User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-07

You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from July 2019. Please do not modify this page.

These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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

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

Protection of CSD templates

Recently you template-protected many CSD-related templates (contribs link, protection log). The rationale in each case was Used by Twinkle and Huggle to tag pages. This is a high risk point for potential large-scale disruption if vandalized.

I feel these templates do not merit this level of protection: the protection seems preemptive. Normally, templates are only template-protected if they have a large number of transclusions. Characterizing these templates as a high risk point for potential large-scale disruption seems misleading because these templates are only used in time-limited increments. These templates are already watched closely by many editors who would revert any disruptive changes (not to mention template-savvy editors using the templates who notice the disruption). It seems extremely unlikely that large scale disruption could ever occur from vandalism of these template.

But while these templates are not highly transcluded, they are used often and are representative of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policy. I note that this policy itself is extended-confirmed protected; while I do not think these templates merit template-protection, I think downgrading to EC protection would be appropriate. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional note: if you think this request to downgrade the protection is reasonable, I would recommend seeking an admin botop to mass change the protection level of the pages; I don't think it makes much sense to try to do it manually again. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Retro! Thanks for leaving me a message here and for expressing your honest thoughts and concerns regarding the protection that I applied the other day to a list of templates. Each protection that I applied was following a protection request that was filed on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The rationale for requesting was the same as the one I used when applying the protection to each template: They are used very frequently by users, automated scripts, and many programs to warn editors and tag pages for deletion (some requests included templates that left warnings for users while others were CSD notifications, I described some protection rationales incorrectly on CSD notification templates that they were used for "warning others"). The reason that I agreed and applied the protection on each template as requested on RFPP was partially due to my personal experience having to quickly undo or rollback the vandalism or disruptive edits made by trolls, LTA users, and others a good handful of times, then afterwards having to track down each time that template was used during the time that the vandalism or disruptive edit was made to the template. There was a recent instance where a confirmed account modified one of those templates and changed it to say something quite disruptive and insulting to most people, which if left unfixed, could result in new users being left feeling insulted or offended, and leaving the project as a result. You're right; these templates aren't heavily transcluded to many pages at the same time. However, I felt that the frequent and heavy use of each template (both by users as well as many automated tools and scripts), in combination with the potential for any vandalism made to cause mass damage to many user talk pages if not quickly caught or reverted, or made during a time of extremely high use - was enough for me to justify that the spirit of the rule or guideline for template protection was met, and that applying template protection was a viable option. If you still disagree and believe that template protection is not justified here, please respond and let me know. I'll be happy to get the involvement of other administrators and get their input here regarding my use of template protection in these cases. If necessary and if the opinion of different admins aren't uniform or the same, we can ask for input at the administrators noticeboard (though I'm sure that this can be resolved here). Either way, I appreciate your message, and I'm completely open and willing to make sure that the protection I applied to these templates were justified given the thoughts I had at the time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about asking for a second opinion yet. I'll put my current thoughts below:

I think my problem extends beyond this particular instance, but to a more general issue I see with protecting low-use templates (I will note by "use", I mean transclusion, etc.; I do not say "transclusion" because system messages are widely used, but they may not have many "transclusions").

In the abstract, the main issue I have with protection of low-use templates like these is that they put another restriction in place where editing consensus is put to the side in favor of subjecting everything to a discussion-based consensus. It can slow things down, sometimes for a few days or weeks. But I do not dispute that this type of protection is allowed; Wikipedia:High-risk templates quite clearly states: There are no fixed criteria, and no fixed number of transclusions, that are used to decide whether a template or module is high-risk.

Perhaps this extra layer is a good thing though: the example you give of distorting the message to be hurtful could be overlooked in a cursory review, but would definitely be rejected by a template editor who has to take responsibility for the edits they carry through.

And of course, there is no helping my own bias that is inherent to this situation. How could I separate that I happen to hold extended confirmed rights from the circumstance that I am requesting these templates to be lowered to just within my grasp?

I will make a personal note here: I have some future plans for revising these templates (in particular I have found the rationale and reason parameters to be inconsistently aliased, among other inconsistencies). I do not think that the template protection will hinder my ability to develop these changes, though. Therefore, I attribute my desire to keep this template at a lower level of protection to more philosophical, rather than personal, reasons.

But on the other hand, I will bring up something you haven't pointed out, but I'm sure is in the back of your mind: some of these templates are used extremely sensitively. It could be hugely problematic if the process of tagging attack pages or copyright violations was disrupted while such pages were discovered.

So to conclude: I don't know. I'll give it some more thought and might come back in a few days if I think further action is warranted.

Also, I appreciate your receptiveness in hearing me out. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Retro! Please accept my sincere apologies for such a delay responding to your message here. I've been quite busy lately with work and other matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, pings, notifications, emails, etc that I received while I was offline. First, I have to commend you on such a neutral and honest response here, acknowledging that you have your own bias and personal thoughts with the protection level I applied to those templates, and that the reasons I stated above felt to be sufficient to you. That takes a lot of self-reflection, critical-thinking, honesty, and humility - along with a very high level of neutrality, emotional awareness and emotional intelligence, logic, and overall intelligence to do, and I respect you greatly for that. If you get nothing else out of this discussion, please know that your degree of thinking, honesty, and neutrality is something that grows more and more rare to see around here, is absolutely something you should cherish and never change about yourself - no matter who tells you differently, and is what I personally look for when deciding on candidates for administrator rights in RFA on Wikipedia. That personality and level of intelligence and thinking, above all else, is what makes a user a good administrator on Wikipedia, and aren't things that are easily taught, nor learned. Cherish it... seriously. :-)

Honestly, if your ability to modify, update, discuss, or improve these templates without the need for red tape, discussion, or approval from another user first is what's mainly poking you to push back and express objection - you're more than welcome to come to me directly with such requests, and I'll be happy to move those changes forward. I also recommend that you consider simply applying or going through the process to request the template editor user rights. This way, the protection levels I set on these templates won't affect you at all, and you'll be free to move forward with modifications as you see necessary or fit. I completely understand your thoughts regarding how protection may force discussion, bureaucracy, and unneeded process when such things aren't necessary at all, and I'm honestly inclined to agree with you. Really, I kind of do agree with you. I've been left in that position and sitting on your side of the table many times in the past; it doesn't necessarily feel the best. This is why I try to impose the least restrictive protection levels possible on articles and pages, and with the shortest duration of time that I think are necessary. There are many requests for page protection due to an extremely sudden and high level of vandalism (as if 20 people decided at the same time to go and vandalize a specific page) where I just apply semi-protection to it for maybe six hours... just enough time for each person to see that they can't vandalize or disrupt it anymore and simply move on. Works like a charm. ;-) Unfortunately, in this situation... The high level of abuse that both can occur and has occurred with these templates, the fact that numerous scripts, programs, and bots (including ClueBot NG, who makes a very high level of reverts and warnings for users) use these templates regularly, and the fact that many new users are affected if such templates were to be vandalized or abused - prompted the need for me to accept the protection request of each template and carry out template protection on each one. We must also realize and understand that even good faith mistakes on these templates can potentially have a very large impact if not carefully tested, implemented, and monitored for any unforeseen problems. Template protection was the logical choice at that point.

Again, I have to commend you for such an honest response above. It took a lot of self-reflection upon yourself, and a lot of humility to do that. I'm here, available, and more than happy to help if you have any more questions, thoughts, concerns, or if you have any questions about the process regarding how to be approved and granted the template editor user rights - please don't hesitate to respond! I'm sorry for the delay responding to your message here, and I hope that you understand. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem in the delay responding. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia so delayed responses are entirely reasonable, especially when you're writing detailed replies like this.

I appreciate your offer to help with implementing edits. I'll probably end up requesting template editor rights at some point, but I want a bit more experience. In particular, I want to gain more confidence that the process I use for making changes to templates has no errors; recently, I've broken a few templates through carelessness, so I want to avoid that in the future. The ideal method of avoiding mistakes seems to be sandboxing and testcases, but that isn't always straightforward. Even a simple linter would probably help, though, so I'll probably be looking for one of those.

I also appreciate your compliments (though who doesn't appreciate compliments ;-). Self-reflection is something I try to use in my process (and meta-process) of Wikipedia editing, especially since I've recently resumed editing. One of my core beliefs is always keeping an open mind, but, as is sometimes said, not one so open that one's brain falls out. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Retro - Does your process for making changes to templates include testing it on the Test Wikipedia or the Beta Wikipedia Cluster first? If not, you should definitely take advantage of one of those projects and use them to test your changes. I use them for testing my scripts all the time, and I catch the majority of stupid mistakes and errors that I make by doing just that. The Test Wikipedia will be the easiest place for you to get started, as it uses the global WMF account sync and you can just log into it like you log in here - no need to create a separate account or anything. No problem; I understand your thoughts and I'm happy that you're seeking to become as experienced as you can before requesting the user rights. Keep up the excellent work that you're doing, and I doubt you'll have any problems being granted the rights when you're ready to go through the process. ;-) If you have any more questions or need anything else, you know where to find me... ;-) don't hesitate to let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I found a Sock puppet and a older sock puppet to ?

The Users account is 1 day old and is following the same editing pattern of user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poundofdonuts who was a sock puppet of banned user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Accopulocrat and this old user was to following the same editing pattern also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=6ullga&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end= I did file a report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Accopulocrat

I just wanted to bring this to administration attention that a sock puppet to a banned user maybe is active Jack90s15 (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack90s15, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your concerns about the editing behavior of different user accounts. Awesome; thank you for filing a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. You did exactly what you were supposed to do, and did exactly the right thing by filing a report there and for doing your best to describe in depth the evidence you found that makes you feel that the accounts listed are illegitimate sock puppets and being used to violate policy. Next time, you want to try and be as detailed as possible with the evidence you provide with your SPI report. Explain the exact similarities between the two accounts that you've been observing, and provide diffs that show this behavior so that a clerk or CU can easily look and understand exactly what you're referring to. No worries though; if you're able to, please edit the SPI report and append this information to your evidence. It'll be a big help and make a significant difference with your report's quality if you do so. :-) In the meantime, I'll take a look and see what I can find. Thanks again for the message, and please don't hesitate if I can assist you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know Oshóva?

Sorry for this lesser urgent question, but because your username is so similar, I am asking whether you are familiar with Oshóva, a royalty-free music producer. Probably his best piece: “Summer's Tides”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2FuetW1mKw . ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chanc20190325! Nope, I am not familiar at all with Oshóva, nor do I believe that I've ever heard of this person. My username's somewhat-close spelling to Oshóva is merely a coincidence. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Confusing category?

