduk actions.

I hope I may assume there's no difference in treatment of members from RF and elsewhere??

Btw is the block now over? No, I won't revert that, will seek reporting those 2, and consultation /mediation on that muscovy subject, and perhaps protection if agreed on, btw mentioning muscovy/muscovites is enough to get banned on nearly any RF website.

Ceesboogaart (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Restoring_Pages&diff=next&oldid=752495146 seeing this, at least one of them is used to removing content without explanation Ceesboogaart (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No comment- discussion? Ceesboogaart (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

IP has been warned several time......

This IP has been warned several times by several users and they continue to Vandalize several articles. Can you please put a stop to this. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: Brought it to WP:AIV as Oshwah is currently inactive for 20 hours. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 07:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - My apologies, I was busy that day and just now have had a chance to catch back up on messages and emails. The IP has been blocked. Please don't hesitate to bring any more to my attention. If I'm inactive (which I tend to be on the weekends and occasionally when things get busy with work), remember that you're always welcome to file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for assistance as well :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just in case you don't see it.....

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - I'll be checking my email messages today. Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I responded to your email Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal is back

Hi! That notorious IP vandal is back at Visa requirements for British citizens adding nonsense in Notes ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]). He is also frequenting other articles at random ([9]) The only problem is that it seems he is now using a dynamic IP range.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights - My apologies for the delay getting back to you. I was busy with real-life stuff :-). It appears that the article mentioned here has been protected. I'll poke around and check out the state of the other articles that the IP has messed with and make sure they don't need it as well. Thanks for the heads up! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! He is back at his favorite article, the Visa requirements for Australian citizens as soon as it was unprotected. This is getting ridiculous. Thanks for your patience and help!--Twofortnights (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Twofortnights:I reported this to WP:RPP - hopefully we can get some protection back on this. I will keep monitoring as well. -- Dane ^talk 22:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Page Protected until June 16, 2017 -- Dane ^talk 22:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!--Twofortnights (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey admin

[10] Someone really needs a block... 207.93.13.145 (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They stopped after the final warning. For now, anyway. — Gestrid (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi here

You contacted me in my talk page, I'm from Spanish Wikipedia, where articles aren't well-watched and my edits didn't cause any reverts like that. You noticed that my last edit didn't provide any sources. I made a mistake. I thought all Wikipedias are the same, but not. It seems English Wikipedia is well-watched and mistakes like that are reverted. Thanks for noticing me about that. TheWikiContributor 23:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheWikiContributor - There was just that small addition to the content that looked unreferenced. The original you added seemed fine to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

So yeah

Ive never warned a single user more than once, can't Aiv a user for 1 warning. Most either stop or someone else hits them with the 2 or 3 or 4th warning and AIVs them or an Admin gets involved. So I warn through twinkle and leave it at that, I'm sure that if I was to ever issues single user that many warnings I might have a chance to AIV, resently I have not. I know how AIV works, can't use it when the user has already been AIV'd. I'm good not having the rights not gonna be here much anyways. I was told to go for it again cause it had been 3 months. I knew it would get denied so yeah.....Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - No worries; don't take it personally, man. There are just boxes that need ticking first, and seeing some AIV reports is just one of them (even if they're not that many). I understand; it sounds like you're aware of where and when to report users to AIV. And you're right; apart from obvious LTA or sock puppet accounts that should be reported right away, we typically try to warn and correct the behavior first before we report. Just do keep in mind that there are situations (and obviously common sense clauses) that grant leniency; you don't have to wait until the user has been warned four times on every situation before you can report it ;-). I'm going to take another gander at your reversions and warnings as well, and (if you don't mind) offer coaching with anything I find that I think will help set you up for success. Although admins have varying "requirements", the ability to demonstrate proper reverting of vandalism (and warning of users of course), what is and is not vandalism, and the proper/appropriate reporting of persistent vandals to AIV - are requirements that are pretty uniform. One reason as to why the rollback requirements are as they are, is due to the fact that having the rollback flag allows you access to different anti-vandalism scripts and tools. These tools (with one in particular) are very powerful and allow you to do things very quickly, such as revert multiple edits and pages, warn users, report them to AIV, as well as admin functions - most of these with the push of one hotkey, and without confirmation or indication that you've done so. Again, I hope my response didn't discourage you. I want to help set you up for success so that, when I do grant you that flag, it'll be a transition that is both smooth and natural :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about AN/3RR

This entry has not been reviewed nor commented on by an admin. Am I doing something wrong here? WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#NFLjunkie22 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ) 22's editing has been a time sink. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Looks like yours might be next in line to be reviewed. If it stales out or sits there for days unanswered, let me know and I'll look at it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It staled out. However, has not been active since. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up........

I know you placed a 31hr block but just a heads up this is the type of response you may get from this user like he responded to Crash. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that user is WP:NOTHERE. Or just very rude. -- Dane ^talk 00:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh well... not anything I'm not used to getting ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hanukkah protection

Hi Oshwah, hope all is well. Just a quick note that your protection over at Hanukkah might need to be extended due to the holiday fast approaching. I've seen it with Thanksgiving and other holidays and it will definitely happen with this article. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately, pages are not protected preemptively. — Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey LuK3! I'll keep an eye on it when the protection expires; let me know if it needs it again and I'll throw it on. Like Gestrid said, it has to be preventative as well as proactive, but if it starts showing signs, I'll throw it on... just let me know ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Elissa Sursara and libel

Jim1138 - I've warned the user for edit warring. He needs to respond to your discussion on the article's talk page and attempt to communicate and discuss the issue. Let me know if the reverts continue repeatedly and without a discussion, and I'll step in :-) Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I note this response he made... The "other user" he's referring to appears to be LilyHumfrey, it seems... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No subject

why did you remove my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren Ritter (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's guidelines on user pages for what is and is not allowed on your user page. This will answer your question :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

This is regular, not ice cream coffee so k6ka doesn't get mad. Power up for a great day!!! -- Dane ^talk 17:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dane: Do I get coffee too? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@K6ka: No. — Gestrid (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fine, have a cup of coffee. — Gestrid (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsGamerYT (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Polygynandry

Hello, you recently reverted the page I was working on for "Polygynandry". The edits I made to the page were not for the purpose of practice, but to really edit the page. The previous entry on polygynandry was very misleading and did not provide sufficient information about the topic. For instance, polygynandry is not just when one or two males mate with one or two females, there are many different forms that I think should be better explained on Wikipedia. I also think the examples of the Bicknell thrush and the Dunnock are very not informative and the entry should provide more information on the topic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlgkssk (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi-Fi (Short Film)

I am trying to delete the page because the site said it was an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasrin Changling (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Nasrin Changling - Oh, you're the article's creator! I apologize for the confusion. You're certainly welcome to blank the article or request deletion of it if you wish. Just let me know and I can do it for you. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to delete the page because it was flagged as an advert. I didnt read the wiki guidelines. THe page was only supposed to be a marker that the film was made. (Nasrin Changling (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Done ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

VOA block of DoubleA-RonChris

Not to be a pain in the rear, but could you take another look at the contribs (there are only a few) of this user? Their second edit was vandalism for sure, but some of the others look like the only problem is a big case of WP:CIR, which can be fixed with guidance and help. Also, their talk page has no hint of welcome or offers of help, just warning templates. That doesn't strike me a being very conducive to a future of productive editing. I just happened to run across this user from my watchlist, and they struck me as someone who could use a little (okay... a metric ton of) help, until I noticed their block was an indef. If I'm just being an optimistic idiot, tell me so. But if not, I'm happy to try to lend a helping hand showing them the ropes of WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants - Sigh... I was actually really borderline with that block, but I felt that the severity of the problematic edits seemed blatant enough for me to justify that this account was created solely for this purpose. However, I will grant the user an unblock. If anything, we can sit and see :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants - I've unblocked the account. I hope you teach him well, and that he learns a lot from you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for the well wishes! I'm going to go give them a welcome message now. Cross your fingers and knock on wood for me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants - You'll do fine, dude :-). Keep in touch! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

JT LeRoy

Can I get some help on the article JT LeRoy? A user has come to me with a concern that the article has been rewritten to remove all controversy. According to the article's talk page, that same user also believes another user is engaging in sock/meatpuppetry to "fix" the article. (Weirdly enough, the user that came to me has only edited that article and its talk page.) For more history on the (apparently ongoing) problem, see User talk:Gestrid/Archive_4#JT LeRoy and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 528#I would love of some help. I need help sorting this whole mess out. — Gestrid (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gestrid! Sure, always happy to help. So, looking at the teahouse discussion, I see that Msturm 8 made some edits to JT LeRoy in October. Immediately after, a referenced quote regarding (what appears to be) a sexual controversy was added to the article and then reverted back-and-fourth by IPs and another user account (NVG13DAO). One reversion which removed the content had an edit summary that seemed opinionated regarding the quoted person's reputation [11], another used an edit summary incorrectly stating that the removal was vandalism [12], and the reversion [13]... keeps going [14]... Anyways, I agree that these reversions could have been solved with a discussion and that it went on for far too long without one. There definitely seems to be a lot of content additions, content reversions, and (what seems to be) little discussion until the article was protected for content-related disputes and edit warring (which was a good decision to do). Based on the conversation on your talk page by EdJohnston, his observations are/were in-line with mine - There's a lot of content that seems to be controversial and possibly unreliable or problematic being added to the article, as well as being reverted back-and-fourth without discussion... not good. It also seems to have continued over the month of October and November as well.

If someone approaches you stating that another user or IP is breaking policy (such as, "someone is removing content in order to push a particular point-of-view or agenda" etc), they need to provide evidence to support their statements. This will not only help us to easily investigate and take information from there (especially in a situation like this where the article history is messy), but it can also be considered problematic if they make accusations without. If they didn't provide evidence, explain that you must have it - ask them for specific diffs and an explanation as to why they're relevant and why it supports the accusation. Let me know if you need me to assist you with investigating specific claims, or if the disruption on the article continues and gets out of control. I'll be happy to step in if it's necessary. Let me know how things go! Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get back to you if I need more help. — Gestrid (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: What do you think of that editor's accusation of socking towards another editor? — Gestrid (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, feel free to reply to the user on my talk page. — Gestrid (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid - Where was this accusation made? I must have missed that when digging around... (I'm at the office, so forgive me if I miss obvious things. I have to go back-and-fourth and multitask a lot while at the office) :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I may have misread it. See Talk:JT LeRoy#Discuss with User: 76.21.32.54. According to Msturn 8 (the user who posted to my talk page today), the other user (PacificOcean) has disclosed that they are working with another editor (NVG13DA). PacificOcean confirmed this on another part of the talk page. In any case, it appears all three editors have some sort of interest in JT LeRoy and Laura Albert. After looking through all three users' contribs, I noticed that PacificOcean only started editing a few weeks after the editor they claim to be working with stopped editing. — Gestrid (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

John Glenn

I am on mobile and at work so unable to verify. The article says he is dead; news sources i could find said he was only hospitalized. Can you check, and add a citatiom if he is really dead, and revert all those changes otherwise? oshwah's talk pagr stalkers are welcome as well. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kees08: Confirmed. He is dead. — Gestrid (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Damn, and thanks Kees08 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed, ref added, and page protected for one day due to persistent vandalism over his death. Respected astronaut and engineer in his field of study, and a damn good one too. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Syllabification

What is the syllabification of "Katrina", inserting spaces between syllables? 139.195.85.55 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please lift your block of the edit I did!

Hello, The edits that were done to the page Travis Shallow were on purpose because the page had all of the information about the wrong songwriter on it. The info after the first paragraph was all about Ryan Adams, a completely different singer songwriter that already has a page here. So i edited the info out that had nothing to do with Travis Shallow. Can you reverse your edit please? Thank you! _Wolfgang — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfgangPaycheck (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WolfgangPaycheck -

Done. My apologies. I saw your most recent change but didn't see your first edit with the explanation. I agree that much of what you removed appeared to be original research or were unreliable. Thanks for letting me know about the confusion, and I (again) apologize for that! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for doing the test for me! It took 20 seconds for my test edit to be token of. Good job being an editor! -Fake Editor FakeEditor (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

FakeEditor - Umm... sure, no problem! lol... In the future, if you need to make tests, do them here :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Peppa Pig IP vandal

Thanks for protecting that ridiculous article, and for squelching the 177 ... 15 IP on Siamese cat today! I've been nosing into this situation all week and have a list of seven IPs; what do you recommend as the most potentially effective prophylactic from a reporting standpoint? Hope all's well! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Julietdeltalima! No problem! It's what I'm here for :-). What are the IPs? Depending on what IPs they are, I can have them range blocked or consider a different strategy... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So far I've got 177.42.223.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); 177.159.54.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); 187.114.171.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); 2804:18:7809:5bf2:5c40:8713:4770:bd6c (talk · contribs · WHOIS); 2804:7f7:a585:7ada:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); 2804:7f7:a585:4bb3:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); and 2a02:c7d:4ee4:c300:c08a:6cd3:d215:1ed8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Have at it! Much obliged! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And the instant that page protection expired, the culprit jumped back into the fray. 177.99.44.0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) this time. I haven't looked at the cat articles yet.... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Why my contribution marked as spam on Debt Consolidation?

I am really confused now. I found that information from that external link and its related, informative, helpful for users like me to get the core information about debt consolidation. So I don't understand where is my fault? :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.73.224.142 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think Payday Loan is a part of consumer debt? I have added my explanation on this.