Hi Oshwah. I noticed that Category:Biography is a page that has been deleted 9 times and a message displays that "Wikipedia does not have a category with this name." Yet, somehow, this deleted category has two pages in it: Jack Malloch and User:Sidhantraj369. I'm a bit confused about how a non-existant category can be listed on pages. Clovermoss (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The category I'm talking about is Category:Biography by the way. I forgot to include that. Clovermoss (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why it isn't showing up as a red link, but I did type it out and you can see it in advaced editor. Clovermoss (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay responding to your message. I've been busy lately with work and other things, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, pings, notifications, emails, smoke signals (lol), and other notifications that I received while I was offline. Looking at the deletion logs for this page, it looks like the deletions were either a result of a discussion and consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (it's like AFD where users discuss deletions to articles, except that it's for categories instead), or because someone created that page by mistake as an article with a biography of a person (probably new users who didn't know what they were doing). Because a category page is deleted doesn't mean that other articles or pages cannot list themselves as being in that category; they'll just appear as red links on that page and until either the category page is created, or the category is removed from each page that has it listed. Due to the numerous deletions resulting from consensus at CFD, I recommend the later - removing the category from the article Jack Malloch that you found to be labeled with it. Otherwise, by creating the category page, you'd be ultimately wasting your time and the time of others; it'll just be discussed and deleted again. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be more than happy to answer them. Again, I apologize for the delayed response, and I hope that my reply here has provided you with the answers that you were looking for. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's fine, I was just confused, that's all. Your explanation explains it. I just kind of assumed that you couldn't place an article in a category that doesn't exist, but I guess it's kind of like an article red-link (but with categories)? Again, thanks for the explanation. Clovermoss (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss - That's correct. Pages that are added to categories will show a red link (just like articles do if you link to a non-existing one) if the category list page with the same title does not exist with any content. You're able to add any category you want to a page; they'll just be red if the category page itself doesn't exist - that's all. :-) Articles in that category are still listed and can be used even if the category page itself doesn't exist or is deleted. If you take a look at this section of the help page on Categories, it explains what category page content is used for, which is mainly adding sub-categories to that category. ;-) Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss - Small note. My response above contained some details that I worded improperly and hence were not correct. I've fixed the errors and added additional details. I'm just pinging you so that you're aware. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It works. Thanks for taking the time to give the lengthy reponse. Someone else has already removed it from the article and I have no interest in recreating the category. I came across the category by accident while I was looking for a different one. I still appreciate the clarification, though. Clovermoss (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss - No problem; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) If you run into any more questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is, but it has nothing to do with any of this. On this video [1], do you have any idea why there's a close-up of your userpage around the 0:17 second mark (when they're talking about the majority of Wikipedia editors being male)? Clovermoss (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

My transition from topics wasn't all that great. What I was trying to say was if you were aware about that already and if you had any thoughts about it. I happen to think of you as one of the friendlist people on the Internet. You're really good at explaiing things too, it's why I ask you random questions whenever I find something confusing or I need help. You're also great at giving quick responses :) Clovermoss (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss! No worries! I understood what you meant with your message, and I think your questions are completely valid and understandable. :-) Someone made me aware on IRC about the video about a week ago, if I remember correctly. My thoughts about the video are this: I agree that there is a gender gap issue on Wikipedia. Knowing that our community is comprised of a ratio of 1 female editor out of every 5 male editors... I think that this statistic speaks for itself, to be honest. While I definitely have seen some issues of sexism around here before that went onto noticeboards (such as a male editor behaving or subtlety saying something in a comment to a female editor that they know will upset her), I think that it's only partially why there's a problem. I often handle reports and help female editors who are the subject of harassment, threats, following, intimidation, and abusive behavior, which I believe that many (if not most) of it occurs because of their gender. This is absolutely unacceptable and we should not stand for it. Why did they use my profile and picture when starting that most editors are male? Meh. Probably just to add an image to the video to underline that statement. I don't think that they meant to reflect negatively towards me for using my photo, though many interpreted it as such. :-) Thank you for the kind words. They mean a lot to me, and I'm always happy to help. :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for such the detailed response! This thread is getting quite indented already, but if can I ask a few more questions? One is just a general one... the most recent statistic (that I could find) for female Canadian editors was 8%, but it's years old. Is there anything more recent than that about the gender gap between geographic locations of the world? The second is just a general curiousity in how you went about designing your user page. I know the general gist of what userpages are for and I think yours has an amazing design. I was wondering if maybe you had any advice about how I could improve mine? Clovermoss (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss - You're more than welcome to ask any questions you'd like, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Have you seen this page before? It details a lot of information and statistics regarding the community and the editors that participate here. One thing you should know is that statistics regarding the gender distribution of editors here is based off accounts that have actually disclosed their gender in their account preferences. Accounts that have not done so are obviously not included in such data, since their gender isn't officially declared and hence not officially known. Just keep that in mind when going through this (or any) kind of data. ;-)

I designed my user page long ago and after playing with templates, tables, formatting, borders, styles, and other wikitext and wikicode. I did it in order to help myself learn and become more familiar and proficient with wikitext, wikicode, how it all works, setting it up the way that I want, and displaying everything the way that I want it to look. It took me quite a few hours of time to get off the ground with it and have things generally set up the way I liked. I highly recommend that you do the same, and design your user page from scratch. The time that you spend doing so will be well worth the learning you'll gain from doing so. You'll learn and grasp a lot of good information about wikitext, design, and how to get things to look the right way. :-) Some good places to start reading through are Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting, Help:Wikitext, Help:Cheatsheet, and Help:Advanced templates. These pages will provide you with everything you need to get started, and will have links to specific pages and guides to help you with formatting, design, and other elements of wikitext that you'll be interested in learning about. If you run into any specific questions, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help. :-)

Don't think about user pages as something to compare between yours vs others. It doesn't matter if someone's user page looks better or nicer than someone else's; they do not reflect the user's experience, knowledge, maturity, or level of trust simply because they have a nice user page. I know a couple of users that I think very highly of, who have an exemplary level of experience and wisdom and who do excellent work here... one of them has no user page at all. Just a red link... lol. The other user? He just redirects his user page to his user talk page. He doesn't care about nor want to have a user page at all. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

ACC

Hey Oshwah, as one of the tool admins would you mind looking at my ACC application. Lack of sleep led to my putting the initial application through prior to being listed on the access to non-public personal information page... My bad! Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

​I've mentioned this request on the tool admin list. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack Frost! I apologize for the delayed response to your request. I was busy with work and other matters. :-) Let me check in with JJMC89 and the ACC tool admins to see what the status of your application is. Like I said, I've been away from Wikipedia for the last week or so due to being busy; I'm just now catching up with all of the Wikipedia messages, pings, notifications, emails, smoke signals, and other stuff that I received while I was offline. I promise you that someone from the ACC administrator team will get back to you regarding your application to the ACC user team. We do not ignore ACC tool user applications (unless they're coming from trolls or LTA users... lol). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Oshwah, was just touching base to see if there was any update? No rush. Cheers, Jack Frost (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack Frost! I apologize for such a delay updating you hare. Have you heard back from any of the ACC tool admins about your application yet? Let me know. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, not a whisper, which is why I figured I'd ask... Sorry to be a pest! Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've messaged you on your user talk page just now in order to check in about this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

PVH (company)

This is a forked discussion. There is another discussion going on at User talk: Oshawott 12#PVH (company). Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 14:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Oshwah, nice to meet you just wanted to let you know ~ I edited on User:Oshawott 12 talk page ~ ~ here, you might want to look at 3 sections deleted in PVH's article ~ I fixed one hopefully '12' takes care of the other two ~ if not and if you don't have the time (believe me I understand LoL) let me know and I'll take care of them for you ~ once again nice meeting you and I hope to get together sometime soon ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Replying to your edit summary, @Mitchellhobbs:, yes, a simple cut is easier than finding sources. The paragraphs were stale since 2008, in which I haven’t even joined Wikipedia yet. If you complain, then why didn’t you find sources first before I deleted the paragraph? This is sort of ridiculous, if you ask me. Yes, you found sources, but doesn’t mean my delete wasn’t right. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 13:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah there are over 5 million articles in wiki and I don't have the time to edit every single one of them ~ you should know that ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

sorry Oshwah, meant @Oshawott 12: ~ the names are too close to each other ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! I don’t have the time to ‘do the hard work’ as well. We’re all volunteers, so we do what we can. Don’t complain that people don’t do what they are not required to. Thanks! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 13:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not complaining I'm giving you advise. If you don't want to take it it's up to you ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary looked like it, but as you like. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 14:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hey, Oshwah, I want to apologize for taking this discussion as far as it did on your talk page ~ it should have been handled on '12's talk page ~ for this I am truly sorry ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  If I'm not wrong, this is probably WP:CANVASSING. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah, not canvassing. I know what the policy reflects in spirit, and simply forking a discussion to a user talk page where everyone involved continues to discuss the matter is not canvassing. If the user had, for example, gone to a bunch of user talk pages and asked others to participate in the discussion and help oppose your viewpoint on the dispute (or only asked other users that he knew would oppose your viewpoint), that would be canvassing. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshawott 12 and Mitchellhobbs! I apologize for the delay responding to this discussion that was forked here from User talk: Oshawott 12#PVH (company). I was busy with work and other things over the past week, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, pings, notifications, emails, etc that I received while I was offline. ;-) I understand that you both are in a frustrating dispute with one another over edits that were made to PVH (company). While I mainly help users in a dispute by deescalating situations of high tension, anger, frustration, and incivility, and help them to work things out with one another and talk the issues out peacefully - and not so much over the content itself that's in dispute, I don't mind weighing in briefly on what I believe to be the root issues here. :-)

It appears that Oshawott 12 deleted some sections from this article after finding issues with the sources (or perhaps the lack thereof) provided, and Mitchellhobbs restored the content with additional sources that he found. First, it's completely fine to delete content from an article if the user believes that the sources cited are lacking, insufficient, or if they don't meet the criteria specified on Wikipedia's guide to identifying reliable sources. The reason for removing such content should be detailed and explained in the edit summary. Likewise, it's also completely fine to add or restore such content if the reason for removing it has been resolved and the resolutions have been implemented in the edit (such as locating sufficient or reliable sources that support the content, and citing each source in-line). If there is a dispute with the restoration, start a discussion on the article's talk page and work things out in a civil, respectful, and peaceful manner. Making personal attacks such as calling one another names, pointing fingers and trading blows, being chippy and rude toward one another, and making comments that you know will upset the other and intensify the situation and discussion - are things that are not going to resolve the situation. It's only going to make everything harder, escalate the situation when it wasn't needed in the first place, and put a ding in your character and how other users in the community look upon you and how they'll review your contributions should you decide to apply for permissions, run for administrator, or ask for user rights that require a very high level of trust. From what I'm seeing, you both have done this to one another (both here and on the other page where the discussion between the two of you started). That's not okay, and you two need to deescalate the situation mutually, shake hands, apologize, and start things over and on the right foot. It'll make all of this so much easier on yourselves... I promise. :-)

Remember, the onus is on the person who is adding or restoring the content to show that sufficient references and sources are cited and fully support the content, and that no policy violations are occurring with the content you're trying to add. If the content is removed while you two resolve the dispute properly between yourselves, it's no big deal. If sufficient sources exist that support the content, they'll be found, they'll be cited, and the content will be added again; do not yell, do not go at the user who removed it with torches and pitchforks, do not be uncivil, and do not edit war if this happens. We just have to make sure that our "I's are dotted and T's crossed" first - especially if the content is regarding the biography of a living person. I hope that you two work with one another peacefully and that you two work things out. Be peaceful, be calm, and be patient. Losing your cool isn't worth what you're trying to accomplish... it really isn't.