My edit

You removed my edit on the attack helicopter being a sexual gender, there are people in this world who identify as an attack helicopter and i think that needs to be more widely known — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKChance19 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I am truly sorry

I am sorry for messing up BYE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslytherin (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Oshwah, Thanks for blocking User talk:185.69.144.166 for harassing me. I'm fairly new, and was not sure if I should report the user for a one-time attack, rather than repeated ones. For vandalism I always warn the user with the escalating vandalism messages. Should I warn multiple times for the harassment of editors as well, or report it immediately?

Thanks again,

ISON (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas.Horsey! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to have you here, and I appreciate all the vandal fighting you've been doing. Keep it up, seriously. It depends on the harassment. If it was blatant - using grossly racist, profane, or insulting language, stuff like that... then revert and report. If it rises to a threat (read that page), then revert and immediately report. If it was something just snarky, argumentative, even commonly insulting or personal, or made out of understandable frustration or anger, just revert and warn. I hope this gives you a good idea and answers your question. If you have any more questions, please feel free to message me and ask them. I'll be happy to give you a hand! Again, welcome dude! Pull up a chair and enjoy your stay :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for the reply. I will be sure to follow your golden rule: be nice! I'm not too worried about the message left on my talk page by the way, I know people will not always be happy when I warn them of vandalizing. It certainly won't scare me away. As you may have seen, I have had a wikipedia account for a while, but only until recently did I decide to become an active member of the community, and I'm so glad I decided to do so. Thank you again for your kind messages, I really appreciate it! ISON (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas.Horsey - Any time! My talk page is always open if you need anything. I'm happy that you did, too! We need more vandal fighters, so it always makes me smile when I see users who are new and making good reversions to vandalism. Keep up the reverting, start reporting vandals to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and after you gain a little experience with doing it correctly, I'll make you a rollbacker. Keep in touch! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

RE: "God-Emperor" page.

My edit was not vandalism, but a good faith edit.

Ever heard of "Don't Stuff Beans Up Your Nose". I was attempting to make a point, and explain why I should probably be added to the list.

Sincerely,

POTUS, Donald J. Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.99.187 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, Can you help us to upload it? The correct way, please. Stylistic Analysis and Plastic Paint Medium Technique are the most frequently asked questions by everyone in the field. Thank you very much in advance Sincerely josignacio's team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xucp (talk • contribs) 02:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to "Josignacio"Xucp (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, Can you help us to upload it? The correct way, please. Stylistic Analysis and Plastic Paint Medium Technique are the most frequently asked questions by everyone in the field. Thank you very much in advance Sincerely josignacio's teamXucp (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC) P.s We really trust that you are here to help us.We have your promise.

Edit warring

Hi, dear Oshwah can I ask you to handle this [15]? The IP appears to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts made. Thanks--Mona778 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mona778 - Edit warring? Where? On Gizem Karaca? The IP has only edited the article twice in the last week. Is changing "Gizem' mother side originally are from Albania" to "Gizem' mother side are Turkish of Albanian descent" vandalism? I ask, because you used rollback to revert this IP's edit here... Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course is not, but not an improvement either. Don't you think so? Mona778 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mona778 - Oh, the whole sentence is terrible... the grammar was broken before the edit, and it was broken afterwards. There's no question that the changes were crappy, as in it didn't fix anything. But I do have concerns with your request for me to step in. First, this IP made two small changes to the article over 5 days. This appears to be a AGF situation where a simple talk page message would go very far. I also note that your use of rollback wasn't appropriate in this situation, as it's intended use on edits made by other editors is to revert vandalism. Just be careful, okay? I've made this mistake a few times before; don't worry about it. It happens to everyone. Just take a second, glance through the rollback policies really quick, and move on :-). I'll keep a watch on the article in case things get bad. I hope you're having a great day, and I hope you keep in touch! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, you too. Bye. Mona778 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

ballon d'or.Did Pele truely had won 7 ballon d'or?

I think people who work in wiki,should respect the fact.It's important,because people will look wiki to find some informations.if wiki not respect the truth,why should people do？Messi had won 5 ballon d'ors,it's true.other players had won ballon d'ors it's true.don't find the reason why just a "suppose","if"or "imagination" should with the fact the truth.don't know.don't know the reason.that's why edit that source.[1] quel serait le palmarès du Ballon d'or si le reglement actuel,qui permet...means：What would be the record of the Ballon d'or if the current regulation, which allows...it's not truely happened.why "if" with the fact,why "suppose" with the fact,why "imagination" with the fact.I do't know.can't find the reason.thanks.^[1]Fl9csi (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Fl9csi (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

heyyyy--Jovan4 (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.francefootball.fr/hors-serie/?viewType=Print&viewClass=Print

Whats up?

Hi Oshwah, How are you? I hope you are enjoying your holidays, and also have you been doing much. I have just finished school, now going to meet up with my girlfriend and hopefully take the dreaded license test!! I hope to pass. Anyway, my girlfriend and I managed to rack up several selfies, and when my team won a point she kissed me on the lips. She also wants to go out to the movies or lunch with me. But she is doing athletics, so I am hoping to come down and watch her take part in the athletics. I hope she wins, then I will come down to the tracks (hope her parents don't find out) and kiss her!!! --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) EurovisionNim, are you referring to driving? I have started to learn how to drive, myself. Hope you're doing well! Patient Zero^talk 16:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Patient Zero, I am not sure yet. I am quite busy, and living with my grandparents make it difficult as my parents are at work over the weekdays. But hopefully, if I can't do it this month, then I will do it in early to mid January --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

EurovisionNim: Ah, indeed. Over here we have to take two driving tests, theory and practical. I'm hoping to do my theory next year; is this what you do in Australia? Patient Zero^talk 11:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Patient Zero I'll ask my girlfriend – she took her test. It is the first one for me. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

EurovisionNim: OK. I wish you the best of luck with your test :-) Patient Zero^talk 11:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Patient Zero: In other news, I am taking my girlfriend to the movies, so I can re-enact our first kiss --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Aww, that's nice EurovisionNim - hope you both enjoy! Patient Zero^talk 11:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Stylistic Analysis and Plastic Paint Medium Technique

Hello Oshwah, Thank you very much for your advice and the welcoming! We assumed you may don't have the time to explain a little more "potable" for beginners like us. But we need to upload Stylistic Analysis and Plastic Paint Medium Technique to Josignacio's Wikipedia. What is needed to fix that absence of Neutral point of view? Please we beg you or someone as capable as you are to help us, can you??? Please? It is very important that these two statements (Stylistic Analysis and Plastic Paint Medium Technique) appear on artist Josignacio's page ASAP Thank you very very much! Sincerely Josignacio's Staff XucpXucp (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

P.s Here we put the Stylistic Analysis and Plastic Paint Medium Technique for review. ^[1]

Stylistic Analysis

Since his first days as a creator, Josignacio’s human interconnectedness with colors, along with his genius and unbridled subconscious mind’s impulse to use them on canvasses, has been his guiding light and the key to all of his creations. Josignacio is mostly inspired by music, human emotions, and the detailed elements and perpetual validity of nature. The genesis of his executions generally consists of an intricate combination of close-up images of deep-sea flora and fauna, fossil rocks, outer space and subtly organic materials fantasized by colors. Josignacio primarily expresses himself through color. Forms are secondary elements in his paintings, in spite of using “fusiform forms” either to encapsulate or unwrap them at times. Josignacio is fundamentally considered an “abstract, semi-abstract or neo-figurative” painter. Nevertheless on occasion, he is inspired by a social happening/event, a personal experience, a philosophical ideal, or a reflection that requires figurative elements in order for it to be expressed; he has never hesitated in using forms that are perfectly recognizable and derived from real life, in contrast to his own imagination. Moreover, he gives himself the freedom of creating whatever comes to mind in the breadth of his wide spectrum technique, and that’s the key of his liberation as a creator.

Josignacio plays with colors, much like a child would, but in a conscious manner following his unique impulses and feelings. He is most interested in the abstract elements of a particular form rather than the form itself. The fact of the matter is that in any realistic painted object, countryside or portrait, Josignacio puts together a great number of abstract sectors to achieve the overall result - and those individual, yet intricately placed sectors in his perspective are the most interesting. He has found the perfect medium to express the vast majority of his ideas through his own plastic paint technique.

Since his youth, the abstract expressionists of the New York School have influenced Josignacio; however, Karel Appel and Wassily Kandinsky have had a special focus. He uses the Jackson Pollock’s dripping technique very often as well. Even throughout childhood, Josignacio was more motivated by color than by forms - a distinguishing factor in his artwork that has been celebrated among his peers and family. The only exception to his artwork can be witnessed in his self-portrait, which he performed according to a specific academic style in his first exhibition in 1987; the rest of his paintings have all been abstract. It was from this point in time that his future as an abstract/neo-figurative painter had been decided. Giulio V. Blanc (Curator and art critic) Miami 1993.

Plastic Paint Medium Technique

Plastic Paint Medium is an artistic technique created by Artist Josignacio in Havana City, Cuba in 1984. This technique consists of the use of epoxy resins (any of a class of resins derived by polymerization from epoxies used essentially in adhesives, coatings, and castings) as an "agglutinating medium" and "pigments" as colorants, obtained as a result of a real plastic finish with a new visual effect. It was considered to be a novel technique because until that time, it was nearly impossible to obtain such a shiny, hardened transparency with real 3D effects with the conventional known mediums. Furthermore, no one had ever used the epoxy painting pigment to make an entire painting. At that time, epoxy resin was primarily used as a varnish, adhesive, or to create a particular type of sculptural object. Josignacio’s versatility put this medium, and his own artwork, in a stand-alone status. Josignacio’s first completed painting with this medium was a neo figurative depiction of a human face. Plastic Paint Medium is not water-based nor is it water-soluble. Its drying or curing time is approximately six hours depending on various factors such as: humidity, temperature, or the amount of pigment added to the mix. Plastic Paint Medium is very resistant to the corrosive effects of weathering and an excellent blocker against devastating UV's rays. Similar effects for artists can be obtained with newer generations of acrylic paint developed by Mark Golden. What makes it unique is that materials can be used in concert and in combination, making blending and application opportunities endless.

References

^ http://www.radiorebelde.cu/noticia/plastic-paint-medium-una-revolucion-tecno-pictorica-creada-cuba-20161207/

Possible spambot

Diwakar213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey Oshwah, I hope you're doing well...

I just came across this account in the edit filter logs and this account showed up as a possible spambot. The filter description says "Magic/astrology spambots"; not really sure what this means though... Since I can't see the attempted edit, could you take a quick look at it? Thanks! 73.96.115.13 (talk) (also known as CbtZ on IRC) 06:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah is a Jerk

Hi Oshwah, it's obvious why you blocked this account, but how did you find out the account was created?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi BB23! I consistently refresh the new user logs on one of my browser tabs as part of my patrolling, and I also keep a script that maintains a live feed of new account creations for when I navigate away. とある白い猫 also informed me on IRC that he had done this (I recognized the creator as well, but not until after I had sock blocked it and he told me - which was the reason I unblocked it, since it would have hard blocked him from editing). He understands that what he did isn't encouraged, as it (obviously) makes him either look compromised or like an LTA, plus creating doppelgänger accounts should be left to the user who needs to do so (WP:VALIDALT). So long as someone tells him this on-wiki, he understands this, and he doesn't continue doing this after being told to not do that anymore, I say we can call it good and move on :-). Thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, as long as this doesn't recur, I think we're good. Thanks for the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding Stylistic Analysis and Plastic Paint Medium Technique, two of the most important topics of artist Josignacio

Dear Oshwah, Can we submit a "corrected" version of the Stylistic Analysis and Plastic Paint Medium Technique to you before uploading? Please let us know. Thank you very much. XucpXucp (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xucp. What article is this in relation to, exactly? Are you attempting to create a new article or expand an existing one? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Oshwah, We are in the process of finding all information, the sources of "Stylistic Analysis" and Plastic "Paint Medium Technique" in order to be accepted to post it in Josignacio's page. So far we believe that the "Neutral Point of View" is already fixed. Please let me know. thank you very much!

Stylistic Analysis

Josignacio is best known for his abstractions [1], since his firsts days as a creator, colors most than forms and his connectivity with them, the free impulse of the subconscious mind to apply them on his canvasses, have been the lighting guide, his life motive, a constant key of all his creations.

Mostly inspired by music, strong human emotions[2] and the detailed elements of the nature in front of his eyes.

The genetic or DNA of his executions generally consists of a careful combination of close-up images of the deep-sea flora and fauna [3], fossil[4] rocks, outer space and subtly organic materials fantasized by colors.

Through color he does mostly express himself. Forms are secondary elements in his paintings in spite of sometimes he uses “fusiform forms” either to encapsulate or unwrap them.

Regardless he is considered fundamentally an “abstract, semi-abstract or neo-figurative” painter, his playing with realistic forms inserted in his abstractions is something very often seen, especially in his “Dualism [5] Series” which consist in just that; two elements depicting one motive or theme in the same painting. Example of that series are “El Siete” (The Seven), in which is very clear a number seven on top of a green-orange background close to a very abstract number seven in permanent green and blacks and the “3 o’clock” which depicted an abstract clock in a monochromatic[6] use of greens contrasting with a figurative and rigid clock hands in deep red.

Nevertheless in some occasions, when he got inspired by a social happening, a personal experience, a philosophical thinking or a reflection that requires only figurative elements in order for him to express it, he have never hesitated in using forms that are perfectly recognizable derived from real life more than his own imagination.