I'm here and available should you two run into any questions, comments, concerns, or if any of you need my input or assistance - I'll be more than happy to help. My user talk page is always open to you both, and you both are welcome to message me here any time you need or want to. No need for apologies; if the discussion on my user talk page was what was needed in order to get matters moving in the right direction and resolved, so be it. That's what talk pages are for. ;-) I wish you both a calm, peaceful, and respectful discussion, and a fast and effective resolution to your dispute over the article. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me should my input or assistance be required. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, the bomb of text really got to me. Thanks, Oshwah. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshawott 12 - HA! I hope my wall of text wasn't too boring or too much for you to read through... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You did the same on my PCR request, so I should’ve seen it coming, lol. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshawott 12 - LOL, wait what request? Where? Can you link me to it? ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah - here. Rings any bells? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshawott 12 - HA! Wow. It does now after just reading through it. ;-) Reflecting back on that message I wrote to you, I perhaps shouldn't have been so harsh at the end with that warning I left in big bold letters. I shouldn't have put so much pressure on you to use the tools perfectly at the risk of having them yanked, and I hope that it didn't. On a positive note, I'm happy that I was the admin who, despite the red flags that were found, decided to grant you the user rights anyways. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah ~ Thanks for your response ~I have already moved on ~ I have no hard feelings against '12' I know things get heated once in a while I have been learning to try and keep my cool ~ once again thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Mitchellhobbs - No problem; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

For being amazing SIJOPTG2 (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF

I probably wouldn't be asking this if not for the current hoo-ha, but is there any way to tell if this is a genuine WMF account? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Adam9007: it is. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Thanks. I wasn't suggesting it wasn't, but the current kerfuffle opens all sorts of possibilities. We've already had disruptive usernames based on it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! Sorry for the delayed response to your question! I was busy with work and other matters, and I'm getting myself caught up with all of my Wikipedia messages. ;-) The string "WMF" is blacklisted on the global title blacklist, so users will not be able to create accounts that contain this string in their username. While it's perfectly acceptable and understandable to check with the Meta logs (as Xaosflux provided above) or even someone within the WMF to verify that the account is legitimate, these accounts are typically okay (because of the blacklist) and seeing them in the new user log or listed on UAA shouldn't raise any alarms or bad assumptions from the get-go. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. It's good to talk to you again, and I hope life is treating you well. Until next time... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

AutoEd and reFill

Hello Oshwah. The tools don't work. I think I have followed the instructions. What do you think the problem might be? Puduḫepa 06:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have this same problem but only for AutoEd. reFill works perfectly fine. Masum Reza^📞 07:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: hmmm, that's interesting. I have inserted the code for reFill + pasted the titles of the articles on the linked page but it didn't work. Puduḫepa 18:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Got it. Puduḫepa 19:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - You got everything you need working? Do you have any questions or need help with anything else? Let me know. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand if you need one. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem regarding AutoEd still persists...Puduḫepa 12:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Puduḫepa! Thanks for responding and for letting me know. Looking at your code file pages, it looks like you use the vector skin to edit Wikipedia. What happens if you switch to the old monobook skin? Does the AutoEd script work when you do this? I'm trying to help you troubleshoot and narrow down the problem. :-) Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Old monobook skin? Puduḫepa 12:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Go to your Wikipedia preferences (you can get there by clicking here), and click on the "appearance" tab. At the top, there's a list of skins ("themes" that change the interface's overall look and colors) that you can choose from. Click on the Monobook skin and save your changes. Don't panic or fear, but your Wikipedia interface is going to change a bit... :-). Now test the script while using that skin. Does it now work? If so, then that script was probably specifically made for use on the Monobook skin, and not the Vector skin. This unfortunately is a common requirement when creating and importing new scripts to use...

To explain some background for you: The default skin that everyone is set to and sees when they visit Wikipedia as an anonymous user is called the "Vector" skin. The old skin that we used to use by default back from 2004 - 2009 (if I remember correctly) was called the "Monobook" skin. Some scripts that are written will be written specifically for use with either the new skin (Vector), or the old skin (Monobook). The first thing that I always try when testing a script that doesn't appear to work is to try switching the skin to the other one to see if it works there. If it does, then that script was probably not made for use with the skin that you're set to use. Apart from your commons.js file (which works with all skins), there are skin-specific code file pages (vector.js, and monobook.js) which only work with those specific skins when it's enabled for use. There are some scripts that require you to add the insert code to your skin-specific .js page and not your common.js page.

These are just some things you'll have to look out for when testing new scripts. It helps to have some background knowledge about the Wikipedia skins so that you know what's going on and why. Not to worry though... if you find yourself stuck anywhere or needing help with any of this, I'm always happy to lend a hand. ;-) Don't hesitate to message me and ask. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't work on monobook skin either. The problem is that, I can't see the "AutoEd" when I click "More". Puduḫepa 13:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - What browser are you using? Do other scripts that you've added to Wikipedia and enabled to use work okay? Has this script ever worked for you before, then stopped working? Or has it never worked for you since trying to enable and use it? One thing you should try doing is simply commenting out the other scripts you've imported and enabled to see if they're possibly clashing with AutoEd and causing that script to not function... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably, the problem is the other scripts clashing with AutoEd. Puduḫepa 13:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Just comment out all of the other scripts you've imported into your .js file pages and see if AutoEd starts to work properly after saving the changes and performing a cache-bypassing refresh (read the instruction at the top of the page). If it does, then you know that this is the problem and you can start re-enabling one script at a time until you locate the culprit. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It works right now. Thank you very much Oshwah. But whenever I click it on an article, it always says "no difference" meaning nothing to fix. I mean "always". It is a bit odd. Puduḫepa 13:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Excellent! I'm glad that you were able to find the culprit and resolve the issue. ;-) Did you figure out which script it was clashing with? Hmm... that's interesting. And you're sure that the diff you're trying to use the script on has changes made to it? I'm not sure what this script does exactly (I haven't looked into the script and what it does, but I have heard it mentioned by users on Wikipedia). What exactly are you trying to accomplish with the script? Anything specific? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The articles I created/will create in the future and other articles on WP. Nothing specific. Puduḫepa 14:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: Here is the possible suspects.Puduḫepa 14:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - I went ahead and edited your common.js file page here to re-enable the autoFormatter.js script you imported, but leave the dashes.js script disabled. Something tells me that it's the dashes.js script that's causing the issue, because the documentation page says the following: "If using AutoEd, you will need to custom list your modules, including this script as one of the modules. It is currently not possible to use both AutoEd and dashes.js independently of each other." Can you perform a cache-bypassing refresh and tell me if AutoEd is still working or not? Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to rm this guy from my common.js. I have performed a cache-bypassing and it still doesn't work. BTW, I use Safari on my PC but due to block of WP in Turkey, I use a different server to access WP. Maybe that's the reason of all these mess. Puduḫepa 14:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - But does the script at least load? You said earlier that it originally wasn't even appearing on the "more" menu until we disabled those other scripts in your common.js file. If it's still loading but just not working like you expect, then we've at least resolved the problem with it loading while having all of your other scripts enabled that don't clash with AutoEd. :-) Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't even say "no difference" right now:-) Puduḫepa 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Okay, so the fact that the text "no difference" comes and goes doesn't seem to be affected by that script that I disabled in your common.js file. I'm going to re-enable it again for you, because why not? :-) It's not causing the problem so you can use that script. The fact that you're using a non-WMF domain to access and edit Wikipedia could be causing the problem, but I'm somewhat doubtful that it is. Either the script works or it doesn't. What does changing your skin back to Monobook do? Does it make any difference if you use that other skin I told you about earlier when you use AutoEd? We changed you over to that other skin when we were troubleshooting AutoEd when it wasn't even loading. Lets try using it on the other skin now that it is loading. Let me know if that resolves the issue or if anything changes. :-) Remember to do a cache-bypass refresh before and after changing skins, just in case. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah. Sorry for wasting your time with this stuff. Puduḫepa 15:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - You're not wasting my time at all with your questions and your request for help. Everyone needs help on Wikipedia sometimes, and I'm happy to lend a hand. If I wasn't happy to help or thought that my time was being wasted, I wouldn't be spending this much time with you. ;-) Let me know if changing the skin back to Monobook fixes the issue. If it doesn't, we might need to contact the creator of this script to see what he/she thinks may be the problem. :-) Keep me posted. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah. You are so kind. No, unfortnately nothing has changed. I have a suggestion though. Please check your inbox. Puduḫepa 16:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Okay, I commented out the other script that you disabled earlier and that I re-enabled to help with troubleshooting. It's back to the way you had it. Cache-bypass reload again, and try the script again on the same revision or diff. Does anything change? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it begins to say "No difference" again. But as I said above, this always happens (: Puduḫepa 15:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Lets get you in contact with the creator of this script to see if he/she might have any solutions to offer you. The current user who maintains AutoEd is Plastikspork; when you can, leave a message on his/her user talk page, describe in detail exactly what your current issue with AutoEd is (he won't want to read through this entire troubleshooting discussion here lol), and see what solution can be figured out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 - I went and added the function call here in your common.js file to import the AutoEd script for you. Does the AutoEd script work for you now? Are you importing or calling this function from another .js file? If you are, which one? Where? Let me know and I'll be happy to help you troubleshoot the issue. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's working. Thanks Oshwah. It appears the problem was with the code I had in my monobook skin. Also I have a question. It is possible to make a script a global gadget. I mean a gadget that works in every wikipedia website. Masum Reza^📞 08:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 - Excellent! I'm glad that the change I made to your common.js worked and that AutoEd is now working for you. :-) There is a way to add code to a page and have it work across all WMF projects. Just add any code you wish to work globally to your global.js file on meta-wiki (your global.js file is located here) and it'll work across all projects. As far as creating a global gadget goes, I don't believe that this is possible but I'm not 100% certain on that. I believe that creating a global gadget in the way that you're asking about would require a bunch of MediaWiki code re-worked in order to create a namespace or gadget subspace that would accept any subpage created there that would have gadgets work globally. I don't believe that this has been done in that way. If a gadget were to be proposed and accepted to be implemented globally, at that point I think it would just become built-in code-wise and not be a gadget at all. It would just become a MediaWiki extension or part of the MediaWiki software and turned on as a normal setting in your preferences. Again, I'm pretty certain that I'm correct on this, but not 100% certain. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or provide you with any more assistance, and I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. I've already proposed one script to be a gadget on en-wiki on WP:VPT. I hope that it gets approved. Masum Reza^📞 09:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 - Excellent! I hope that it gets approved as well! Can you link me to the script you're proposing? Does it have a documentation page? Can you link me to the VPT discussion as well? I'd like to take a look at it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. This is the original script on meta wiki and this one is the current maintainer's copy on en-wiki. Also here's the documentation page meta:User:FR30799386/undo. The request on WP:VPT can be found here. Masum Reza^📞 09:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 - Awesome, thanks a lot! I'll take a look at these pages and the discussion today. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about protecting pages in userspace

What do we say about people protecting their own userpages (above semi, of course, since the default already does not allow IPs since a few years ago) without any prior disruption? Is this seen as acceptable? Enigma^msg 18:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Enigmaman! You're referring to an administrator who applies extended confirmed or full protection on pages within their own userspace? I don't see an issue with it so long as the reason for doing so is legitimate. If an editor came to me requesting either protection level on a page within their user space, so long as they provide a sufficient reason for asking for extended confirmed protection or full protection on that page, I'll generally go ahead give it to them. My threshold for what a "sufficient or legitimate reason" is to me is pretty damn low, with the exception of the user's talk page. In general, users should be able to communicate directly with one another, and I'll consider a reason to be "sufficient" if it involves repeated harassment, trolling, abuse, or other similar disruption on their user talk page that's been ongoing, is generally actively occurring, and can be seen on the page's history.

What does Wikipedia's protection policy say about applying protection in one's user space? Take a look at WP:UPROT, which states the following: "User pages and subpages may be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) may be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need." I don't follow this policy statement to the letter here (with the exception of the user's talk page, and requests for full or template protection); I'm generally okay with granting protection to a page on someone's user space if they ask for it. The reason for the request just needs to be sufficient with the protection and duration that they're asking for. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. I hope you're having a good day and that life is treating you well. It's good to talk to you again, Enigmaman. :-) Until next time... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, the reason I asked is I've seen a lot of admins fully protect their userpage, which is pretty unnecessary, as new accounts/IPs can't edit them anyway, and they do it without a history of vandalism. Enigma^msg 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Repeat edits with bogus information on the page for Albert Toney III

Hola Oshwa. I am writing to you from Costa Rica. I am AKT2vists, or Keith Toney, the husband of Albert Toney III. I am writing in regards to the very repetitive edits made by a person named Daubje. The latest edit made on May 17, 2019 was: On January 15,2015 Mr Toney had a civil judgement of $12,054.91 levied against in Worcester District Court,pertaining to the 2001 sale of his home.