He gives himself the freedom of doing whatever comes to his mind in his wide technique’s creative spectrum and that’s the key of his freedom as a creator.

He plays with colors like a child plays with colors, in a conscious manner but following his impulses and feelings. He is most interested in the abstract elements of the form than the form itself; the fact of the matter is that in any painted realistic object, countryside or portrait, you need to put together a great number of abstract sectors to achieve them, and those sectors in his perspective, are more interesting than the results.

Through his own plastic paint technique he have found the perfect medium to express the vast majority of his ideas.

Since his youth the abstract expressionists of the New York School like Willem de Kooning, James Brooks, Robert Motherwell, have influenced Josignacio, however, Karel Appel and the use of the whole canvas to put just one or two figures in it with just few brush strokes of warm colors mixed with cool colors and black and Wassily Kandinsky circle series and a specific painting titled “Improvisation. Deluge” dated 1913, has had a special focus. He uses very often also Jackson Pollock’s dripping technique but in a very controlled way. All these elements combined with his own technique’s characteristics are the responsible in defining Josignacio’s art.

All these abstract painters have had influenced me more than my Cuban compatriots, because the abstractionism in my country is more based on Picasso’s cubism than their energetic and expressive brushstrokes gesturalism. He said.

Composition and color balance comes naturally. The use of one of primary colors[7] such as red and his complementary green are almost a constant fight in which the color black acts as a mediator between them.

Plastic Paint Medium technique

Plastic Paint Medium is a name given to the use of epoxy resin[8] (any of a class of resins derived by polymerization[9] from epoxies: used essentially in adhesives[10], coatings, and castings) as an "agglutinating medium" mixed with "pigments"[11] as colorants. Artist Josignacio in Havana City, Cuba created this painting technique in 1984. Epoxy resin was used before 1984 in art as a varnish, to glue stuff on collages or to make some kind of sculptural objects. This artistic medium is a revolution in the painting technique’s field. The pigmented epoxy resin painting results in a real plastic finish with a new visual effect. It has said was new because until that moment was almost impossible to obtain such shining, hardens, transparency, and real 3D effects with the conventional known mediums, and no one have had ever used the epoxy painting pigmented to make or finish a whole painting. This is one of the most versatile mediums for painters ever. Josignacio’s first completed painting with this mixing was a neo figurative depiction of a human face. Plastic Paint Medium or pigmented epoxy resin is not water based neither water-soluble, its drying or curing time is approximately six hours, depending on some factors such humidity, temperature or amount of pigment added to mix. The way of mixing the two liquids is in identical parts, then steering until is completely mixed the resin with the hardener and then it is added the desired color in a form of dry pigment or oil painting. Then it is applied to the support, either canvas or wood in a horizontal position until it dries. This technique is also very resistant to the corrosive effects of weathering and an excellent blocker against the devastating UV's rays [12]. German artist and art theorist Max Doerner[13] predicted the use of synthetic resins[14] in art, in his book “The Materials of the Artist and Their Use in Painting” ISBN-13: 978-0156577168 ISBN-10: 015657716X first published in 1921.

XucpXucp (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Before I do something wrong

Are either comments made by this user or this user appropriate? They are not really pertaining to the ani subject.I was going to remove but wasn't sure if that was appropriate either. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Bold removed, I'll take my chances. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @WarMachineWildThing: I would instead restore the comments (They can be retrieved by copying them from this diff.), but use something like {{hat|reason=Off-topic. ~~~~}} and {{hab}}. {{hat}} goes at the top of the comments you want to hide and {{hab}} goes at the bottom}}.

It will then look like this:

Off-topic. — Gestrid (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This text will be hidden by default.

It stops an off-topic discussion and preserves the comments. This method is used quite often on the different discussion pages of Wikipedia. — Gestrid (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll make note for next time. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 07:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Did as suggested and got this on my talk page

And then this Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

User posted same POV response to two different ANIs here and here I removed the second when I responded to the ANI stating POV, I was told to hide instead, user restored here with a snid comment so I hid as suggested, User then started threatning me with getting blocked on my talk page and has undone what I was suggested to do by Gestrid. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 07:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Users like this is why new wiki users don't stay around. Threats, intimidating, I've been here longer attitude, this is why Wiki can't grow is because of users like this. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: There are also comments on both my and WarMachineWildThing's talk pages pertaining to this. — Gestrid (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi WarMachineWildThing - I don't think you did anything wrong; you just did something that is typically done differently in the "collaboration culture/norms". As Gestrid pointed out, simply hatting the off-topic discussion (like what he did in the example above) would preserve the conversation but also send the appropriate message that the topic being hatted is off-topic. I also agree that EEng's message here was a bitey, as you were unaware and didn't know how to properly handle this. I'm also not quite sure what this was about, either. It looks like someone ended up collapsing that section, and the ANI doesn't look to involve you directly (which is good); you were just trying to add discussion. While you're totally allowed to do so, I'd just caution you to be weary. ANI is often a place where many editors go to (either to start a discussion or respond to one) while angry or frustrated. It's a noticeboard where discussions typically need experienced editors and administrators to help diffuse. Don't take any harsh or heated responses personally. While blatant civility and NPA issues are never tolerated; responses made in frustration or even anger are understandable. Best of luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Perfect example of what I was talking sbout

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about last night an article gets moved by a user who has over 3,000 edits and has been here 9months and another user who has been here 4 yrs decides that's not good enough and does this even though the move was correct as consensus favored a move. This is the type of BS that needs to stop. This is why new users leave. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

So he can come to my talk but I can't his? More proof vets shitting on New users. They can dish it but can't take it when confronted about their attitude towards new users. Oh look now we're gonna gang up. Proves my point even more. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: It wasn't my intention to gang up on anyone, and I'm still pretty new here myself, just like you. I just think it isn't smart to edit war with users over the content of their own talk page, which is what you were doing. Sro23 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User posted to my wall, I responded to his wall proving my point that vet editors shit on new users. He removed it with the reason of "fuck off" real mature, I put back with the reasoning he posted to my wall first which he did, then you removed again which wasn't your place. There was no edit war yet. It was his place to remove again not yours, if he would have removed again I would have not put it back. But whatever proved my point for me unless your here a 1 yr or more your not allowed to edit or stand up for yourself or for other new users. Enjoy yourselves because your attitudes are what's causeing new users to leave and stop editting. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Telling me "I shit on new users" isn't exactly mature either, You shouldn't of reverted the first revert either, The RM was closed and moved by a newbie - As I have said It should have been closed by an established editor or an admin (the latter being my preference), Had you come to my talkpage in a calm and polite manner I would've been happy to help and resolve your issues however instead you came over moaning and basically speaking to me like shit so ofcourse I'm going to get abit rattled, It might be a good idea to look at your own attitude before complaining about others. –Davey2010^Talk 01:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Should I have told them to F Off - No I perhaps should've been a bit more polite but I simply don't appreciate someone coming to my talkpage saying I shit on new users!,

I had left them a note saying stay off of my talkpage and likewise I would do the same[16] so at this point I see no reason to make a mountain out of a molehill. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You were part of that discussion you shouldn't have reverted the move either as that is a conflict of interest no matter wether you support or Oppose. Which you were already told by LM2000 how you should have went to WP:Move review instead. Your whole basis for the revert of the move was because the user was only here 9 months and a newbie as you said, that's not up to you your not an Admin. So yeah I said you shit on new users, I meant every word of it. Your response in the revert and on my talk page shows your attitude towards new users and proved my point. New users can't learn how to do things right or wrong because of vet users like you doing what you did and the mentality towards them. But whatever as usual only new users are wrong and the vets are always right. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between "moving an article back because I disagree with the consensus" and "moving it back because the account was new and the closer provided no comment inregards to the discussion other than "moved"", MOVEREVIEW is for the former, I moved the page due to the latter,

Exactly so you have no right coming over here complaining about me when lets be honest you're just as bad,

Well technically that's true - Us "vets" are right because we've been here for a very long time and therefore know how things are run - Being on here a year doesn't automatically mean you know everything because you don't!,

At the end of the day had you come to my talkpage in a calm and polite manner we wouldn't be here now, I'm done here as this discussion is going no where.

BTW apologies Oshwah for the constant tp notifications here!. –Davey2010^Talk 02:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Vets are not always right, but thanks for proving my point. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a shame, because I like you both and it's sad to see you in conflict. Sro23 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears that there's been frustration that has stemmed from a requested move, a discussion that is still ongoing (or at least still open). We typically don't want to perform a page move, edit, change, etc until the relevant discussion has had time to close and reflect consensus first. If you weren't aware of the discussion when you made the move, and someone pointed you to it after undoing it, I've made that mistake before many times. It happens; don't worry about it or kick yourself over it. What does concern me is the edit warring, and what appears to be frustration as well. I'm not sure what sparked this comment or where, as well as this one, but it appears that there's been an extensive discussion between WarMachineWildThing and LM2000 here. I must be missing something... what exactly turned (what seemed to be) a peaceful discussion into this? :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A user with 9 months and 3000+ edits who was not involved in the discussion closed and moved per consensus. Davey who was involved in the discussion reopened and reverted move stating new user shouldn't have moved or closed even though consensus was to move because he wasn't here long enough for his standards. A action neither I or LM2000 agreed with. Involved users shouldn't be reopening or reverting moves it's a conflict of interest no matter if they support or oppose. It was only done because it was a new user, because as Davey stated above "Vets are always right", which is not true. This attitude towards new users is why they leave. This will be my final and only response to this. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've said I'd reverted the closure and reverted the move because yes it was closed by a newbie - Not because I agree/disagree with the consensus, I'm not saying "new editors shouldn't close things" or "their opinion/actions mean jack" - Simply put big discussions like the above should be closed by someone experienced or an admin (I've only just noticed the IP closure - IPs should never close discussions - If they want to be a trusted user here they should create an account, Now the next closer "TheMagnificentist" simply closed the discussion with "Discussion closed as move supported." - That's an insufficient reason - Generally closure comments should be expanded so everything is weighed etc etc),

As a side note racking up 3k edits in less than a year doesn't make you knowledgeable of this place - You could rack up 70k in less than a year but you're still be a newbie in my book especially when you haven't contributed to any of the Wiki spaces or various things here,

Chris - You really shouldn't be taking all of this to heart - New editors helping here is always appreciated and we encourage newbies to dive in an help whereever possible however in this case this was something that should've been left to an experienced editor or admin, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism

Hey Oshwah, today I started using Huggle, which is a lovely tool for counter-vandalism and has superinflated my edit counter by a few hundred edits in the past couple hours. I am not kidding. I can see how you managed to pull off 100,000 edits using Huggle. I won't lie, I am always quite amazed when I look at your monthly total and it's over ten thousand - never understood how till today. Anyway, over the past couple hours or so I along with probably a few other editors have been fighting an IP hopping vandal. Since you have a very large amount of experience in this field I had two questions for you. First, do you know of an LTA or known vandal whose sole action on Wikipedia is to insert "derp" on random articles - that one editor has accounted for a third of my huggle use? and second, how do you avoid misclicks/misfires when chasing a prolific vandal doing about two or three vandalizing edits in mere seconds? I've done about 358 rollbacks over the past 2/3 hours and have misfired by my count 4 times total. Now, percentage wise that seems pretty good; 4/358 = 1.1% and I've fixed all four misfires within a couple minutes by self-reverting so that no damage was done except for potential pings of innocent people. For that matter, for the time being I refuse to use "Q" on huggle so that I don't send an unfortunate warning as well, instead if I need to I go to their talk page and twinkle them a notification. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mr rnddude: Personally, when dealing with a prolific vandal working at high speed, to avoid misfiring I tend to "O"pen one of their edits in a browser tab, then go to their contributions, refresh and rollback when needed. (Then once they hop to a different account or IP, it's back to Huggle until you come across them again. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat) Only works when they make at least a few edits per account/IP before hopping, of course, and for proper efficiency, preferably they're so blatantly trolls/socks/evading that you can actually AIV-report them on first edit without going through the whole warning routine. Alternatively, if they're best recognizable by their edit summaries, keeping an eye on the Special:RecentChanges page can help, and when the vandal is an account-hopper rather than IP, the newuser creation log if you've got a bit of a feel for what kind of usernames are likely them. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response AddWittyNameHere, personally they're most recognizable by the size of their edit (+5 bytes). At first they were hopping from page to page, but, at some point they settled on edit warring at one article. Danny Napoleon is the best example in this case. They switched to a different article after a while but kept returning to Danny Napoleon. The contributions idea is an excellent one though. The only reason I misfired on Huggle (that I noticed) is that a couple times their edits were dealt with so fast that I was actually on the edit right after theirs instead of theirs. I did notice that they were being reported at AIV by other editors - still are in fact -, AIV is on my watchlist as are many of the admin noticeboard. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Yes, that's how I've been finding them the past few occurrences as well (I started helping out after seeing your post)--edit summary size through recent changes log. The positive of rollback-through-contributions is that with vandal-only users, it's impossible to misfire. (All of their edits are rollback-worthy, so you can't hit the wrong one, and if someone else already has rolled back the edit, you simply get a message the edit couldn't be rolled back). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm passing the baton on to you then. I was at it for two hours and am taking the rest of the day off from derpy. Thanks for the advice and responses. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude! Thanks for messaging me with your Huggle questions. Since you're new to Huggle, my biggest recommendation is to avoid using any hotkeys until you've become familiar with the interface and how each button works, what actions they do, if such action asks you for confirmation first, and when (if applicable), etc. This is important to do, so that when you're ready and when you do move to start using keyboard hotkeys, you'll already know exactly what happens or what is supposed to happen when you do. Catching vandalism and disruption and knowing if they're from LTA users is more-so gained from memory and experience reporting them in the past, not something that Huggle in itself can help you with. If an IP-hopping vandal is making the exact same edits, it's easy to tell by opening the user's (or IP's) contributions (or by pressing 'C'). Do you see past edits from the pages you remember before, or past warnings from you? If you open up the next instance and it's from a different IP, is it from the same range? This information will be helpful when you make that determination. Please let me know if I can give you any additional tips, help, recommendations, etc regarding Huggle and I'll be happy to do so! Happy vandal patrolling! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Oshwah, I figured that aside from the ORES score (which I sure I don't understand at all) and the identifiers in the side panel for types (I guess) of editors - Brown for anonymous, white for registered, blue for trusted, etc - that I wouldn't really be able to easily differentiate between editors without observing patterns of editing (or obviously names and IPs). I brought up the "derp" editor as they were particularly persistent for several hours and regularly hopping IP's all within a similar range. I figured that perhaps this was a more prolific vandal. AIV dealt with quite a number of his IP's and I think a large SPI case was opened as well. You make a good point about the hotkeys, I am using the "r" and "esc" hotkeys, but, with the exception of the derp vandal, only after I've taken a close look at the edits. At least 5-10 seconds even for obvious vandalism. Huggle is actually surprisingly expansive in ability. I didn't expect quite that level of functionality and agree fully that it'll take time getting used to all of the buttons. Thanks for the notification about the "C" key, I'll take a look at it. If I do lament one thing it's that the manual isn't fully comprehensive, but, I can't complain as it did give me enough information to start with - such as a brief overview of most of the panels in Huggle - and I have picked up on a couple of useful things as well from other editors too. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude - I just blocked the IP that was inserting "derp" into Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge. Let me know if it continues; it might be a range that needs blocking. ORES! It's awesome! In a nutshell, it's an API endpoint that takes a diff and returns (in our use case) the likelihood that the edit is vandalism. The higher the score, the higher the probability that ORES found. You can also change your Huggle queue to "Filtered edits", and it will sort your queue by ORES score. But, don't let the ORES score get to you. If I change a '0' to a '2' on an edit to an article, the ORES may return very small... but what I might be doing is changing someone's death year from 2012 to 2212 ;-). Aaaaand I see what you mean now. That "derp" editor is definitely IP hopping. I blocked him again and protected the page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, Floquenbeam is complaining about all the electrons we're using to deal with them, haha. Electrons! Won't somebody think of the electrons?! Ah, so the bigger the ORES score the more likely the edit is problematic, I read that backwards. I kept seeing negative scores and thinking, well, these should be questionable, but, they're quite good edits. Thanks again Oshwah :) Mr rnddude (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks!