Aside from it being grammatically incorrect, the information is bogus. This person is continuously bullying Mr. Toney with this entry. Yes, he did sell his home. Yes there was a lawsuit filed regarding the Buyer's claims that Mr. Toney sold the house as being connected to the city sewer system. Mr. Toney had PURCHASED the home 7 years earlier under the same premise, that it was connected to the city sewer system. The buyer claimed 14 YEARS ATER their purchase that the house had a private septic system that caused them issues. At no time was Mr. Toney aware of any private septic system. In the 7 yrs that he owned it, and the 14 yrs (at that time) that they owned it, no septic system was ever serviced. How can an old septic system go undetected and without service for 21 years??? Albert and I had relocated to Costa Rica. At the time we received the summons we had no funds available to hire lawyers to defend the case on our behalf, and our jobs and lives did not allow for us to return for that matter in the very short time we had to respond to the court (less than 30 days). I personally submitted our detailed response to the lawsuit. I provided the documentation from the Realtor, who verified that the house was on city sewer. I provided water/sewer bills that had also been paid to the city. I also provided an original court decree from city records that showed the property was connected to the city sewer system way back in 1966, which ironically is the year that Mr. Toney was born. Furthermore, we had no way of knowing what the Buyer did to the property over the 14 years that they owned it, nor did we know who they had conducting any work at the house. For all we knew, they caused the problem themselves, whatever it may have been. Having no legal experience, I did the best that I could with our response. As surprised as we were to even learn about the lawsuit, we were equally surprised that we did not prevail. I can only assume it is because we did not follow proper protocol for submission of our response to the court. Alas, judgement was in favor of the plaintiff. However, due to matters I wish to not write here, we had no home or other assets for the plaintiff to seize or put a lien on. We are certain that if we were able to hire lawyers, we would have prevailed over this bogus matter. Daubje is intent on tarnishing Mr. Toney out of spite. I do not see how this frivolous case warrants being on someone's Wikipedia page. Should we also report every traffic citations he received in his lifetime?? Can you possibly remove Daubje's edit and is there a way to prevent them from continuously trying to do the same thing over and over again??? It's getting rather redundant. They have since sold the house for $100,000 more than they bought it for. I wish they would move on and stop trying to tarnish my husband out of spite. Apparently they have nothing better to do with their lives.

On another topic, there is a note on the page that states it reads like a resume and not a biography. I would be interested in making the article read better. Is this something you can provide feedback on? Like, provide an example of what reads resume-ish, and what would make it read better. I'm not very savvy on Wikipedia and I don't always understand what I am being advised to do on here. It's a rather complicated process.

Lastly, I noticed your "Smiley" photo on your page here. I also noticed it says it is the work of Pumbaa, and the source reads "own work". Coincidentally, the original "Smiley" was created by my uncle, Harvey Ball of Worcester, MA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Ball Perhaps Pumbaa created the image a different way or something, but I would imagine the Harvey Ball World Smile Foundation holds the license, at least for the original.

I appreciate you taking the time to read all of this and any help you can provide. AKT2vists (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Keith ToneyAKT2vists (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC) ps....am I using the ~'s correctly for signature??

(talk page stalker) Thank you for your reply. Your replies show that you are a connected contributor and has a WP:COI towards the page you are editing. I have added the COI template and the connected contributor template to the pages. You might want to take a look at the information page about what WP:COI is. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The edits in question were correctly sourced. Please also refer to WP:NOTCENSORED. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshawott 12 - The referenced used to support the content in concern was not sufficient per WP:BLPPRIMARY by referencing a public court record search. See my response to the user below for more information. Questions? Let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi AKT2vists! Thank you for leaving me a message here with your requests and concerns regarding the Albert Toney III. I went and made a few modifications and edits to the article to fix grammar and word use, and to remove some content that didn't appear to be up to par with Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (or BLP) policy, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and some other guidelines. The content regarding the civil lawsuit, as it was referenced at the time I edited the article, was not sufficient to be kept. Not only did it violate Wikipedia's BLP policy (see WP:BLPPRIMARY) by referencing a public court record search, the URL to the reference provided was not to a web page that was correct or viewable (it was the user's search for the court record, which uses cookies to show what was being looked up). This particular issue rings a bell; I remember this same issue (or another very similar issue) being the center of a discussion on my user talk page some time ago. It also involved a BLP article, a dispute over content that was in regards to civil lawsuit, and it also had reference to a public court record site where the URL to the search was given - which was useless and not viewable to anybody. I'm pretty certain that this is the same issue again.

As of right now, the problem has been removed from the article. I'll take a look at the edit history and reach out to the user who added this content. If it's the same user that I believe I've talked to before, I'll make sure that he/she remembers. :-) Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns, and I'll be more than happy to discuss them with you. Please also know that you're welcome to contact the Volunteer Response Team with your particular issue by following the instructions listed here. You claim to be closely related to the article subject by adding "Keith Toney" to the end of your last message here. If your claim is true, please know that editing the article yourself will cause issues and is a problematic action to take. You have a conflict of interest with this article subject, and I commend you for doing the right thing and asking myself (another editor) for help with this instead of trying to edit the article yourself. You're also free to make edit requests; this will not violate and policies by doing so. Just don't edit the actual article yourself. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Oshwah! For the edit and also clarification on how I should proceed to avoid COI. I did complete a COI disclaimer last year per the request of another editor(?). I'll be sure to use the suggest edits, and the Volunteer Response Team. You are correct that you had discussed the civil lawsuit previously. I located the discussion on your talk page regarding that person's repeated efforts/edits. That is how I came to write to you regarding the matter. AKT2vists (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Keith ToneyAKT2vists (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you ever accidentally reverted vandalism?

1 I swear I did not mean to do that! I didn't see it and it was the result of me accidentally clicking revert twice (probably due to my stupid mouse going haywire). Edit: And another one. Lol! Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Yes. Lots of times. LOL! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Shared IP address

Hi Oshwah, I hope you are doing well! I have realised that I have been editing (a little bit) on a shared IP address. I'm not fussed about creating an alt account (I always remember to log out) but this IP address has been used for a little bit of trolling/vandalism, and I wish not to be associated with that. I have read WP:SHARE, but I am not quite sure what to do from here - do I just place the userbox on my user page and leave it, or should I take any other precautionary measures? FYI: the trolling/vandalism was done a while ago, so it isn't a huge problem, but I can't be sure that it won't be done again at any random time in the future. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! I don't think that using a public or shared IP address that was used to disrupt or vandalize Wikipedia in the past is something to have a huge concern over. I've done so too, many times, and nothing at all happened as a result. :-) It's perfectly fine to place that userbox on your user page and declare that you regularly use public or shared IP addresses to edit, but if you were investigated and found to be 100% without-a-doubt connected as a user who abuses the project as a sock puppet, the userbox would do you absolutely no good. ;-) Investigations rarely happen to innocent editors in the first place. So long as you edit Wikipedia in good faith, and don't purposefully vandalize or disrupt the project - you have a very low chance of being directly looked into for sock puppetry.

Lets just say that you were looked into for sock puppetry by a checkuser (just for hypothetical reasons)... A checkuser would be able to see your user agent and other behaviors, and would know that you aren't directly involved with the sock puppetry or disruption that's occurring. If you were to use an IP address that was actively or recently involved with causing abuse to the project, you might have a higher chance of being found as an account who edits using that IP address if a Checkuser runs their tool on the IP to look for accounts (the other way around), but they'd quickly dismiss you after comparing user agents. Also, know that IP and user agent information that's available to Checkusers to look up are only kept for three months from the time that the edit occurred; after that, the information is purged and cannot be looked up or viewed by checkusers... their reach only goes three months back at the maximum. ;-)

Please do not hesitate to respond with any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to address them and discuss them with you. I wouldn't worry too much about using a public or shared IP that has issues in the far past with disruption. If they're not current, then they're not issues that we care about. We have much bigger fish to fry. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Willbb234 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - No problem! :-) Please do not hesitate to let me know if you run into any more questions or concerns and I'll be more than happy to address them and help you. My talk page is always open to you, and you are welcome to message me any time you need or want to. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s very kind of you! Please let me know if you would like anymore beer! Haha, best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I never say no to free beer. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User MichaelBoltonA

Hi, I'm looking at VRTS ticket # 2019031910009513 and noticed your proposal on User talk:MichaelBoltonA to which the user agreed, but no renaming was done. Would you please rename the account so we can close the ticket? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist! I actually just received OTRS access a few days ago and haven't logged into it yet. I'll have to do that tonight sometime. ;-) Wow, I'm not sure how I missed the ping I was given there... else I would've had this taken care of long ago. Sure, I'll perform the rename right now so you can close the ticket. I apologize for the delay, and for any frustration that my delay responding to the request may have caused upon you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I closed the ticket. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist - No problem. Sorry that it took so long to resolve... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting input I am trying to do the right thing and not get banned or start any wars . I am just trying to learn form all the good and bad that happen so I do better

Hello Oshwah I had a disagreement with a user but it was resolved on there talk page but they started to change the wording on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin&action=history. And the reason why I undid was because the page was built extensively with multiple users to come to an agreement with the material that is on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin/Archive_2

So I said take it to the talk page to gain consensus and the Finals thing they said was, (you never objected to it in the talk page - never even said anything despite 3 days of opportunity. My edit stands. Take it to the talk page.) (You have to convince me now)

I did Object to it by asking them to take it to the talk page that does not seem to me like its part of the rules if nobody says anything you can make your edits that were asked to gain consensus with?

I have made edits that were asked to gain Consensus with and I did try to edit without the consensus that was requested and they were reverted.

Like I said I am not trying to start any wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and I have made a lot of Mistakes on Wikipedia I am trying to learn from that is why I keep them in my archival.

That is why I am asking how would a experienced Wikipedia user Handle thisJack90s15 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack90s15! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. It looks like we just need to go over what consensus is on Wikipedia and how it works here. No big deal; that's easy to do and I'm more than happy to help you with that. First, take some time and read completely through Wikipedia's policy page on consensus.

To explain how it works in a nutshell: Consensus is the practice of arriving at a decision after sufficiently taking all concerns raised into account, or arriving at an agreement with no objections raised, or all objections sufficiently taken into account. For example: If you and I were in a dispute over an article's content (say, a paragraph or section of text that we disagree over), we don't have to agree on everything to come to a consensus (though doing so is an ideal goal). We can instead arrive at agreements on parts of the dispute, such as agreeing that half of the content that we're discussing is okay and can be published. We arrive at a consensus with that half of the content, publish it, then continue to discuss the other half until we arrive at a consensus there.

If you read the policy page on consensus, it explains that after one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit that page. If no one does, it's assumed that the latest revision of the page reflects consensus, because nobody reverted, objected to, or modified the page. If others do, then consensus can be reached through editing (so long as it does not escalate into edit warring, which is against policy and not allowed on Wikipedia). If this fails, discussion should immediately take place in order to come to a consensus there. If the discussion does not reach a consensus, those involved should go to the next available steps and measures outlined on Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol, and so on - until a consensus is reached.

Consensus can change; because consensus was reached with a small group of editors on a talk page regarding an article one day does not mean that a larger discussion can't occur on a later date and reach a different consensus. Consensus can be reached on the talk page of the relevant article or page, or even on other pages such as the village pump or the requests for comment discussion pages. A consensus that is reached will only supersede a different consensus reached if the discussion involved a larger number of participants from the community, and usually only after any objections raised on the other discussion is taken into account, as well as other factors such as how long ago the previous discussion was, how much of the content, culture, norms, etc has changed since the previous discussion, and other factors.