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		I noticed you are always thanking users for their good edits, so here's to you for always motivating other Wikipedians! -glove- (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

-glove-! Thanks for the barnstar, man! I really appreciate it! Thanking others for good edits only takes a second but goes so so far :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Did no one catch this...

[17] --JustBerry (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, you did :). Adam9007 (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Good catch! lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi Oshwah. I was wondering if you'd updated Huggle yet? It seems I need to create a bot password in order to continue using it (apparently it is more secure that way). However, I am incredibly confused. I am on a page in which I have to allow access to certain functions, but I am unsure what functions to allow or disallow (it is allowing me to tick things like CheckUser and blocking, which I cannot do normally). What should I do? (Feel free to email me, if you'd prefer.) Thanks in advance, Patient Zero^talk 16:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a bit less panicking and a bit more thorough reading seems to have solved my query. My apologies sir! Patient Zero^talk 16:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, it is a little confusing at first. Apparently, the bot password operates under whatever permissions your account has, minus what permissions you have specifically not checked in the bot password interface. The Bot Password can't be used to login to Wikipedia itself, so if your bot password for Huggle is stolen, your Wikipedia account is safe and you can simply login at Special:BotPasswords and disable the "bot" (aka the person using Huggle with your bot password. — Gestrid (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've only just seen your message sorry, thank you Gestrid for your explanation. In basic terms the bot password idea sounds like a good one. :-) Patient Zero^talk 18:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Last deed before I go......

My last good deed before I go. This user has been disruptivly moving the WWE World Championship article to WWE, Championship & now WWE ChampionshiP. The Article should have been moved to WWE Championship. User has been told by myself and another user to stop as they have now screwed up the move twice, please note this is NOT a new user but a user that has been here since 2013, so they should know better as they are not a newbie. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi WarMachineWildThing - Sorry for the delayed response. I've been busy with real life stuff :-). I'll look into this and see what's up. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

~~==Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:ENG - Expert Network Group, LLC==~~

A tag has been placed on User talk:ENG - Expert Network Group, LLC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Please check the page history before adding a CSD tag. It may be, as in this case, that a spam edit simply needs to be reverted. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 23:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey

you dang person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.187.174 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Garrido listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Garrido. Since you had some involvement with the Garrido redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Question RE edit disagreements/NPOV

Hi Oshwah, I'm Palmer, and I have a question on a couple of things. The first question is regarding an edit disagreement between myself and editor Dennis Bratlet. Now Dennis and I share a similar goal, to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone to edit. But our disagreement is over something small, but relevant. It has to due with the types of maps in specific state Presidential general election pages. Now I'm a generally a golf/politics editor. Politics wise, I'd update vote tallies or fix the odd grammatical error. But the root of the disagreement has to due with the fact that Dennis used new pie graphs, that while providing new info, was tougher to see and there were other issues myself and other editors had. Now, I reverted this edit and put something regarding it in response to his statement in a new thread as a sort of helpful way to describe my issues with the maps. This discussion continued with substantive discussion, but Dennis to his credit was citing articles that support his point, while I neglected to. Then I proceeded to cite my sources and we still had only minimal progress, not enough by any definition to reach even a rough consensus. Multiple independent editors then put in their two cents-for lack of a better phrase. While a few concurred with Dennis' POV, the mass majority disagreed. While I am well aware, this does not necessarily mean it is consensus. TexasMan34 and Teak the Kiwi attempted to reach a rough consensus, which to their credit, was achieved-put both maps in the infobox, and provide appropriate context. Dennis perceived this as an opportunity to invoke UNDUE, as he was seemingly unaware of my previous citations. Now I felt, with other invocations, he was playing an overly strict view of some guidelines. While we came to a seeming (rough)consensus (better than none) I'd like you to keep an eye on the page as to make sure we don't descend into a editing war of sorts. I'd also like to ask if you can help me learn to diffuse situations, as a future reference. Thanks!!!:) (PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)) PalmerTheGolfer

Hi PalmerTheGolfer! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions! While I'm not completely familiar with previously established consensus (if any) nor the specific style guidelines regarding which map or graphs should be used on the Presidential Election articles and topic area, I'll be happy to try and assist you where possible.

One thing that's fundamental (and really cool) about Wikipedia is that we encourage you to be bold and make edits and improvements if you feel that your edits will do so! If someone comes to you and cites issues or problems, do exactly what you're doing now - discuss the concerns and come to a consensus. I appreciate you for attempting to collaborate and come to a consensus with other users over the dispute and concerns. This is a skill and behavior that's very essential when it comes to gaining experience and becoming a long-term editor here! Awesome!

What have the other election articles done? What exactly is causing you to discuss modifying the map type, graph type, or how things have been done on the other articles? If someone else is citing other articles and telling you that consistency is needed, I'd follow his advice and do so as there aren't concerns other than just "which one to use". Then you can go from there and make improvements on each article if you think that your edits will do so.

If concerns still remain between yourself and other editors (even with your improvements and changes), you and everyone else involved in the discussion will want to make sure that a previous consensus hasn't already been established regarding this concern first. There could already be a past discussion that already sets in motion which maps and graphs need to be used. If you discover that this is so, you'll want to make sure that your edits reflect that consensus. If you still have concerns, you can contact those that were involved with the decision-making for assistance. You (and those involved) should also make sure that a manual of style guideline doesn't already exist for this situation, and (if it does) follow them.

I hope my response has helped to point you in the right direction. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you - I've been very busy lately. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Thanks again for reaching out to me, and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Morrish Public School MPS

Another copy at Morrish Public School TDSB, Third copy at Morrish Public School ‎ redirected to school board per norm. All 3 copies were identical and contained material lifted form teh school board site. Meters (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meters! It's good to talk to you again! Hope things are doing well for you. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - is been a busy time for me lately. It looks like those articles are deleted now. Let me know if you spot more problems and need anything from me. Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Busy here too. The articles were quickly taken care of. Meters (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you saw these usernames at UAA...

Hi Oshwah,

I hope you're keeping well. As you may know, I work at UAA a lot. Sometimes I'm not too sure whether a username is a violation or not. I'd like to know what you would do if you saw the following usernames at UAA, and whether they should have been reported, or if the users should have been warned etc.:

FuckMyLife91919
SoPissedOff08
OhPoo7306
JoCox
IAmNotTikeem
Kjjgkfkhjklshjgklhjkjfkjksjfghdfakhjklgjkhjkjofkjdsjkgjdfakhjdfskhjfkjkgjkjfakgjkhjktjhkljfgkjdslbflknjdfsklfjdklsfjjfoijdfgkfjshkjgkjtjyhffkhjdfaklhjhdfklshjrktolsionifhpodskifdr
ANormalPersonOfficial
Linguist111IsSexy
OshwahIsTheBestAdminEver

Thanks in advance. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 13:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Linguist111! Sorry for the delay getting back to you! Here is how I'd handle these usernames if it were me:

FuckMyLife91919: I'd softblock and tell the user to change their name. Blatant? No. Inappropriate per UPOL? I'd say yeah, because it could be seen as disruptive.

SoPissedOff08: This one is borderline, too. Watch their edits for sure, but blatant UPOL violation? I'd lean towards no.

OhPoo7306: Same with this one. Watch their edits but AGF too. Maybe it's a quote they like and they just use it as their username. Not a blatant UPOL violation.

JoCox: ~~Recently deceased person (see Jo Cox), so this falls under the BLP / famous person policy. The user needs to change their name.~~ Sorry! I misread the person's death date for some stupid reason (I thought she died in December 2016, not June 2016). This person has been deceased for six months, so it wouldn't violate any rules. Not to mention, "Jo Cox" also seems like a common and short nickname that can refer to many full names.

IAmNotTikeem: Looks like an LTA / sock puppet - see User:Tikeem. This would be a block.

Kjjgkfkhjklshjgklhjkjfkjksjfghdfakhjklgjkhjkjofkjdsjkgjdfakhjdfskhjfkjkgjkjfakgjkhjktjhkljfgkjdslbflknjdfsklfjdklsfjjfoijdfgkfjshkjgkjtjyhffkhjdfaklhjhdfklshjrktolsionifhpodskifdr: Ehh, ask them to change their name. Disruptive username for sure.

ANormalPersonOfficial: The 'Official' at the end of the username usually throws me off. Maybe ask them to change their username, but the username isn't coming back as anything "official" like an organization, band, etc.

Linguist111IsSexy: Block as an LTA / sock puppet account, or as an impersonating/close username - especially if you know that you didn't make this account yourself.

OshwahIsTheBestAdminEver: Block as an LTA / sock puppet account, or impersonating/close username.

Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. I have some questions:

Suppose the editors with the usernames "IAmNotTikeem", "Linguist111IsSexy" and "OshwahIsTheBestAdminEver" edited constructively, and there was nothing to link them to any LTA or other user. What would you do then? These usernames don't impersonate other users; one says they are not the user and other two pay compliments to other users (albeit perhaps inappropriately).
The UNP says usernames that are potentially confusing or contain nonsense characters are not serious vios on their own, but I have seen some long nonsense usernames (similar to the one above) being blocked as vios. Is there a specific limit to the amount of characters before the username becomes disruptive on its own?
About the "JoCox" username: the username matches a deceased person (who I thought wasn't covered by the BLP policy as they have now been dead for six months) who was a murdered politician, and therefore controversial. How would you handle usernames such as "AnnaLindh" and "JohnFKennedy"?

Thanks! Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 16:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Linguist111! I'm going to bullet my answers below and in the same order as your list of additional questions, so that you can read them easier.

If (in your example) the "IAmNotTikeem", "Linguist111IsSexy" and/or "OshwahIsTheBestAdminEver" account(s) are editing constructively, this is usually because they're doing so in order to stay under the radar until the accounts get the autoconfirmed flag by the WikiMedia software. Then, they can do more damage as an autoconfirmed user compared to an unconfirmed account (such as edit semi protected pages, move pages, upload files, and update images with files they upload). Again, this is coming from my experience and the numerous sock puppet and LTA accounts that I've reported and blocked. Most of the time (if not pretty much every time), accounts with another editor's username in it like these are troll accounts, sock puppets, or accounts made by LTA users. You can also file an SPI without blocking if you're suspicious but not 100% sure, or ask an admin or checkuser if you're completely unsure.
No. Just use your judgment. If the username is just a bunch of random characters (like that long example you have above), that would be a situation where I'd either soft block the username to give them a chance to make a new account, or just ask them to change it to something else. Remember that, with usernames and UPOL issues, there's the option of "soft blocking". It blocks that particular account from editing, but doesn't enable any blocking options (such as auto-blocking the username's last used IP). This allows that person to create a new account and use it without any restriction stemming from the block that was placed on his/her original account.
Oh... maybe I misread the death date. I thought that this person was deceased in December 2016. It depends, to be honest. You have to look at current events and the recent edits made to the article. Is this person being mentioned in current events and news articles at this time and over controversial or major issues involving them or their death? Is the article being edited in a large number or at a high rate? This, among other things, will help you make that "borderline call". I try to lean AGF unless I have a reason to otherwise. People like Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy? HA. No, wayyyyy too long. Way, way too long. Those aren't BLP username violations at all :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That settles it. I'm creating my new alt account: ~~Abraham_Lincoln's_Sexy_Beard~~ Abraham_Lincoln_Was_A_Fascist. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks again, Oshwah. What I mean with the "JoCox", "JohnFKennedy" and "AnnaLindh" usernames is that, while the WP:MISLEADNAME policy does not apply to these usernames, as they all match names of deceased people, they may be disruptive because all of those people were political figures, which makes them controversial, and because of the circumstances of their deaths. The Cox trial only recently ended (in November), so that one could be especially disruptive because Cox has been a lot in the news recently. Suppose Donald Trump was dead or got assassinated. A user with the username "DonaldTrump" may not be misleading, but potentially still disruptive and possibly offensive as Trump is a very polarizing politician, who has been viewed very negatively in the media. Not like "AdolfHitler", which would be umambiguously offensive. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 23:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Linguist111 - You're starting to think in the right direction now. I'll try and explain (using your example above) from "obvious" to "borderline" for you - I think you'll understand once I do :-). Lets start with a username such as "Donald Trump Official". You'd agree that this username is very problematic.... of course. Who wouldn't? It has a living famous person in the username and with the word "Official" at the end. Even if we drop the word "Official" from the end of the username, this is still enough to be a violation because the name is not common (such as "Bob Jones") and it is obviously of someone who is notable and has a BLP article. Citing the actual username policy, this username is an issue because it misleads or may attempt to impersonate or give other editors the idea that this account actually belongs to Donald Trump.

If, say, by your example, that Donald Trump died just now and you see this username pop up in the new user logs, it would be considered a violation given the fact that his "death" would, without a doubt, be a highly significant event. It would come with an unquestionable amount of controversy, coverage, sources, news to follow, yadda yadda yadda. His article would be edited at a very high rate and would be protected and watched by a significant number of editors and members of the community. If, say... some amount of time passes... and there's no new coverage or significant news regarding this person's death and no edits on the article that follow closely in-line with such (or to put it another way, everyone has "moved on"), then it wouldn't be a violation in my eyes. You just have to use your judgment in this case - it's a grey area and the policy here is vague for a reason. Because they were political figures is one thing; you also have to look at this policy and use judgment as to if it applies or if it doesn't. And remember, you always have the option to wait for the username to edit if you're not sure.

Obviously, usernames of people who aren't recently deceased don't apply, but (as you said) usernames that involve a person who is associated with events that are seen as highly sensitive or offensive can be blocked as well. An example would be "Adolf Hitler was an awesome guy!" - that would be a good example of a username that would be hardblocked as a blatant UPOL violation. I hope my explanation has helped to clear up some things. Please let me know if you need me to explain anything else further. I'll be happy to do so! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 11:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree about the JoCox username. If this is the person's real name and they are not editing anything to do with Jo Cox why would we block them or tell them they need to change their name? The name itself is not disruptive and we shouldn't be telling someone to change it. If the edits associated with the user are associated with the real person, then I can see a problem, but not the username by itself. - GB fan 11:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

GB fan - If you're referring to my initial response about this username, I later realized that I misread her death date thinking that it was very recent (within the last three days). I later corrected this statement. For better clarity, I went ahead and redacted my original response next to the username and replaced it with my correction. Let me know if this is not what you're referring to, or if you still disagree with my response regarding this example. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It was in regards to the original response. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong, but it appears to be that you are saying that if a famous person has recently died and someone creates it as a username then they should be asked to change their username. I could agree if it is a very unique name but the determination about more common names should be based on contributions not the username itself. - GB fan 13:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

HELP

ALRIGHT SO I AM A ARTIST NAMED LILLOYAL AND I NEED HELP MAKING A WIKI PAGE AND GET IT ON GOOGLE WITH MY REAL NAME AND THE DAY I WAS BORN SO BASICLY ALL MY INFO SO PEOPLE CAN KNOW WHO I REALLY AM. SO COULD YOU HELP ME DO ALL THIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilloyal (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lilloyal: First, can you please stop shouting? Second, if you're for some reason unable to get help here, I suggest you try asking at the Teahouse, a place designed to answer questions for new editors like yourself. — Gestrid (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No subject

Osawah, which post are you referring to? If it is the post on Ghanaian cuisine, it requires some editing with regards to the way dishes are served. I am of Ghanaian descent by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.231 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^grotto ^presents 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~

Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Oshwah! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 21:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Season's Greetings!

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

hi

hi oswha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B12:24B0:116F:3E4C:A816:A9B8 (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

User:DillyPickly

Can you also block Lowkeypool (talk · contribs), who is clearly the same person. 2601:1C0:103:47AE:3809:CC12:ACEA:D05 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but I blocked them as a VOA. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 2601:1C0:10D:21BB:D930:C1B0:CAD5:CA96 (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Minorities in Pakistan

My addition reflected my own understanding. One can see Population Census Reports and verify that East Pakistan had considerably more Hindus and its separation in Dec 1971 changed profile of minorities in Pakistan. You may re-add the line with the notice that reference is needed on it. But we will need to find a source where this calculation is performed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.21.126 (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! And thanks for explaining your edit further! Sorry, but citing your experience or knowledge of the article subject constitutes original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Content that is added to any article must be verifiable, meaning that it must supported by a reliable source that we can look up somewhere. Material that is controversial, challenged, or likely to be challenged should cite a reliable source in-line with the statements. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these policies and guidelines. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for your message, and I hope my response helps explain why I reverted your changes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Oshwah, Not sure if i'm allowed to ask but who's Bathing in water with DoRD a sock of ?, Seems very bizarre for their only edit to be on my talkpage ?, Thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010 - There's no policy against asking, lol. It's most likely an LTA that's standing behind Curtain A or Curtain B. Can't be 100% sure, but a CU and I are discussing it and keeping our eyes peeled for more. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha I didn't think there was but thought I'd be safe than sorry lol, Ahhh right I've seen those names around before (think It was ANI), If only these people had better things to do!!, Ah well thanks for your help anyway, Have a great Xmas, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing Curtain A as the English was comprehensible. I'm pretty sure there was an LTA page about user A although I may be thinking of someone else... 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^grotto ^presents 20:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Oshwah/TalkPageArchives!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WWE Hall Of Fame

An IP continues to remove content about Trump from the WWE Hall Of Fame article. They have been reverted by LM2000 and myself.I've reverted the Trump info back twice now. IP continues to remove Trump content based on their own opinion and no consensus. IP has also refused requests to take to talk page. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

IP is now edit warring over it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Content has been removed a 4th time by IP, IP refused to talk on talk page. IP is removing based on non neutral pov. There is no consensus for removal content has been there for about a month or so, this IP has been the only one to remove it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've warned the IP for edit warring. Based on the IPs response to my warning, I don't think he understands what constitutes edit warring. Going to try and offer assistance and explain proper dispute resolution. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I have suggested the Talk page to discuss this several times to which they have flat refused to do. The content was added by LM2000 on Nov 20th. LM simply put the content back with the same response of taking it to the talk page after IP removed the content the first time, they have removed it 5 times since yesterday and a total of 6 times since it was placed. No other user has tried to remove it in a month. User is clearly not being neutral and does not understand they can't just remove content they dont like when others clearly want it there,~~which they got their way now as they removed it and I am unable to put it back without violating 3rr myself.~~ So glad I decided to drop by. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - Relax :-). I've restored the article back to its original state before the dispute, warned the IP for edit warring and followed-up with an explanation of proper dispute resolution guidelines and what he needs to do. He is well aware that he cannot make any more reversions to the article without discussing the dispute and coming to a consensus first, and that he will be blocked if he does so. I know that disputes like this can be very frustrating... especially when the other user appears to be refusing to follow the proper policies and guidelines. However, we must be patient and civil towards others, and we must understand that we were all new at one time. Everything will work out in the end, one way or another. We've done our best to try and help the user; the ball's in his court as to what he will chose to do. I hope he chooses to take our guidance. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Very relaxed and civil, just making sure everything is explained properly as it may be days before I check in again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 22:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - Okay, just making sure :-). Your messages just sounded as if you were frustrated or angry. I apologize if I miss-interpreted them as such. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Should I open up an SPI into Sc30002001 based on that revert? Seems they are mistaken that reverting under a different account doesn't count towards 3RR.LM2000 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 - You certainly can, but I don't think that this would be a report or a situation that a checkuser would come running towards with their tools to investigate - not if the report just involves the IP and the account that are now both blocked. It just looks as though the user edited while logged out, then decided to edit using their account. However, if you do have reasonable evidence to show that this user may be using more accounts illegitimately, then yes absolutely file an SPI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah Two responses 1. Nope I'm very calm and relaxed just making sure I make all points clear so there are no misunderstandings. 2.They have been editting under the IP for weeks since Nov 29th, before that they were editting on both the user name and IP. They knew they weren't logged in and haven't been logged in since the 29th. They didn't edit on their user name until they were warned for edit warring on the IP then switched so they could revert your change with the same explanation trying to make it look like 2 users thinking no one would catch it. Sorry but that's more than just mistakenly editting while logged out and shows intentional puppetry to me, but that's my opinion. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the above response before I noticed the blocks. Page protection plus blocks would probably be the best case scenario for an SPI outcome anyway so I don't see the need to press that further.LM2000 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from me and my girlfriend

EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks

For the blocks of that recent batch of socks. It's really nice, knowing someone is patrolling Special:Log/newusers. Sro23 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sro23 - No problem! But you don't want to patrol that URL straight-up. You want to patrol this one instead. Also, feel free to steal this script off of me, too. It'll put a live feed of the new user log (the one I linked you) in your sidebar. Do those two things, and you'll be on top of those LTA socks like a pure unadulterated pro! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Psst! Sro23, it's easier if you got Script Installer which I personally use the script to easily install scripts. hehe ;) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User Socking on IP

The user who was on IP edit warring, which you blocked both IP and User is now back on the WWE Hall Of Fame talk page posting as both their user name and IP. They are clearly doing it on purpose as can be seen here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes before you ask I am perfectly relaxed and calm. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi WarMachineWildThing - Haha, I understand that you are. And good! It's never a good idea to edit while you're frustrated and upset ;-). You (as well as I) have seen others do it plenty of times; doing so usually results in doing things that are against policy or that they later have to answer to or explain down the road. Is this issue still ongoing? I believe that we protected the page and took care of this already. Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame Celebrity Wing

Hello just writing to let you know that the day jobs for Celebrities might stay LM 2000 has opposed and let me know that it's helpful because it will continue to grow. He also said he wasn't the one who put Donald Trump's presidency in there someone else did and I did not catch it only until LM 2000 added the occupation section. if it gets more opposing result I'll live it. WarMachine thinks ima sock puppet the majority time I don't bother to sign in sc30002001 is my only account. all is good have a good evening. --Sc30002001 (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sc30002001, and thank you for your message. I apologize for the delay responding to you; as you can imagine, I've been quite busy due to the holiday :-). It sounds like there is an ongoing dispute between yourself and other editors with WWE Hall of Fame. While it is still ongoing at the time of this writing, I'm not completely sure. While all may seem okay and good according to you (which is great by the way!), it's important to make sure that everyone involved in the particular dispute is also "okay and good". So long as the dispute is being discussed and undergoing proper dispute resolution (if still ongoing and if needed), nobody is engaging in edit warring on the article, and that any edits on the article that are in relation to the dispute reflect consensus, then yeah... everything is, in fact, "okay and good" :-). Otherwise, make sure that you follow the dispute resolution guidelines and that everyone involved does so as well. Cheers, and happy holidays! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? Range block?