Now, back to your concerns here. If this user is stating that their edit reached consensus because you did not respond to the discussion they started on the article's talk page, just go to the talk page, respond to that discussion, and raise your objections. Then, go back and respond to the user's message and make the user aware that you've responded to the discussion and that the resolution to this issue should continue on the relevant talk page. Any user who is civil, understanding, and knows how consensus works here will gladly continue that discussion and work with you to come to an agreement, and not put their foot down or result to battleground conduct, wikilawyering, or other ways to game the system to twist things in their favor. If you have an objection to their edit and only the two of you are involved, consensus is not reached. Remember to remain civil, polite, and respectful towards him/her at all times - even if that user isn't behaving that way toward you. It only puts dings on your character and how the community views you as a user if you resort to incivility and personal attacks - even in response to theirs.

Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you, or if I can provide any more input on issues that you need help with. I'll be more than happy to do so. Remember: Don't edit war, be civil at all times, and do your best to try and work things out properly. If you do all of these things, and the other editor isn't having it and resorts to edit warring or disruption - file a report at AN3. Hopefully, this won't be necessary at all and things will go well, but you never know. So long as you do all of the right things, there won't be anything that could come back to bite you back for it later. :-) I wish you well and that this dispute comes to a fast and peaceful close. I'm online and available should you need any more help. Good luck! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Humor

User:UBX/Oshwah Interstellarity T 🌟 11:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity - HAHA! That great! I also appreciate it, and it means a lot to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Love is a bit complicated. I do admire you, Oshwah. Masum Reza^📞 13:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Warning on disruptive blocking

Please stop your disruptive blocking. When you beat me by one minute to blocking CheekyChubbs I had a witty block notice all prepared, and because of your hasty block my wit will never now be seen and appreciated by my adoring fans. If you continue to beat me to the block button, you may be blocked from editing, Hanged, drawn and quartered, and fed to the wolves. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

JamesBWatson - HA! It's good to talk to you again, as usual. Leave the witty block notice anyways! ;-) I'm actually curious to see what it was going to be... :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm sulking now. It's all your fault. In fact:

This user is hated by JamesBWatson.

JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

JamesBWatson - The punishment fits the crime; I accept your userbox as it is something I deserve. At least it's not a trout...... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I need your help.

When I post a Wikipedia article, can you make sure that nobody on the Internet vandalize my Wikipedia article that I work hard for? I just wanted to create a Wikipedia article relating to a YouTuber. I'm concerned what will it happen when I create a Wikipedia Article & I don't exactly know how to lock my own Wikipedia Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokayshen (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tokayshen! Welcome to Wikipedia! Don't worry, all articles are actively patrolled by bots and a large group of editors (one being myself) who use software to undo and remove vandalism that's left on articles. :-) If vandalism is left on the article, you can use the 'undo' function to remove it yourself. Other users and bots will be patrolling and will remove it as well. There's no need to lock the article. It would go against Wikipedia's principle of allowing anyone to edit it if we locked everything up so easily and quickly like that. :-) Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Welcome! I hope you enjoy your stay here, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tokayshen: I'll add that is technically not possible to lock an article so that only one user may edit it. If you want complete editorial control over what you have written, you should consider publishing your material somewhere else.

With an article about a youtuber, your bigger concern is probably deletion, not vandalism. Few youtubers are sufficiently notable to merit an article on Wikipedia. Number of followers is irrelevant here. All that matters is whether the person has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the youtuber. Please see Wikipedia:Golden rule for general information on what we expect.

Please start your article in draft space. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation to get started. In draft space, you can work on it at your leisure and have it reviewed by a more experienced editor before publishing it in main space. If you try to publish it in main space yourself, and it doesn't clearly demonstrate that the youtuber is notable, the article will be deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist makes great point here, and I agree with the recommendations that he/she provided. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 - Received and replied. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:ArsenalAtletico2017

Hello Oshwah, please could you check out this user and maybe give a warning (sorry, I couldn’t find a template and I didn’t really know what to say). Based on their edits they seem to have issues with WP:COI and WP:V - they have been adding a lot of info that is unreferenced and is related to Georgia (where the user is reportedly from). Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Willbb234: Did you look at this page yet? Cards84664 (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! Sure, I'll be happy to take a look. Have you heard of Twinkle before? It's an awesome tool that you can enable in your preferences, and it will make finding and leaving users the correct and appropriate notes, notices, and warnings should they need one. :-) Give it a try and let me know if you have any questions about it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I’ve been doing a little work with Twinkle ever since you told me about it a little while back. Although I’m still yet to see all of what it does, I have been using it for tagging. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - Excellent! Another great use of the tool is to leave users notes and warnings. I'm going to show you how to do it, and you're going to leave a warning on my user talk page. ;-) We'll just use mine as the test page for shits and giggles. :-D

Lets say that I have a conflict of interest with chocolate bunnies. My edits and comments have made it clear that there's a problem with this, and you need to warn me about the issue.

1. On my user talk page (just open a new tab, or hold down the control key while clicking here - it'll make it easier for you so that you can read this and use the other tab to use Twinkle), go to the "TW" tab located on the very top - next to "History", "Edit", etc. Then, click on the "Warn" option when the menu opens. This is going to open the Twinkle "warn/notify user" tool.
2. Click on the drop-down list at the very top of the window and select "Single issue notices".
3. On the next drop-down list underneath the top one, select "{{uw-coi}}: Conflict of interest".
4. Underneath those drop-down lists, enter "Chocolate bunny" into the edit field labeled "Linked page".
5. Add an optional message if you wish to. I typically don't do this and will instead follow-up with a custom message after leaving the warning, but you may find that doing this is better. It's up to you.
6. Click on the "Submit" button and wait for the Twinkle interface to finish saving the warning to my user talk page. The page will automatically refresh. Scroll down to the very bottom and take a look at the warning that was left. Boom! There it is! :-)

I want to see that warning left on my user talk page... You better do it! I'm an out-of-control editor with a conflict of interest with chocolate bunnies, and nothing (except the warning you leave here) is going to stop me! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I did listen to what was meant for me

Hello Oshwah I did apology to Him I realize I have more learning to do with Wikipedia I started a Discussion on his talk page like with the other disagreement. I came across Adopt-a-user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user that seems like a fit for me Since I am still learning the Ropes I still would like to create pages and add pictures to pages that have none.

I don't know how to do any of that the right way my first attempt I was just Winging it But now I want to Contribute more. But I fell like I need more help with everything So something like this does not happen again. would asking to be adopted be the right step for me? I am not ashamed to say I need helpJack90s15 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack90s15! I highly commend you for apologizing and for the self-reflecting on your behavior, your desire to learn and grow as an editor, and your need for assistance with getting the hang of things around here. :-) I think that the adopt-a-user project page is an essential and wonderful place for someone such as yourself to receive the one-on-one guidance, input, mentorship, and help that you're looking for. Should you decide to add a request to this project and participate, you'll have my full support. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reviewing my page. I don't really know what that means or anything, I'm still pretty new and have only looked at a few pages here.

AudioMan1 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi AudioMan1! Thanks for the kitten! :-) You're welcome; it just marks the page as 'patrolled', meaning that it's not against policy as being an attack page, vandalism, or other disruptive matter. ;-) I welcome you to Wikipedia, hope that you stay with us and become a long-term and experienced editor here, and I wish you happy editing. If you run into any questions or if you need help with anything, please do not hesitate to message me here. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Oshwah. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Chocolate bunny, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Willbb234 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - Nicely done! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just stick to eating the choc bunnies next time. Haha! Willbb234 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - But I have such a conflict of interest with them! I can't stop editing about it! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Help with vandal IP

HI, If possible need help at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism see IP 90.228.237.132. Thanks. - Samf4u (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Samf4u! Okay, I'll go take a look now... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Samf4u - The user is now blocked, and I just added the image to the blacklist. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SalaukauOfficial

Misleading Username? See their edit on Salakau. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

CptViraj - lol... the article subject is a street gang based in Singapore. It's unlikely that the account is actually representing... a gang (lol)... but this falls under being a username violation due to representing a group, club, organization, or company and it has been blocked as a result. Thanks for the message and for letting me know about the account. If you find anything else that you believe I should look into, please don't hesitate to message me and let me know. I'll be happy to look into it. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah you're right!😂 Thanks for semi protection and ban hammer. -- CptViraj (📧) 14:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

CptViraj - No problem; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Consult on deleted Page

Hello Oshwah,

How are you doing? I am back on Wikipedia, and I just saw this message. Could you please provide more information regarding me using Wikipedia as a web host when I have my website and company? Also, I have articles and videos to help out the community for future entrepreneurs in the tech industry. I made the article to help control the narrative for the community to find and search regarding my work.

09:11, 3 April 2019 Oshwah talk contribs deleted page User:RonFigueroa (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) (thank)

Thanks, Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonFigueroa (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi RonFigueroa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your user page was deleted under U5 of Wikpedia's speedy deletion criteria. In short, the content you added to your user page looked to be intended to advertise and/or promote yourself - things that were not Wikipedia-related. Please review and make sure that you understand Wikipeidia's policies and guidelines regarding user pages, as well as what they are not to be used for. The guideline page states that user pages are not to be used as a forum, resume, social networking profile, or web host, or for purposes unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. This was why your user page was deleted.

Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on user pages, and I'll be happy to answer them. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

2600:1001:b10c:e0a2:e155:a4c2:4756:ce4

user:2600:1001:b10c:e0a2:e155:a4c2:4756:ce4 is abusing her talkpage. She even told you to do something obscene. CLCStudent (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

CLCStudent - Ohhh, how thoughtful of them. :-P Talk page access revoked. Thanks for the heads up. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Judging by his messages, he is definitely not a she. Masum Reza^📞 23:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Orville^talk 00:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Reversions

Hi,

You posted a note at User talk:2600:1001:B10C:E0A2:E155:A4C2:4756:CE4's history. I think the reversions were more to do with the 'suck my cock' and 'Wikipedia staff and administrators will be arrested by Barack Obama' cack than the blanking. I restored the legitimately-blanked version before your note. Adam9007 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! Perfect; that was the revision that I was trying to restore the page to as well. The removal of disruption there was completely fine, but at least one editor was reverting the IP user when they were just blanking the warnings and notices that were left on their user talk page. That's something the IP user is allowed to do, which is what prompted me to leave the dummy edit that I left. ;-) Thanks for helping to take care of the disruption. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit? There's no way to be sure CLCStudent has seen the note, so it might be worth leaving him a message. Adam9007 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I understand. All is good. CLCStudent (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Whelp, sounds like CLCStudent understands now. That means that my job is done here. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsure about revert I made

Hey, Oshwah. I reverted an edit to the Hatfield-McCoy feud article because the casualities number was changed from hundreds to dozens and was unsourced. However, I was wondering why there would be such a dispairity in casualities on both sides... hundreds does seem a bit out there and outside of the infobox, the article doesn't seem to go much into the numbers of casualities. Anyways, I was wondering if maybe I could have a second opinion on whether or not I took the right course of action here. Update: As I was typing this, my edit was reverted by someone else. Clovermoss (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your question and your request for input regarding the disparity of the number of deaths described within the article. My suggestion would be to try and use the sources cited within the article, or locate a reliable source that makes an estimate or gives a count of the number of deaths resulting from the Hatfield–McCoy feud, and then use the estimate or numbers provided in that source to describe the number of deaths in the article. Make sure that when you modify the description of the number of deaths in the article that you cite the source you used in-line with the description. This can easily be done by using the cite template (see cite web regarding how to use it to cite a web source). :-) Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you or provide you with any additional input or thoughts, and I'll be happy to do so. Let me know how things go with updating the article. I'd like to know what ends up happening there between yourself and the editor who reverted you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Oshawah. I didn't get your ping (I just thought I should let you know, because I don't have your talk page in my watchlist). I know about reliable sources and how to cite them, my question was more about my choice of action in the revert itself. I reverted the origial claim because it was unsourced and I was reverted back by Rnemeth000023636, whose only edit so far has been to revert my reversion, 4 minutes after I made it, with the edit summary of "fight was very even". I was expressing some doubt about whether or not the previous claim in the article was actually true, but the new unsourced claim that I reverted is still an unsourced claim. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I do want to understand whether or not I'm doing things right here, especially since I recently recieved the pending changes reviewer user right. From my current understanding, if I encountered a page like this while I was reviewing, I should un-do the change because such a vast difference in the number of recorded casualities is information that is likely to be challenged and needs to be referenced to a reliable source. This is not a pending changes review, as I haven't made any yet, just recieved the right, but I'm trying to learn the ins and outs a bit more before I actually use the right. For now, I'm going to undo the change and leave a message asking about sources. Clovermoss (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss! Thank you for responding and for clarifying exactly what you were looking for. From what I read, someone changed the description of the number of deaths from "hundreds" to "dozens" and without citing a source. I thought you were asking how to proceed with the content itself, which I responded by saying that you should just find out how many people actually died using a source (or as close to an estimate as possible), and just use that to update the description while citing that source. I apologize if I misread your request and provided you with an answer that you weren't looking for.