I messaged Widr a while ago about a possibly sockpuppet, 188.187.38.75, but he hasn't responded yet. Can you investigate? They could be connected to this address. Can you do a range block? Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz! Thanks for the message! Unfortunately, those IPs don't fall into a range that could be blocked. If they did, you bet I'd be on that pronto! LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Just checked the IPs, sorry lol. I thought that the only difference was the 180 at the end. Sorry! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

RileyBugz - I do that all the time! No worries, dude. Keep an eye out for me and let me know if you see any more of these guys creepin' around. I'll have no problem keeping this guy at bay. Thanks again for everything - keep up the good work! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, can you please check out the vandal at LFO (American band), have used my 2 reverts, he is also deleting warnings from his talkpage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic306 - User blocked and page semi protected for two weeks. Thanks for the heads up! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks that was quick. Have found another problem at Oliver & Jenny with an editor creating fake articles and fake edits, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic306 - Page deleted. Will investigate the user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, the page already had been semi-protected, it's just that the sock had been autoconfirmed, and with this edit you actually shortened the protection length. Since it's a target of LTA vandal User:Jaredgk2008, could you please restore the page's previous protection length? Sro23 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays; Thanks; My Latest Article

Happy holidays. Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page. What a reaction by the IP after I had left some specific and rather ordinary advice! The article that I had been working on John F. R. Seitz has been up and stable, except for a few tweaks by me, for several weeks. It is rather long in part because the linked articles often do not give the background or what Seitz or his men did, at the regimental or battalion level. I thought that this information was necessary to tell the story and to show Seitz's great leadership. In any event, because of the article's length, you might want to glance at it rather than read it. I don't expect a review! I have a picture of Seitz in World War II from a book which credits the U.S. Army. If I can figure out how to upload it and verify that it is public domain, I will try to add it. His West Point major general picture shows him as an older man upon whom time has taken its toll. Since most of the article is about his World War II service, I would rather show that younger image. Again, happy holidays and thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Donner60! Happy holidays! I hope you're doing well! Well, there's a point where you have to call into question the person's intentions and whether or not they're here to contribute to the encyclopedia or not. Insults and harassment like that and over something so small... either he's got major issues, or he's a troll. Usually it's the latter. Yes, a photo someone from World War II and taken by the U.S. Army for historical purposes would be very much in the public domain. The File Upload Wizard should assist you with everything you need in order to upload the photo, give it an appropriate name, as well as verify its licensing status and attach the proper license to it. If you have questions about it, you can either ask me or you can ask Majora - someone I know and trust to be an expert on image licensing and who can answer your questions. I've only given the article a glance, but I will put your article on my "to-read" list, as the person sounds very interesting! Again, I hope you had a good holiday... and as usual, happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am giving a presentation next week on the Battle of the Somme so I will be spending most of the next week finishing my Power Point slides, probably with a little attention to Huggle. After that, I will give the upload a try. If I can't figure it out, I will ask for your guidance. Seitz was an extremely accomplished regimental leader. I had learned a little about him and decided to look up his article. To my surprise, there wasn't one. So I thought his biography was a good subject for an article. I have since discovered that there is no article about another colonel with a similar World War II record, who also became a major general. I plan to write an article about him some time next year. This shows me that while "all" of the big and interesting topics (supposedly) have articles, there are still many accomplished people, and some events, that still need to have articles written about them. Happy New Year! Donner60 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks to you granted those privileges right to my account, I'm observance those policies guide and patrolling for contributions. Wish you a great happy new year holidays and enjoyable too, Cheers! :-) SA 13 Bro 15:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi SA 13 Bro! Thanks for the barnstar! You're very welcome! Just use caution and take time to read the guidelines and ask me if you have any questions before you begin using the new tools. It's very important that they be used correctly and only for their intended purpose. Looking at your recent contribs, I don't think there will be any problems... but do your due diligence ;-). Hope you had a good holiday. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Help!

I don't know what to do with this editor. They are editing this article, and I don't know if my reverts would be considered an edit war. I have already warned them, I don't know what to do! Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz! Sorry for the delay getting back to you. As you can imagine, I've been busy due to the holiday season. The edits changing the source to a different domain certainly are suspicious; do you know where the changes take you when navigating to them? Is it original research? spam or advertising? It looks like this user hasn't edited the article since December 23, so keep an eye on him and let me know if disruption continues. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Oshwah, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing,
CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 19:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

No subject

Dear Mr.Oshwah, This is regarding the correction I wish to make in the photographs in the wikipedia article titled "Aung San Suu Kyi". I can understand your rejection of the correction I suggested, since wikipedia does not readily accept deletion of any complete section of any of it's articles. The reason I would like the deletion of the photograph of the "Nobel" medal attached to the article, is its total irrelevance to the substance of the article.

Thank you

Vijay Chary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay Chary (talk • contribs) 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vijay Chary! I don't see where on the Aung San Suu Kyi article that you made a change that was reverted by me? Are we looking at the correct article? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Dragmire

What is your problem? I provided a source for the change. He was claimed off waivers by TEX. NYGiantsfan1991 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi NYGiantsfan1991! Thanks for leaving me a message regarding the edit made to Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players. Please forgive me; I got distracted and I didn't put your first edit summary here together with this one. That was my fault and I apologize. I just saw a big load of text being removed and I didn't have the context as to why. But, I see how that, together, they make such. I would suggest that you explain the removal and provide a source if needed together. This way, confusion such as this will be avoided in the future. Anyways, I wanted to respond to you and let you know that I received your message, and that I sincerely apologize for the confusion. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. By the way, 'welcome!!! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

About the edit on the "Pope Song" page

Hello, Oshwah! I received your message saying you did revert my edit on "Pope Song" page. I did put the names of the bloggers because both scienceblogs and Patheos are a set of blogs with a lot of bloggers with many different views, so i thought it was appropriate to put the names of the bloggers specifically, if you have a problem with this, why not put the blog itself and not the page that has a lot of different blogs. In the "original version"(the version before my edit, and after your reversal), it sounded like the pages did have official views on the subject. Just sharing my view and i hope i did convince you, and if i didn't, you could say the reasons why you think that my edits should not be there.

Thank you if you did read that and if it's possible, i would like an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.62.180 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Are we talking about these changes? If so, then I now understand what you were doing. I apologize; I was confused about what you were doing. I went ahead and reverted my change that undid what you changed, as well as edited the article to keep both the author and the blog domain so that nobody is confused. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns. Again, I apologize for the confusion and I very much appreciate your message. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Fisher

Thanks for locking the Carrie Fisher page. There were plenty of ghoulish edits being made, as if people were hoping for the worst.

86.130.31.115 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No subject

Request to not delete Dymbur page I request you to Kindly approve the page Dymbur i created. This band from India needs recognition. It will be of great help. (Steven Lyngdoh (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC))

No subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:38.66.5.201

This guy is back to vandalising again.

Just thought you should know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72B9:4700:B891:C229:8217:53A6 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you get this message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72B9:4700:4824:B780:53F0:3628 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry for the delay getting back to you. It looks like this IP has only edited once since February 2016. The IP also looks to be to a residence, but they don't look to be distributed statically from the ISP according to the WHOIS. This means that we can't be 100% certain that this is the same person from February 2016, even though the edit to the same article is very convincing evidence - your only warning was absolutely appropriate either way given the edit made. These details aside, it looks like the IP hasn't again edited since being warned, so any blocks or other action would be essentially moot at this point. Thanks for the heads up; let me know if you see any disruption that needs my immediate attention and I'll do my best to look at it as fast as I can. And of course... if the IP edits like this again, let me know. Thanks, and I hope you had a good holiday! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete Karen m spence page 149.241.215.237 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please just delete this page? Somehow someone submitted by bio to Wikipedia. This embarrasses me every time it comes up. Please delete.

Peter Manuel

Hello Oshwah

I'm a first-timer to Wikipedia, so please be gentle on me!

I added the reference having just watched the ITV mini-series 'In Plain Sight'. This series, along with the information I posted, was drawn to my attention recently by my mother, who lives in Holme-on-Spalding-Moor and grew up there in the 1930s and 40s.

She recounted to me the story which I posted. I shall speak with here again with a view to gleaning further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.150.129 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GAB^gab 22:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

85.167.172.32

85.167.172.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Zombie Proxy. 73.96.113.8 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. IP blocked as a zombie proxy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

175.126.89.31

175.126.89.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Zombie Proxy. 2601:1C0:109:E99A:4018:5E9C:3E73:7AB1 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Done - looks like you beat me too it... 2601:1C0:109:E99A:4018:5E9C:3E73:7AB1 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

—MRD2014 (Merry Christmas!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

18:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


	The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barn Stars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5. Check Users Checking 4 Over Sighters Hiding 3 GAs 2. Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Season's Greetings!

Ho Ho Ho!

You've been visited by the Christmas Trout.

Don't panic! Someone is just wishing you a happy holiday season and a wonderful New Year!

AlexEng^(TALK) 05:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dane ^talk 08:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!!

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, all your help to improve and to expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) ^{Happy Holidays} 13:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

You ask for a source, then remove my contribution but leave the source I quoted?

"Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, J. Christopher Stevens, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)"

Hello Oshwah,

I have no idea why you removed my edit, as you left the source which was right there.

My edit: It was determined that there is no proof to allegations that Stevens was tortured to death. A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

Your edit: There are allegations that Stevens was tortured to death.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp%7C

If you would read the link resource it clearly states there is no proof to allegations that he was tortured to death. Furthermore, the line I added "A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke." is literally in there as well.

Why did you remove this additional information?? It comes across as odd to say the least to suggest that he was tortured, whilst providing a source that says that there is NO evidence for this allegations. There are no reliable sources for the allegations, and several reliable sources (among which Agence France Presse (AFP), and the doctor that treated him) saying that nothing of the kind occurred (all of this in the source I provided!).

Please revert back your changes to how it was, or explain why you want to leave the reference to allegations of torture there, but not my reference that there is no proof for them, as stated in the source provided

And a Merry Christmas to you :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by God-Himself (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi God-Himself, and thanks for leaving me a message. I was confused for a bit before I realized that the edit you're referring to edit was made by an IP address, not your account (I assume that this was you while logged out?) - I just didn't see the warning or the edit in your contributions. It looks like the edits made simply added to expand the previous statement, but I didn't see where it was also stated in the source provided. I took another look, and also see that the initial claim being made in the source is labeled as "unverified" by the same source, which naturally draws other concerns regarding accuracy and verifiability. It does appear that the source also cites other work, helping establish how reliable it is, and the fact that it cites other work typically also makes it a secondary source as well, so I guess I'm mixed. Are there additional sources that also state what was being added? Either way, if this source states the information that was added, please feel free to restore it. I apologize; I just didn't locate this exact information there, but I could have simply missed it... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, thank you for taking the time to have a look at this and reply, sorry for my late response, I was on holiday :) I didn´t realise I was signed out at the the time of the edit, my apologies. I´m fairly new as someone who edits wikipedia, so I struggle with its inner workings sometimes (on how the talk works properly for example :p). I reverted the changes, I hope you don´t mind, as I think they are more inline with reality and the source (originally) provided. I just have a problem with things being insinuated on the basis of one single unsubstantiated article on the internet. The source (snoopes) cites some prominent sources concerning the statement that there is no proof that Mr. Stevens was tortured, but if you want I´m sure I can find you additional sources that state that he was not tortured if you want. And, conversely, this being the internet, I´m sure I could find sources that claim that he was as well, not evidence based though :)

If it would have been totally up to me I would have just removed the whole torture reference as it is, in my opinion, just an internet rumour which isn´t worthy of mentioning in the first place, but as it was already there and I´m not sure what wikipedias stance on removing unverified claims is (I cannot give a source for my reasons for removing the entry after all....) I opted for this edit instead. God-Himself (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Everybody is vandalizing Richard Jefferson

Accounts are being created just for the purpose of vandalizing/adding libelous content to the Richard Jefferson article. Could you try and protect it and possibly investigate the accounts being created? Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

RileyBugz - The page has been semi-protected. Thanks for the heads up! :-)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Oshwah: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Bigg Boss 10 Protection

Hey there. I believe you are the admin who protected the Bigg Boss 10 article. It is edited very frequently, and it's pending changes are getting very backed up. It seems that most of the content being added is not bad content, so I am of the opinion that it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove the pending changes protection. If it still faces content issues, I think semi-protection would be better than pending changes. Obviously, you have a better sense of things than I do, but that's just my two cents. (Noyster also made a request at WP:RPP, where they were pointed to you, but I don't think they have talked to you yet). Thanks! --hwalk | talk | contribs 00:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bojo1498! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions and concerns regarding the article. Typically, I'll apply pending changes protection to an article instead of semi protection for many different reasons. If the article isn't generally edited frequently or have a very high edit rate, we prefer to try using pending changes protection first until it becomes a problem or is found to be unsuccessful at stopping the disruption in concern. One reason that's a little "off textbook" but still consider when applying pending changes protection over semi protection are situations where unregistered or new users are also currently making legitimate or good changes to the article on top of other ones that are causing disruption. Semi protection in this case would prevent unregistered/new editors from being able to add those good changes, where pending changes protection would not. If you look at the [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Bigg+Boss+10&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1 page logs], this is the exact reason that prompted me to change my mind and pending changes protect the article rather than semi protect it. However, it looks like disruption continued and KrakatoaKatie added semi protection to the article a few days later, so it looks like we're good. Once semi protection expires, pending changes protection will resume and continue from there. Again, I appreciate the message and I hope my response helped you to understand the situations where we attempt pending changes protection first before we attempt semi protection (although the cases aren't that common). Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that absolutely makes sense. I definitely see the logic. It seems like the frequent editing has died down (at points it was being edited several times a day), but for a time it got very very backed up. Do you have any ideas on how to keep it from backing up? A lot of it was editing specific things about episodes, so it seems like there would need to be a reviewer who watches all of the episodes to verify what is being said. Anyway, thanks for explaining everything! --hwalk | talk | contribs 16:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Mattramzzz vandalized the Dennis Miller entry

HI, I saw that you recently corrected some vandalism by user Mattramzzz, so I thought you could help with this... That user vandalized the Dennis Miller entry today by inserting his own disparaging opinions into the introductory section. Thanks.

208.91.64.179 (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC) My name is Ken K. I'm just a Wikipedia user and don't have a login here.