I tried looking for references and sources that would provide the number of people killed as a result of violence stemming from the dispute, but couldn't find any. Also, when looking at the IP user's edit, then the fact that an account reverted your change right away - it makes me suspect that the two users who reverted you were actually the same person. I also don't believe that the content is accurate nor does it give a referenced or well-provided estimate of the number of people killed. Because of this, I went and removed the content completely. To answer your question: I think that what you did was fine; you weren't edit warring, and you soon realized that there weren't any revisions of that description that were referenced or made sense. After being reverted a second time, you did exactly the right thing - you came to me for input regarding the content in order to get a wider consensus. So far, I don't see where you messed anything up. I perhaps would've removed the content or modified it to cite a reference and provide an actual count instead of reverting it, but you didn't know that the earlier revision also wasn't referenced. Oh well; it happens. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I left a personal message on their talk page about it, too. While I do find the possibility of registering an account to revert me a possibility, I'm still going to assume good faith. Afterall, if I were them, I'd be pretty frustrated of someone swooping in and changing such a drastic number. From what I can see, there were deathes, but not that many. 'Dozens' and 'hundreds' are really vague when it comes to number of deaths and I think that there would be more sources about this kind of thing, with exact numbers, especially since there was a court case as a result of the feud. I'm going Rnemeth0000236363 correctly this time, as I didn't before. That way they can read all of this if they want to... I don't want my mention of asking 'someone else about it' to be empty words. Clovermoss (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Re:Saad bin Laden vandalism

Yeah, I was actually going to leave them a warning (about a couple of steps higher), after reviewing their Edit Filter Log. I didn't do anything at the time because I was reviewing their contributions page and their Edit Filter Log. But thanks anyway. If they continue, hopefully I'll be back to stop them. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 - Ah, I understand. No problem; I apologize if the note I left on your behalf caused any interruption or stepped on any of your toes. I've been noticing quite regularly that users are reverting disruption and vandalism just fine, but are often not following up with the editor with any kind of note or warning on their user talk page. I declined two AIV requests today because the reported user had not received any kind of messages, warnings, or notes at all... their user talk page was literally a red link. It looks like you were on track to follow up with the user after looking into them a bit more in-depth, which is a really great thing to do. :-) Again, I hope that I didn't disrupt your process by stepping in and warning the user. I was just trying to have your back and help you out. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Eh, actually, I think any extra help should be appreciated. Maybe the "handling things just fine" trend is due to the decreasing amount of vandalism I've noticed in the past 5 days (maybe summer vacations?). Unfortunately, a significant number of admins/long-time users are entering break or retiring over FRAMGATE, so this easy trend may reverse in the near future. :( I'm just happy that there's someone else keeping tabs on things out there. It can get pretty exhausting when I'm on my own (particularly during peak inactivity hours at night - on my side of the globe). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 - Same here! I typically patrol recent changes during the late night in my time zone (which is Pacific), and it can be either quite boring or quite overwhelming. I appreciate your thoughts and your viewpoint that such help should be welcome and appreciated. While I agree with you 100%, it's unfortunately not be the case or the viewpoint that everyone shares. This is why I do my very best to try and have everyone's back and step in and take care of issues when something is missed, but do so carefully and in a way that won't be translated negatively or give off the image that I'm just an annoying know-it-all admin that steps in everyone's way, micro-manages, points out everything you're doing wrong, then leaves you feeling annoyed as all hell. LOL! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a brief question.

Is it really possible to get paid for creating a Wikipedia Article? Does that feature exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokayshen (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tokayshen! Welcome to Wikipedia! Do yourself a big favor: Do not fall for any of the blogs, websites, or other crap that you may see or hear on the internet that say that being paid to edit Wikipedia is an activity that's easy, beneficial, and worth your time. It's of course possible to be paid to edit Wikipedia. :-) I edited Wikipedia a lot during my last job and while my manager wasn't looking (lol), but that's obviously not what we're talking about. If an employer hires someone in their media, public relations, advertising, outreach, or other similar departments, it may be part of their job duties and responsibilities to edit Wikipedia. If this is the case, all users are required to disclose this information publicly, and they're expected to follow all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just like anyone else. The problems with being paid to edit? Because you have to disclose this, many editors despise those who are here because they are paid, and in return will straight-up refuse to help them. Their edits and contributions are also very closely scrutinized and reverted if anything is determined to be a possible issue regarding conflict of interest and neural wording and point of view. One editor on Wikipedia (who I won't mention by name) wound up losing their admin rights, completely ruining the community's trust in them, and sending their yen-year "wiki career" completely down the drain because he had abused his rights in favor of edits made by paid contributors. He spend weeks of his own time writing an article for someone and being paid to do it. One huge article later, do you know how much he was paid? Brace yourself: $80. Yes, you read that right. He was paid the equivalent of 1/1000 the United States federal minimum wage per hour to do all of that work, and he lost his admin rights and community trust because of it. Think that being paid to edit is easy, beneficial, and worth your time now? I think not. ;-) Be a volunteer here, and help us contribute to the growth of this project by editing as a true volunteer and a true member of the community. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Osh, I suppose you might mean 'ten-year', not 'yen-year wiki career'. --CiaPan (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Gary Duncan

Please remove the protection at Gary Duncan. It is clear that the subject is deceased. Perhaps unwittingly, you protected a version of the page which had been vandalized by a now-blocked user. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ghmyrtle, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your request. From what I saw, it appeared that information was being added and removed from the article between multiple users, and I didn't see a reliable source referenced or cited anywhere. Looking at the edit history again now, I see that there was one provided and the IP user was reverting the article back for... God know what reason (lol). I'm going to revert the article to a known good revision that I found and remove the protection that I applied. Thank you for the message, I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle - You bet; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

For this, I somehow got mixed up. Meant to revert that edit as well, not re-add it. Citobun (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Citobun - No worries; it happens and it's not a big deal. :-) I thought that I had reverted more than what I believed was the addition of that content, which is why I rolled myself back and then went and removed it manually. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Facing problem in technical issue.

Hey, l have no intention for making any kind disruption. I love Wikipedia. But when l am going to modify something or add some thing about knowledge facing problems please cooperate with me . — Preceding unsigned comment added by World soumya (talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@World soumya: Hi! I'm another editor thar saw your changes, I reverted a couple because of formatting errors, but I also noticed you kinda left a huge message on the page Ramakrishna, which seems like disruptive editing. Also, remember to sign your messages on talk pages! agucova (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi World soumya! Thanks for the message and for explaining what happened. No worries at all; we all make mistakes while we're learning and getting used to how things work around here, and I won't hold mistakes made in good faith against you. So long as you're receptive of the feedback given by others, and that you use them to learn and grow your level of knowledge and experience as an editor, you'll be fine and you have nothing to worry about. :-) Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns about anything, and I'll be happy to help you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy vanishing

Hi Oswah. From Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned." I had intended to ask questions of a user who has recently had their account vanished, as what is emerging of their actions warrants questioning in my opinion (and may have a direct bearing on current events elsewhere on Wikipedia). Could you advise on the next steps to take? I am aware that there are sensitivities around this, but equally it is obvious to anyone following this what I am talking about. Carcharoth (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well. :-) Great question! So, if I'm reading your message correctly, you were going to question the user's edits or behaviors, and you found that the user was renamed in order to vanish. If this is the case, then I would just keep an eye on the renamed account and make sure that it's no longer being used to edit. I'd also keep an eye on the articles and areas that they stick to when editing in case they decide to create a new account and possibly use it to continue the questionable edits.

If they were renamed to vanish, then they actually need to vanish... lol. If you find that the activity of the account continues in any way, then you need to talk to the user and be firm that they are not doing what was explained and expected of them when we vanished them. If they still continue editing, then hell... I say change the username back to what it was before. They obviously don't really want to vanish, then fine... we gave them an easy way out by changing their username as a courtesy. They should lose that benefit, and never have that option again. I don't think that this is the norm or even the proper way to handle this should this situation happen, but that's what I would consider doing. ;-)

Are there specific questionable edits and behaviors that you can elaborate on and explain in-depth? What questionable edits did you see the account making? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Not so much a specific set of edits, but more a series of edits participating in discussions, which raised questions. See here, here, here and here. I had intended to follow up that exchange of a former arbitrator with a current arbitrator (Joe Roe), but that does not now seem possible. See also here. There are inconsistencies in what has been said in all this, not aided by one of the people who was prominently talking to the press and being quoted in articles, ducking out of the door. It brings up concerns about whether former arbitrators should be subject to the same levels of scrutiny as current arbitrators. I am reminded of the fallout the last time an arbitrator left, which ended with this edit and this motion. My concern is whether the vanishing was done legitimately, or to avoid scrutiny and avoid participating in the ongoing discussions and cases. Where can I raise that concern? Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a FramBashingFan with an unpopular message. As opposed to a FramBanBashingFan. (more common). I see no point in pursuit. Looks like another casualty of this calamity.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: If you're concerned, you should e-mail the Committee, not a specific arbitrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Carcharoth - Please accept my apologies for the late response. I understand your concerns regarding the matter of vanishing and its legitimacy. I've been in contact with the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety team, as well as other admins and arbitrators over the matter, and all have agreed that the vanishing is legitimate and the reason for doing so a necessary one. You're welcome to contact the Arbitration Committee or the WMF T&S team with your concerns directly. Unfortunately, given the sensitive nature of the specific reason involved, I cannot go any further into details about it myself. However, contacting ArbCom or the T&S team for information should hopefully result in a response from them that will resolve your concerns and answer your questions more specifically than I can. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be more than happy to answer or address them, and assist you with anything that you need. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Carcharoth - No problem. I'm sorry I can't provide you with more details or information specific to the reason, but I can assure you that it is legitimate and not to avoid criticism or evade sanctions, and the WMF as well as others are aware and can support what I'm saying to you here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(Saw discussion on WTT's page and then followed it here)Carcharoth, contacting stewards would probably best if you think there's a reason for a rename to be undone. Renames are not in ArbCom's remit, but global actions under stewards, who have the ability to reverse a rename. No comment as to if it would likely to be done or if it was appropriate here, but they would be who to contact. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that you are yet to answer my second email about why you deleted his t/p archives, thus hampering the ability to locate previous discourses esp. through the search function, (other than a garden variety answer to my first email- "He asked me"). I see that you have not answered Carcharoth, despite being active. I hoped that bringing greater public scrutiny might not be good (for unknown purposes) but certainly, that's not working. ∯WBG^converse 15:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric - I sent a response to you yesterday. Did you not receive it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No. ∯WBG^converse 15:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric - Weird... I'll resend it to you now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. ∯WBG^converse 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric - You're welcome. Being the face of the vanishing due to carrying out the actions and deletions, and from information and circumstances that aren't public obviously puts me in a place that isn't the easiest. I hope you know that I'd never intentionally put myself into such a position if the reason for doing so wasn't genuine. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or address any more concerns. I appreciate you for telling me that I hadn't responded to Carcharoth's message above. I somehow missed seeing the response until you said something. It definitely should not have sat for as long as it did and without my care and attention... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Oversight

You've already done some oversighting in this area, I believe. Please see the repetitious posts to other editors' Talk pages by User:Option 16. See also WP:ANI#AFD & comment there, although no overighting is needed there, I don't believe. I'm also toying with the idea of blocking Option 16, a new account.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, and thanks for leaving me a heads up about this user. I remember seeing them earlier and I've had my suspicions. I apologize for the late response; I was working all day today and I just sat down at my desk for the evening. Okay, I'll take a look at the user's contibs and take care of any that require visibility changes. In the future, you'll want to email me any details or requests for revdel or oversight. Otherwise, by posting them here, the 966 people who actively watch my user talk page will see your message, and the Streisand effect takes its natural course from there, which is what we want to avoid at all costs. ;-) Thanks again for the message, and I hope that life is treating you well. :-) Until next time - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the major oversighting was done and I rev'del an additional edit you might oversight. You can tell which one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Liz -  Done. Thanks for letting me know about it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

gah

the gift that keeps on giving  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 17:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - Oh dear..... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - I just checked and can confirm that the... image (lol) used in those edits has been added to the image blacklist. This should help put a damper on future sock puppetry vandalism by this person should it continue and involve the use of the same image. If this sock puppetry continues, let me know. I'm interested to see what other patterns this user may leave on the trail of their abuse and vandalism so that I could potentially add it to my edit filter. ;-) Thanks again for the message. Until next time - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:35, 3 July 2019 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

  Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - Great, I'll check my email tonight and get back to you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Notices

Hello Oshwah. I have received new notices but I can't see them on the "Notices". This is so weird. Puduḫepa 14:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Puduḫepa! Exactly what "notices" are you talking about? Messages on your user talk page? Were they perhaps deleted after being left? Did you check the history page? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, dear Oshwah. I will not be on this project anymore, as long as the offensive POV-vandals continue editing comfortably, without any admin action. Take care. Puduḫepa 06:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - What POV vandals? Where? Instead of leaving, why not work with me so that I can help take care of the issue? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - I received the emails you sent me and just now responded to them. Please check your email inbox when you have an opportunity to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I have checked the inbox. I agree with you regarding the scrutiny stuff. I have decided to let the vandal hang himself— a kind of WP:ROPE. Cheers, Puduḫepa 18:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Good call. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Mordhau (video game)

There seems to be a content dispute. A "toxic culture" section was added, with 4 references, which looks like a constructive edit to me by someone who wanted to improve the article. Anyways, since then, that section has been blanked three times and restored twice. I don't want to leave the article as is, but I don't think a request for page protection would be appropriate since it seems to be a content dispute and not vandalism. Do you have any advice? Clovermoss (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss! I apologize for the delay responding to your request for input. I was at work all day and I just sat down at my desk for the evening. If there's edit warring going on between editors and over a content-related dispute, request temporary full protection of the article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Full protection is used for this exact purpose - to put a stop to edit warring over a content dispute and kick everyone involved over to the article's talk page to discuss the issue and follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol in order to come to a consensus. It looks to me that, despite some back-and-fourth disagreements by some editors, the section of the article at the center of the dispute is slowly improving. I'm going to keep an eye on things and see if any edit warring continues. If you find that it is, please file a request for protection and let me know. :-) Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any more questions or if you need my input or advice with any situations. I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the situation has improved since then. Thanks! Clovermoss (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss - Any time! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You got mail

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

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Liz - Okay, I'll check my email tonight and get back to you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A semiprotection request for Greensborough College

Hi!
As you possibly remember, the Greensborough College page has been vandalized several times, which was discussed at your talk page in March (archived threads in March 2019: Greensborough college page recent protection mistake and March 2019: Sorry to be rude but could I get a reply? Greensborough College page mistake). Since then, about once a month, someone repeats disruptive edits to the article. Most recently they even produced a fake "source" for their change (edit Special:Diff/904500817). I suppose some minimum level of protection could help to stop that...
Best regards, CiaPan (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S.
Adding a ping to Theroadislong and Alexf, who also watch the page and clean it up when necessary!

CiaPan -  Done. I've blocked each sock puppet account and protected the article for three months. Thanks for the message and for letting me know about this. If you see any more issues like this in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know or file a report at SPI and/or RFPP. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Fast and effective, as usual! Thank you. :) CiaPan (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan - You bet; always happy to help! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that that [2] was a valiant attempt at sourcing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Agreed. Alas, the source was not reliable enough. --CiaPan (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is good because I denied that motto from the article at one point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Username

Hi Oshwah, I know you look at usernames and make bans if they are inappropriate. Would you mind checking User:Alexaappdownload? Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And this user, Willbb234 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! I apologize for the delay responding to your requests here. Sure, I can definitely do that. I'm not sure if you know about Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but this is the place to report usernames that are unambiguously in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Just wanted to make sure that you knew about it. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I did report the first username on the page but I thought I had better notify you, just to make sure. Willbb234 (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - Ah, okay. Got'cha. No worries; figured I'd let you know about UAA just in case you weren't aware of its existence. ;-) Both users have been taken care of. Thanks again for messaging and letting me know about them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A block-evading sock-puppet..?

Could you, please, compare User:Uptomykneespatt (double terminating t) and User:Uptomykneespat (single t at the end)...?
TIA.--CiaPan (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan -  Done. Definitely the same user. Both had the exact same user page and are both blocked. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Liv V

Just would like to submit as an artist and not promote, but have validity as an Independent artist. I felt being able to have a small valid Wikipedia account helped to prove that I am real and out here working. That is all. Indie Artist Liv V (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Indie Artist Liv V, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for leaving me a message here, but I'm not sure exactly of what you're referring to. Can you elaborate so that I can help you? :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TGLAgent

Hii,↑ I'm not sure about UAA. See userpage! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi CptViraj! Yeah... I saw that username and user page earlier when it first appeared in the creation log. I think we should wait to see if the user makes more edits so that we can get a better and more clear understanding of the username... Let me know if circumstances change and if more information becomes available through more edits, and I'll be happy to take a look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay Cheers! -- CptViraj (📧) 16:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Spaceport Camden

Hello,

I represent the business Spaceport Camden and I am the public information officer for Camden County, Georgia. The Spaceport Camden wikipedia page has been subject to repeated editing by user:Camdentaxpayer that reflect opinion, not fact. CamdenTaxpayer is a likely a member of the small, but vocal opposition to this project and is attempting to use this wikipedia page as a platform for their advocacy.

I would respectfully request that the page be protected and/or Camdentaxpayer be banned from future edits to ensure unbiased information about this site.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsimpson81 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jbsimpson81, and thank you for messaging me here with your input, concerns, and your request. It appears that there's a two-way battle going on involving this article and between two editors who both have conflicts of interest with the article subject. Per Wikipedia's conflicts of interest behavioral guidelines, users who have such a conflict should never be editing the article in any way nor participating in discussion that involves modification to its content. Instead, you should focus on other topics and articles, and contribute to Wikipedia in areas that do not conflict with your interests. This assures that all content written reflects a neutral point of view by having users who are neutrally involved with the article subject edit its content.

Instead of editing the article yourself, you're welcome to create edit requests for other editors to review and implement onto the page for you. This will help in many ways: First, it keeps a level of separation between yourself and the article content due to the conflict of interest. Second, it allows you to request changes and report issues and inaccuracies with its content if such things are needed. And third, it keeps the article neutral and fair by having other users review the changes you suggest, and implement none, some, or all of the requested changes so that they comply with all policies and guidelines.

I will certainly be keeping an eye on the article as well as everyone involved (which includes CamdenTaxpayer, and yourself). This is to be fair to all users involved and to make sure that the project, the article, and its content remain a top priority above all else. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you have additional concerns, and I'll be happy to help you further. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsimpson81 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Jbsimpson81 - No problem. Good luck! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

help please 😊

hi, yes i need help on my page to look like professional as the other pages i see. i need it to look like one of those celebrity pages as i am a known magician in the magic world/communtiy.😇😇😇

Thank you! Xeon Steel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialxeonsteel (talk • contribs) 05:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Updating information

Why you regularly not updating the article 15 movie page? We want its regular update hour to hour please. 2405:204:9609:F0E8:0:0:196B:B8A1 (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but hour-by-hour updates like what you're asking for isn't going to happen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for live updates and information. If this is what you're looking for, there are many other websites that will provide this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Need help to fix glitch at Core cities of Japan

I am trying to fix a glitch where some sections get fused into other sections in the mentioned article, but it won't work. 2406:3003:2004:6A0:41EC:3820:288B:4823 (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What 'glitch' do you mean? Is it that the 'Cities that meet the requirements...' section is too low, after sections 'See also', 'References' and 'External links'? --CiaPan (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If you could provide more details and elaborate a bit further, I'll be happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Oppel Wikipedia page (Oppel304) A few questions on my new page start up

Hi Oshwah, I'm new to wikipedia & I wanted to make sure I followed the correct steps into setting up my page. I saw some adjustments were made & I got your message. Am I set in the right direction? Is there anything else I need to do? How can I update it & I think you pay to make sure it's maintained? If you get a chance these are a few questions I had. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppel304 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oppel304! Welcome to Wikipedia! Where is the location of the page you're trying to create? Can you link me to it? Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Zip_bomb

Hi, I added the https://www.bamsoftware.com/hacks/zipbomb/ link to Zip_bomb because it is new, and i think relevant, research concerning this subject. As you may have noticed, since your removal of this link, other persons have noted the same.

willem 90.145.167.42 (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Permission

Sir, is it possible for me to get rollback permission? I've been doing CVU work for sometime. I've dealt with lots of vandalism by this LTA for example. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk - Sure,  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That weird IP spam

2001:D08:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 is a huge range, but I noticed the contributions from this range in user-talk-space appear to be 100% related to this... I wanna say vandal, but I honestly have no idea what this is about. Anyway, seems like something a filter could handle. Any thoughts on this? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Someguy1221! I applied a two-week block to 2001:D08:1000::/36, not 2001:D08::/32. I was simply responding to the ongoing disruption being caused by this range (see the ANI discussions I linked in the block summary); I didn't look too far into any kind of spam being left. What exactly did you find? If it's the exact same spam being left that's unique, an edit filter would certainly be useful here... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell it's a Malaysian spambot, or a very dedicated troll pretending to be a Malaysian spambot. The most coherent posts, which go back at least several months over the entire larger range, are usually a series of advertising buzzwords and a link to a youtube or facebook page. It looks like oftentimes the link or other content gets malformed, and sometimes it is trying to post images but fails. And other times it's just bizarre nonsense. If there were a consistent pattern beyond "Maxis Communications and gibberish on user talk pages" I'd have probably made a filter already. But since there is not, thought I'd check with you, see if you knew anything else about this dude before I tried anything. I have seen a bunch of ANI threads over the last couple weeks on these bizarre edits, but haven't really been following that closely, thought maybe you knew more than I did. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221 - Hmm... the malformations you speak of may help us here. Anything unique that's only present when this range attempts to add their shenanigans will be helpful. Do they add spam links to the same top-level domain? Do they add anything else that's unique and couldn't be a false positive? This will be significantly helpful if we can find unique "calling cards" that are always left by this user alone and aren't things that are present in legitimate edits, we'll have a great string of characters to add as a condition to an existing spam detection edit filter. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is there a 25 article minimum on auto-patrolled?