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Not sure how to take someone to ANI. Is there special criteria that is needed? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@WarMachineWildThing: AN/I is not a criteria required process. When you escalate to AN/I, you are requesting Administrator Intervention usually against ongoing behavior that has become disruptive or out of line with accepted Wikipedia policy and practices. The most successful AN/I requests (as judged by administrative resolution) include specific diffs of behaviors and quotes of policy in violation. -- Dane ^talk 04:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dane Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi WarMachineWildThing - Going off of Dane's response above, make sure that you're reporting behavior that is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is ongoing and needs attention or intervention from an administrator, and that it's not something that should be reported elsewhere (such as AN3 to report edit warring, AIV to report vandalism, etc). Like Dane said, make sure that you provide evidence such as diffs or user contributions to support your argument. Failure to do so will make the process more difficult at best, or be considered personal attacks at worst (especially if the accusations are very serious and the supporting evidence can't be found or provided). Make sure to keep calm and civil throughout the ANI, answer questions when you can, and be open to feedback and criticism both ways - remember that nobody is safe at an ANI; those who respond will (and generally should) take a neutral and level-headed look at the problem from all angles and everyone involved. Good luck to you - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous editor problems

Hi again Oshwah, its Palmer. I've been having an issue with an anonymous user that keeps changing percentages of the 2016 us election in Florida, Washington, and Pennsylvania, to % that are unsourced and refuted by the certified results from various Secretaries of State. Can you help? Thanks PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)PalmerTheGolfer

Hi PalmerTheGolfer! It looks like the edits are being made by 117.53.77.84? Are there other IPs that are doing it as well? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There was another address that kept rounding % to the nearest whole number, IP 86.162.254.10, but it had been a few weeks since they edited in such a manner, and MB298 had prevented them from rounding % in an unconstructive manner. If you could just keep an eye on that IP as well that'd be great!! Thanks PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Annoying...

diff I hit revert, and it does nothing because of an edit conflict. I go back and hit revert again, but someone has beaten me to it :). I've noticed that Twinkle is superior to Huggle in situations like this, as it continues reverting if the new edit is by the same editor, whereas Huggle just stops. Maybe this should be changed? Adam9007 (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! Huggle should allow you to rollback the vandalism, even if the same editor edits the same article after the diff that's displayed. It should let you know that a newer edit was made to the page by the same user, and pressing 'Yes' to proceed should revert those changes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

~~For some reason~~, I like to check each revert I make by looking at my contribs (~~no idea why~~ :)), and that did not appear. I went back (in Huggle) and there was a new edit by the same user. No dialogue box or anything. However, I've just spotted an option in Huggle "On revert of multiple edits by the same user" with 2 options: Skip and Revert. It is currently on Skip, but the "Revert edits newer than the displayed diff by the same user" box is checked. I assume I need to change to to Revert? Adam9007 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that should do it. Be warned that this option has drawbacks if you change it. For example, if someone removes content in one edit, then adds it back to the article somewhere else in their next edit (so, just re-arranging content overall), you'll revert all edits if the changes were made by the same user and the removal (older edit) is what you see. This option (if I'm correct) also includes edits by the same user in the past as well. So if they made 5 good edits followed by one edit that appears questionable, you'll also revert all edits made by the same user if you only see the revert that is questionable (their latest edit). If it's possible that the edit you're looking at on Huggle is one of many edits that, together, would be legitimate - press H to look at the article's history and make sure you're seeing everything before you decide. Let me know how that change works out for you (if you decide to change it). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (seriously :)) I changed it, but if it has worked, how will I know? Will I need to check manually? (If it has worked, then I won't see a need to) I think I have Huggle set to display the diff of all the last user's edits. I also suppose my slow internet connexion is part of the problem too (some of the larger pages take several seconds to even load let alone save an edit). Adam9007 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007 - You'll want to verify manually so that you're 100% certain that Huggle is doing exactly what you want it to be doing (and vice versa). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's part of the reason (so maybe I do have some idea why I do it; I'm talking bollocks :)) I double-check my reverts :). Adam9007 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you asked me to let you know how the change went so here goes. Huggle's saying no. It's automatically changing itself to Skip every time I load it. Is there any way to stop it doing that, or is it a bug? I suspect the latter because for some reason it's not looking at my huggle3.css for this setting, but is still saving to it. Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Do not revert helpful removals of vandalism

Hello Oswah. I have removed the vandalism from the United States of Colombia page again. In the future, if you revert people's edits, make sure to see what you are reverting to - what you reverted to was a bunch of nonsense vandalism. Even though there was no edit comment, it was very clearly vandalism that was removed and if I had not come back to the page it would have remained there.

Hi there! Looking through what you removed, I agree that it was vandalism. I had originally thought that you removed the only infobox on the article (which obviously wasn't the case). I apologize for the confusion and I appreciate you for letting me know. Just make sure that you provide an edit summary with your changes (the edit summary you provided with this edit was perfect and all that was needed). This way, other editors will be able to see the edit summary and know what you removed and why. Other than that, I owe you a handshake and a big "thank you"! If you see more vandalism, by all means... remove it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Annabel englund

She is not notable. This is what is bad about Wikipedia - people like you. How can you justify a page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B804:60A9:1450:5992:BDAC:E628 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Blanking the page is not the proper process of having an article listed or discussed for deletion. See Wikipedia's deletion policy for our processes, the criterion that articles need to meet in order to be included, and how to appropriately take action if they don't. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiNouveau15

WikiNouveau15 made three edits. Two hiding that they were newly registered and a third to vandalize Deven Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Interestingly, it appears that Deven Green herself is editing as Neveded. I sort of got caught in the middle. Should anything be done, such as a revdel? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim1138! I've rev del'd the revision text of the edit made by WikiNouveau15 to Deven Green, as it doesn't actually cite a specific source (even though it may appear as a failed attempt to do so in good faith). In the end, it's a serious BLP issue due to not being properly referenced and it's gotta go. Thanks for reporting that :-). Please let me know if I can do anything else for you. Thanks again! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I Googled and didn't find anything, so I think it was made up and the editor made themself appear a veteran. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think you will have to revdel up through my last edit on the page. My first edit restored the BLP vand, the last removed it again. Sorry.

Jim1138 (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138 - No worries, I'll take care of that for you. Going through the recent history of Deven Green, I also see that Marti1056 has very similar contributions as WikiNouveau15 (namely, the creation user and talk pages that redirect to the other). I wouldn't be surprised if Neveded was also the same (although I don't see an obvious connection when glancing through that user's contributions). I'd advise opening an SPI; it looks like there's socking going on... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you?

Can you keep an eye on the Chyna article? Sources linked in article clearly state her birth year 1969 an age at death as 46, but users keep changing it to 1970 and 45 stating Unsourced yet the sources are right there. I've seen IPs try to fix it but they are getting reverted by users as Unsourced when they are very well sourced by New York Times, which states age and birth year in the report and NBC, which states age right next to them. Ive changed it with explanation in the summary as per the sources linked but since some users clearly are not reading things..... Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - I've added pending changes protection to the article for two weeks. This will allow unregistered and new users to add legitimate and positive contributions to the article, but first be reviewed by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. If things continue and need more intervention, let me know. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, the unfortunate things was IPs tried to fix but registered users were reverting as Unsourced,which it wasn't. But hopefully this fixes it and people start reading sources. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo

Kindly Attach the picture of Abdullah Bravo Macapaar to his profile in order to avoid confusion by readers

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Fiefee (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I quite like your hardline stance on NPA and CIVIL policies and your willingness to enforce them when they are violated. I figure that Quixotic's comment did not arise out of a vacuum so am offering them the opportunity and time to provide some context behind this. I know that some editors and admins will disregard NPA and CIVIL in circumstances where "a spade" is being called "a spade". An example of this is in regards to white nationalists and neo nazis that occassionally join Wikipedia. I remember a not so old case where subtle evidence of nazi sympathies was present on a user page. The user is question is Zaostao, their user page has been deleted but admins can review the page. You might notice a biblical reference and 14/88 on their page, also an image associated with Nazism. In this case nobody had any qualms referring to the editor as a Nazi (or whatever) and nobody was about to enforce any of our policies. I suspect one of two scenarios here; 1. Quix has been perturbed by comments/contribs that David A has made and lashed out in response to what they considered bigoted speech (I'd like them to offer up their evidence and I might have a chat to David about it if anything comes up) or 2. Quix jumped to hard off the gun at David for their criticisms of Islam. In the second case, Quix has definitely crossed the civility line and should be told so, that said, Wikipedia isn't a platform for debate and critics and David may need reminding of that. Q: How do you "noping" - I can't find it anywhere in template doc and I didn't particularly want to ping Zaostao? I made a guess, but am not sure it's right.Guess I'm about to find out. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude! Thanks for the message, man! I appreciate your comment regarding how I stand behind and enforce civility and Wikipedia's policies against making personal attacks. While I think that administrators should generally take a more firm stance on the enforcement of these violations of policy, I also understand the general hesitation to do so. Blocks that are performed on established or experienced editors due to civility or NPA violations usually come with harsh and drawn-out criticism by editors citing WP:NOPUNISH, stating that the block was punitive due to the editor's behavior, and not preventative to keeping the project from further harm. I agree that there are many examples where "discussing other users instead of discussing content" is acceptable (such as an ANI to discuss an editor's behavior, an RFA, the list goes on)... of course... we know and see them often. These are discussions and areas where "calling a 'spade' a 'spade'" (provided that such assertions are supported with evidence) is generally fine. However, going to this case, where the discussion was centered around content... I don't see how this response contributes positively to the discussion at-hand. This is an example where editors should "comment on content, not on other editors". Even if The Quixotic Potato was simply commenting on the previous comment ("the average Muslim possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism") - how does it make his response towards David A acceptable? What does it have to do with the RFC discussion at-hand? How is this response positively aiming to help the discussion come to a consensus? This is a situation where we have to look at the spirit of the policies involved, and not the letter of the policies. Doing so will show that, while many discussions on Wikipedia allow for (and even are centered around) edits regarding other users and not necessarily content, this particular discussion is not one of them (at least in my eyes). If I missed something, please do let me know! Oh, and the template for performing a "noping" is '''{{noping|USERNAME 1|USERNAME 2|...}}. The documentation for that is here :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have many good reasons to strongly dislike nazis and islamophobes (heck, I almost married a Muslim girl and I have two Jewish ex-GFs and some Jewish family members). Bit of a personal story but I am willing to explain it in detail. [18] (read the editsummary) [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. In the context of the discussion I was clearly calling a spade a spade. Someone asked me to be less blunt about it next time, and I've promised I will. I think what you are missing is that I would've been willing to spend a lot of time talking to him explaining why I believe his views are wrong, hoping to save him from the extremists... I would describe what I did as tough love, and if people wouldn't have interfered then I would've at least tried to help him understand that antisemitism and islamophobia are the same to me. If you haven't already, please read the userboxe(n/s) on Davids userpage... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: you should know that I'm one of Oshwah's talk page stalkers. I can't speak for anyone else, but I nonetheless feel sure that the other two involved in this would agree with me when I say that WP is not the place for you to help another editor overcome their own bigotry. As noble a pursuit as that may be, it doesn't belong here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Agreed. David has email enabled so in this hypothetical scenario that would've been a good option. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone seems to understand what I did in which context and why, but if anyone wants me to I am still willing to provide more diffs, just ask. Oshwah, I like the essays WP:ROPE and WP:GIANTDICK. In difficult/sensitive cases like this people will show their true colors if you give them enough time. If you haven't already then I strongly recommend reading my userpage. It contains the word "fuck" 12 times, not to mention words like "fags" and "queers" and "morons" and "idiot" and "nigger" and "khuilo" (which means dickhead). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the template doc link Oshwah. I didn't realize but I was on MediaWiki while looking for it, no wonder I couldn't find it. I agree with you in just about every respect. Discussing the contributor at the RfC did not help or improve the encyclopaedia in any way and there is a difference when you're at AN/I expressly discussing the editor (their behaviour generally) and on the talk page of an article. I can't think of a single way that David or Quix benefited from the interaction or indeed how any of the other RfC participants would have found it insightful. The reason for my more lenient stance is that Quix has done a bit more than just sling an insult, they've made a claim. I'd like to see their evidence in support of the claim. Then I can have a candid discussion about the issue(s) with either or both editors. Though you have my full support behind the civility warning. For me I'm in more of a; Quix has an issue with David, the issue is what David has said, so what has David actually said? Note, I read their comment about "the average Muslim" and "the critics of Islam" very differently to Quix. That comment alone doesn't even raise my eyebrows, let alone warrant the response it received.

For that matter I read the userboxes on David's page, I figure the political compass one is part of what you're referring to Quix, eh, moderately right and a little authoritarian. If he's taken the PC quiz it's likely his economic stance on "protectionism", "regulation" and "taxes" that puts him right field and his authoritarian stance is possibly strong patriotism, the death penalty for severe crimes, and other issues of the state. I was able to generally emulate their result, some things raise my eyebrows for such a moderate seeming score, others not so much. Other than that, clearly against fundamentalism, supports secularism and he's an atheist like you and me. AGF, unless he has a UBX saying "I don't like Muslims" or "despite the name, there's no Muzz in Muslims" then I won't be drawing any conclusions about it. Not everybody thinks its a good idea to state your political beliefs on your user page, and they're probably right about it. Just draws criticism and arguments. I do it anyway. Be mindful of the language you use and no more outbursts. No person in the face of insult has ever stopped and thought, you know what they may have a point. If anything they'll be even more deeply rooted in their beliefs not less. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Reping due fail The Quixotic Potato Mr rnddude (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude' - I commend you on your in-depth analysis and your viewpoints, which aim toward assuming good faith and attempting to understand what the comment in question was trying to say. Indeed, I believe that the community was correct in stating that the comment was problematic. The Quixotic Potato - I also see that, despite the initial responses that you made in the ANI thread (which also caused some editors to become even more responsive to the ANI), you appear to understand where the community stands on this particular situation and why. I hope you know that your past assertions that have correctly identified problematic, biased, and even down-right disturbing editors in the past - are not something I believe that you did wrong at all. Your comments have led to many problematic and POV-pushing accounts being sanctioned, and that's an awesome thing! There's are discussions and appropriate times that need to be considered before these assertions are made; otherwise, they come out completely the wrong way. I think you understand this now, which is a big step in the right direction. Just be mindful of the context and your words in the future, and all will be well. I thank you both for your participation and your time. I think we can step back, breathe a little (LOL), and move on from this. I've closed the ANI thread with my honest thoughts. The Quixotic Potato - please take them to heart. I wish you both happy editing and conflict-free collaboration. Cheers!!! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

rnddude: You have interpreted the comment he made based on your idea what he may have meant. I responded to what he actually wrote. Maybe you are correct, maybe I am, only one person knows for sure (but based on the list of contributions and what he actually wrote it seems far more likely that I am correct). I don't have an issue with David, TBH I consider this discussion a waste of time that could be spend far more productively, but if one is falsely accused then it is usually a good idea to respond. It is unclear to me what the word "outbursts" is referring to. I mentioned just two diffs but you can easily find plenty of diffs that show a pattern. Oshwah, leaving that comment to close the discussion was a very bad idea (and the contrast to the comment above is very noticable), it seems to be an emotional reaction to my comments left at 13:09, 13:53 and 13:56. It would've been better if you would've stepped back and let someone uninvolved leave the final comment. Please read WP:SPADE. I had to deal with some kneejerk reactions from people who didn't spend enough time reading that didn't make much sense, but when I explained the situation it became clear that I hadn't done anything wrong and that that comment in that context was a reasonable response. Your closing comment shows that you still aren't clear on what happened and why. In the future please ask questions if something is unclear to you. Of course communicating in written text over the internet is problematic; I am sure that you would've changed your mind and perhaps even apologized to me if we could talk about this irl. Your closing comment is insulting to me (I assume because of those comments left at 13:09, 13:53 and 13:56), it doesn't de-escalate the situation (quite the contrary) and it isn't a good summary of what happened. You should consider rewriting it (but give yourself at least 24hrs, and make sure the section doesn't get archived before then) or asking someone who is uninvolved to write a better one. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. You seem to be undermining Rnddude's approach, who has actually spend time to try to understand my POV (even though we may not agree on everything), and has consistently tried to de-escalate and communicate. The last time I criticized you your response was far from perfect, but now you have a chance to do better. I am arrogant enough that I DGAF, but you'll find that Wikipedia is full of frail ego's and if you treat people like this then you will cause a lot of drama, even though your intention is to reduce the amount of drama.

(talk page stalker) Speaking as someone who didn't comment in the ANI thread, Oshwah's close was pretty spot on. You should take Oshwah's suggestions to heart. I think perhaps in the future you should take more care before making such comments, such as the ones that seemed to raise general concern. Take my advice or leave it, it is what it is. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that is what we needed, more people who post comments before reading. In the future, you should spend some time reading before leaving a comment. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDHT --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you didn't hear that. Now can you please stop trying to prolong drama you aren't even involved in and do not understand? People have wasted enough of my precious time. Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. You have good intentions, but the wrong approach. It is sad that so many people with good intentions do not spend time reading, and instead post knee-jerk reactions that may be appropriate in clear cut cases where someone is nothere, but are incredibly counterproductive in situations like these. Rnddude spend some time trying to understand my POV, and because of that he treats me very differently. It should be obvious, even to those who disagree with me, that my intentions are good and that I truly do not believe I did something wrong (because I didn't). I am totally in favor of using RBI against bad-faithed editors, but this situation is clearly different, and if we communicate then we can probably end up with something we can all agree on. Heck, I understand Oshwahs POV, even though I disagree with him, and if you give him the chance to have a normal conversation with me aimed at de-escalation then we are probably able to understand eachothers POV and laugh about our miscommunication later.

People have already wasted far too much of my time on this BS, so please take your time to think about this before responding. Stuff like this is one of the main reasons why our editor retention rates are so low. I believe in Wikipedia's mission and I am so arrogant that I know I shouldn't GAF about the opinions of ill-informed people who aren't willing to read; but it is difficult to have a DGAF attitude when treated like this. Please read User:Bishonen/Optimist's guide to Wikipedia and https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/45/8d/b4458d0d7ccd5751ea38bc523403ed74.jpg (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you trying to get a ban, I have not commented her yet but in the name of god. Now you are calling users ill-informed when you have failed to produce any evidence (diffs) to back up your assertions. It is not bullshit to expect you to treat others with respect. Personally I think it is clear from this you have not learned your lesson, and will just start (as you seem to be here) treating others users with discourtesy and disrespect if you think they deserve it. If you carry on with this attitude you almost certainly will get a blockSlatersteven (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If there would be a god then this planet would look very very different. More cats, no humans. I'll ignore the rest of your comment, you are here to cause yet more WP:DRAMA. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thought experiment

This is a thought experiment, a completely hypothetical situation.

Imagine there would be something that is the Jewish equivalent of Islamism; I'll call it "?-ism" because I don't have a word for it.

And imagine the SPLC wrote a list very similar to this one but about "anti-Jewish extremists" that lists a bunch of antisemites with very extreme views that are completely unacceptable outside of far-right circles.

Two fictional people, I'll call 'em X and Y are having a heated discussion about this fictional list.

Fictional person X writes: "the average Jew possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of ?-ism"

Fictional person Y responds: "It is sad that you do not realize that you hold far far more bigoted views than the average Jew."

This is the exact same situation, only the religion has changed.

Oshwah, please respond on my talkpage, not here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

I was far too kind to Oshwah. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli peace projects

You said you put ECP on this page after I requested it at RPP, but it must have failed to go through since it is not present in page log. WNYY98 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi WNYY98! Oh weird... you're right, somehow my protection change didn't apply. Thanks for noticing and for letting me know -

Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what to do

I don't know what to do here. I don't want to get into a flame war, so I just contact you. The article in question is this. Any help from anybody is appreciated. I am not very good in these situations... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz! Hey, there's no shame in asking for someone's help. It looks like the center of the discussion is involving the addition of this content to the article. I don't see anything wrong in general, but I'd tell the user to paraphrase the source instead of quoting it directly as he did - doing that isn't necessary. What may be called into question is it's relevancy. Well, I can't decide on that one. These are the things I see from the get-go - what are your specific concerns? What do you see that is violating NPOV? I just see that this is what you warned this editor regarding... wanted to get your input on that as well :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I put NPOV in error, but I think I fixed the situation. The problem was I thought that the information added should not be included in the article it was included in. The editor explained his problems, and I called you in because I didn't really know what to do at the time. I thought it over for a bit, and then I edited the article to add a controversy section to the background section, I reworded it to make it clear that the information should be included in the article. Thanks though, could you also possibly remove my warning? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, dude! I took a quick glance at the discussion, it I think you did a fine job helping this editor! Glad to hear that the issue is resolved :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:E434:D491:46B:3A40

So, you banned this guy for disruptive editing, and he's now doing exactly the same thing on his talk page, removing the template. Please protect his page if you can. [25] 88.105.187.38 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again

Sorry to bother you again Oshwah, but another IP: 109.155.126.85, has been editing mostly unconstructively, rounding percentages to nearest whole numbers, while not even bothering to have an edit summary explaining his edits. Being an anonymous user, I have no way of contacting them, and thus cannot tell this editor this. I don't mean to bother you again, but I know no one else to contact. PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)PalmerTheGolfer

Nansy131 still at it

I think these[26][27] make it clear that User:Nansy131 has no intention of letting a block stop them from attacking the Yes California article. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was you who had blocked Nansy131 since you closed the ANI thread, but I guess the blocker was actually Black Kite. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

hardcore punk

Hi, I forgot to give a summary. Every sub genre and derivative has a stand alone article and its also original research. It would be better suited in a band article or somewhere in the article. Another reason is there isn't any such thing. All hardcore sub genres influenced by heavy metal are considered heavy hardcore. 73.150.168.222 (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Pozitive Media Works

FYI, I removed their talk page access too because they added some promotional stuff after your username block. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi De728631! Cool deal! Thanks for taking care of that :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Nivashkumaryadav

Please read -eth and don't make such horrid statements in the future :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend - Hahaha wait, what? I didn't maketh such comments! Stow thy hand, my faithful brother admin! We ride till dawn! I actually am confused as to what you're referring to :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Context. Now you're even using the wrong vocabulary: "stay" not "stow"! "-eth" is only third-person singular, not first- (as you've done here) or second-person, and it's never plural:

I make
Thou makest
He maketh
We make
Ye make
They make

Now get it right, or you'll be facing an Arbcom case! Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ohhhh sheeeit son! I'm in hot water now! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I would support this arbcom case. An admin not knowing the archaic morphosyntactic t–v distinctions of the English language is a major problem that requires immediate attention. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've failed you all! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the fails are contagious (look at the diff of this edit)... I withdraw my support for the arbcom case due to the possible implications it might have for me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Message

I put In Late 2016 Sarah Cumming took over from Sally Obermeder while she was on maternity leave and it's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.169.63 (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Rebellious?

Oshwah is now known as Oshwah_BRB
JustBerry is now known as JustBerry_NAH
--JustBerry (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with block evasion, serial disruption

Since returning from your block, more of same [28]. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, and Happy New Year, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. IP re-blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Errors

ok, brainy i may have had a tiny bit of fun i will change it soon ok bye bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esme Diamond (talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Apprentice

Why in the Criticism and Controversy Section are Candidates who have only been involved (whether intimate or violent) with the Controversial Candidates need to be included. Surely the only ones who should be listed in the title are those who spread Controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.130.152 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: This IP User is now being very disruptive. I have put in for a request to get semi-protection on the article on Series 11 of The Apprentice, as they clearly are not heeding any warnings on their actions.GUtt01 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

GUtt01 - IP blocked for edit warring and disruption. I'm going to hold off on protection for now, since it's only been disrupted by one user. If that changes though, let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMUNICATE

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato - You've been communicated with and talked to on ANI and my talk page about the situation, what the recommendations are, and what you should do. I'm not going to talk to you about this any further. Please drop the stick and move on. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

??? Are you seriously unable to understand that the thing we need to talk about is your close, not the BS ANI debate? No one gives a fuck about that ANI thread, it was never gonna go anywhere anyway, but then you decided to start a new drama while closing that thread. You wrote "I'm not going to talk to you about this any further" but you have never talked to me about this...

I've been far too kind to you. I should've told you my honest reaction, which was simply "fuck off". Of course you are unwilling to talk about this, because it would lead to the inevitable conclusion that you are wrong. Alanis Morisette should make a song about the fact that your condescending and dickish behaviour while whining about civility, a concept you do not understand, is far more insulting than a couple of four letter words. I don't understand why you volunteer to do a job if you are unwilling to put in the amount of effort it takes to do it properly. You wouldn't dare treat me like this irl, but you feel brave behind a keyboard thousands of kilometers away. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll retire, which means that you are a NETNEGATIVE. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato, stop. You are blowing this out of proportion and are making this unnecessarily taxing on yourself, Oshwah, GorillaWarfare and myself. There are better things to do with your time than argue over a warning. Your retirement would be on your own head. If you want to or need to take a break, by all means do so. But throwing a parting shot to make Oshwah feel bad about this is pointless and not conducive to anything positive. The summary of the close was this; Quix, you need to learn to differentiate between a concern and an attack. I can go through categorically and dismantle the issue between your comment to David and what David actually said. Then explain where Oshwah is coming from. If you're willing to listen I will - on your talk page and I'll ping all to it - but this will go nowhere quickly. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do, retire. Irondome (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

How is this helpful, Irondome? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is helpful in the sense that a member of the community can obviously not function in a meaningful way at this point. Therefore a "retirement", either temporarily or other is the best outcome at this point. Irondome (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

My point is that they have already retired; this just seems like gravedancing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I must say GW, that I have had good relations with QP in the past, and I have never, and will never, "gravedance" to any member of the community. I never have, never will. I am aware that sometimes many of us temporarily snap under stress. QP has been intemperate in his language lately, and I genuinely believe he needs a rest. I was not aware he had put up the retired banner before I made the comment. QP has no grave, will be back with a clearer head hopefully, so the idea that I would do such an ignoble thing, or indeed is in my nature, is incorrect. Regards, Irondome (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, glad to hear that. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem GW, as we all know, text can be a lousy means of communication sometimes. I hope that QP chills and gets back. Taking a break to clear the head is no dishonour. Regards, Irondome (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Indented the comments, not much to say besides; ration out what's left of the AGF the next shipment was meant to be docking in this Wednesday, but, a storm has left it moored in Tahiti till next week. Or some such story. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I order mine from a factory in China. I get tons of it, but it doesn't work as well as the Genuine Made-On-Vulcan-By-Buddhist-Masters-Of_Forgiveness kind that seems to be popular with some editors. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.francefootball.fr/hors-serie/?viewType=Print&viewClass=Print

[2] ttp://www.radiorebelde.cu/noticia/plastic-paint-medium-una-revolucion-tecno-pictorica-creada-cuba-20161207/

[1]

[1]