I am just curious as to why there is a definite minimum of 25 articles for auto-patrolled? I get some people are mainly concerned about the number of articles being created and use the excuse "If you aren't creating a lot of articles, you don't need this permission". Shouldn't it be more about the quality of one's edits? I have two FAs and a FL (probably another FA soon) as well as multiple GAs and can't qualify for the permission. Noah^Talk 04:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hurricane Noah - I'm not sure why anyone would be interested in the permission if they don't create a lot of articles. Realistically, all auto-patrolled does is mean that resources from another user aren't being used, because the amount of articles being created by a user is going to cause a lot more work, and it's clear that they know how to create a well sourced article. Not being autopatrolled just means that a user from WP:NPP has to take a look at the article before it's indexed. Quality is great! If there isn't a lot of newly created articles, it's not going to cause a backlog. That's my understanding, anyway. I hope Oshwah doesn't mind me chipping in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If a user is going to have higher quality edits, it is a waste of time to make someone review it in the first place. Have a review happen for several people in this situation and it does create a backlog. People complain about the lack of new page reviewers. Why waste their time by making people review users who don't create "enough" articles despite them having high-quality edits? Noah^Talk 11:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S - Looks like you have a total of 15 article creations, (with 16 deletions). Realistically, you aren't that far from the amount needed for autopatrolled. However, with so many deleted articles, it might take more than that; as the question isn't - does this person know how to create content; more - can this person identify a notable topic. Looks like most were blanked by yourself, and not being an admin, I can't view these to see them to see the history. I'd recommend creating a few more articles before requesting the perm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the dates, almost all of those were created when I barely had 100 edits in 2017. The majority were stub articles on legendary kings that nobody really knew much about. I decided to delete them on the recommendation of a couple of editors although some people oppose such actions as Ireland does have articles for legendary kings. The Sansotta Italian one got speedily deleted before I could respond or do anything to stop it (pretty much in the same boat as earlier). All of those were created when I was an inexperienced user. The most recent one was because I decided to merge a split into an article despite size concerns so it could be one list. 10,000 edits later, I am much more experienced and better at making articles than I was then. Also, the page created metric is not accurate in the least. Someone made a redirect for many of my creations so it gives them the credit of creating the article. I rebuilt Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) from the ground up and took it from start to FA, and I drafted/created Hurricane Hector (2018), Hurricane Lane (2018), Hurricane Olivia (2018), Hurricane Rosa (2018), Tropical Storm Vicente (2018), and Hurricane Willa. All of those storms are not listed because they were redirects at one point, but I ACTUALLY created them. This is how it works with storms in WPTC. They are redirects before someone makes an article for them. Noah^Talk 11:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hurricane Noah! I apologize for such a delay responding to your message and your question here! I've been busy lately with work and other matters in life. :-) The reason that there is a set minimum on article creation before the autopatrolled user right is given to someone is for very simple reasons: We want to make sure that the user receiving them creates articles that follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before the rights are given to them. :-) The autopatrolled rights give you no extra privileges or abilities at all; they simply mark pages or articles that you've created yourself as 'patrolled' automatically in the system so that another user doesn't have to manually check them and do so. Many articles that are created are deleted under the speedy deletion guidelines, the proposed deletion guidelines, or the articles for deletion guidelines; patrollers will go through each created article and make sure that they do not do this before marking a page or article as 'patrolled'. Autopatrolled users are those who understand each of these guidelines proficiently, and admins grant this user right to those where it would be a waste of time of the patrollers to go through and check them manually. Those who create articles and pages frequently that meet these guidelines will be given the user rights without requesting them. Don't fret or fear being declined if you requested them recently; admins just want to make sure that you have solid history of creating articles that are up to snuff before being comfortable having no patrollers look at them first. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them. My talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to leave me a message here any time you need or want to. :-) I hope that I answered your questions, and I wish you happy editing and article creation. :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue I have is most of the article I have created/will create won't count towards this because they were created as redirects by someone else and expanded into articles by myself. Although, the lists I am creating (over the next months) would count.Noah^Talk 13:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hurricane Noah! I apologize for the delay responding to your concerns here. I've been busy with work and other life matters and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, replies, pings, emails, requests for help, etc that I received. :-) You are correct; only the creation of articles and pages will count toward this "requirement" that admins look for when granting the autopatrolled flag to an account. This is obviously because of the fact that the creation of articles and pages is what the autopatrolled flag would affect. Remember: This user right will not directly affect you or be noticeable to you in any way, shape, or form, nor does it grant you anything at all as far as access and abilities go. The user right only makes it so that pages you create are automatically marked as 'patrolled' or 'reviewed' in the MediaWiki software and the system so that other users do not have to manually read through and check them off - that's all. I understand that this user right means a lot to you and that you're asking about it because you'd like to see it granted to your account (probably out of principle in that you're seen as a "trusted user" who knows how to create pages and doesn't need supervision). I personally don't blame you, and I've had those thoughts when I was "on your side of the table" as well. However, compared to other user rights that do require a high level of trust and that do affect your level of access and abilities with Wikipedia, this flag isn't one that I think you should be overly stressed or worried about. :-) Typically, 'autopatrolled' is granted to accounts without their approval or any request for the user rights by the recipient beforehand (this is how I received the 'autopatrolled' user rights back in the day). In fact, many requests for 'autopatrolled' that are left on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions are from reviewers requesting them on behalf of others. When the time comes that granting you these rights is beneficial to the project and without question, you'll probably know when you've reached that point when you receive a notification and find out that an admin just gave it to you. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be more than happy to answer them and discuss them with you further. I don't want you to stress yourself out over this user right... compared to many others, this isn't one that you should worry about. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Lyn

I'm sorry but I don't use wikipedia 24/7 to know all the features. I just wanted to check for any mistakes and then continue editing, but the instant I published the first version it got reverted. For the love of God, there are so many things that you could waste your life with instead of paying attention to wikipedia edits at any given moment. Michael D. Lawrence (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michael D. Lawrence! Thank you for the message and your comment. I must respectfully disagree with your thoughts. Compared to living a life of crime, sniffing paint, and hurting the lives of others, I think that volunteering your time and energy toward building and maintaining and encyclopedia where its goal is to be a free and open source of information and editing for anyone around the entire world is a good use of time, not a waste of time. I'm sorry if an edit you made was revered; if I did this, I'm absolutely open and willing to talk about it with you. But please, don't call what we do a waste of time - this encyclopedia was completely built off of the time and the dedication of volunteer editors. This resource wouldn't be here at all without those volunteers. :-) Please let me know if I can answer any questions or address any concerns you may have. I'm more than happy and willing to help you if this is what you need. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

213.205.194.224‎

Hi Oshwah.

Another IP that is teetering on the brink of a formal report to WP:AIV. The pattern seems to be vandalism every 6 months or so, so not "recent", I've issued a level 4im due to the history, perhaps you could have a look and advise the IP, me or else act as you deem appropriate.

Regards Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Martin of Sheffield! Please forgive me and please accept my apologies for the delay responding to your message and your concerns here. I've been quite busy with work and other life things, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, replies, pings, emails, requests for help, etc that I received while I was away. :-)

After taking a look at the edits, logs, and the WHOIS and information for this IP address, I have doubts that this IP is consistently allocated and used by the same person. The description of the network comes back as being controlled and allocated by "Orange PCS GPRS Services". The words "PCS" and "GPRS" both tell me that the network provider is a wireless cellular, phone, or internet service provider. This means that nearly all of its users are mobile and traveling from tower-to-tower (or from node-to-node). As devices move into and out of network range during their travels and motion, each IP address available is recycled and re-allocated to a different device to be used. This "recycling and reuse" usually occurs very quickly, with IP addresses spending from only a few minutes to a few hours or a few days being allocated to the same device.

The CIDR range of this network (213.205.192.0/19) is also somewhat consistent with networks that provide mobile service to its user base (I usually see much wider ranges than a /19 for mobile networks, but they are not uncommon). Because you state that the vandalism occurs from this IP address every six months or so, I think that what you're observing is vandalism by different people who just happen to be using this same IP address by coincidence (unless you see a clear pattern of abuse between each cycle of vandalism that occurs)? If the vandalism in one "sitting" becomes frequent or starts to occur at a high enough rate where action is necessary, definitely report it to AIV. Otherwise, if it's not a ton of vandalism and its only been occurring as often as you say, there's not much to worry about; just keep an eye on it just in case. :-)

Please let me know if you have any questions or additional concerns that you think I should look into, and I'll be happy to help you further. Thanks again for the message, and I hope that my response was reasonable and understandable given the technical babble that I included. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Numbers

Hello there. I was just wondering if you noticed that sections of articles (or whatever they're called) have recently been numbered. I've already tweeted to Wikipedia about it and left a message to Mr Wales. Sorry if I'm bothering you, but I was just wondering if you noticed it and what you thought of it. This is definitely gonna take some getting used to for everyone who reads Wikipedia. GOLDIEM J (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: Perhaps you could give us an example.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have a look at your preferences: Preferences > Appearance > Advanced >"Auto-number headings". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi GOLDIEM J! I apologize for such a late reply to your concerns here. Did you check your preferences as suggested by Martin of Sheffield above? This will cause sections to automatically number as if in a list. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No it's alright mate don't worry about it I sorted it out ages ago😂 but thanks anyway😀 GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

GOLDIEM J - No problem! Good to hear that you sorted the issue out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

How Dare you.....

I lose again... thanks?... lol --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 16:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do you mess with my head like this?!!! LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't mind him. He is just a kid. Masum Reza^📞 08:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 - ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Not just a kid, a kid about to drive a Subaru Forester and I still don't know how to get the key in the ignition to turn on the car. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I was just joking man. Do you have license to drive a car? Masum Reza^📞 20:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I am getting one, I have to pass the test and the vision screening, I hope I don't crash... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 Getting my L Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A Favor

Would it be at all possible if I could ask your assistance to have an IP blocked, for a while? 139.195.53.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is the latest IP being used by a long term, block-evading, IP-hopping vandal who, when haunting the IP ranges of 139.XXX.XX.XX and 140.xxx.xx.xx constantly spams pages with inappropriate, nonexistent, and or inappropriate and nonexistent categories, as well as insert poorly written original research opinions. And, if not blocked, the vandal will continue with its unhelpful edits until it moves onto another IP or is blocked. I would give it warnings, but, years of dealing with it show that it never bothers using its (IPs') talkpages beyond misusing them as sandboxes.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Apokryltaros! Please accept my apologies for such a delayed response to your questions and concerns here. I've been busy with work and other life matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of my Wikipedia messages, pings, emails, requests for help, etc. ;-) This IP made some edits yesterday, and I spot-checked a few of them (namely this edit and this one), and they didn't appear to change any categories within any articles. I'll keep an eye on this IP; are there any other IP addresses within those two ranges you spoke of that I need to take a look at as well? Let me know and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, and not at the moment, but, my own preferred method of dealing this vandal, short of having its current IP blocked, is to revert everything it does, as per WP:DENY, as I find reverting everything is less troublesome than sifting through the sewage of its unconstructive edits for the few pearls of constructive edits.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Apokryltaros - No worries! I have nothing against reverting edits if WP:DENY is necessary. ;-) Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Help I'm stuck😭

It's the infobox on my user page again. I'm an English dmy dude. In the account statistics section, the dates are appearing mdy. I've tried adding the template {{use dmy dates}} and set appearance preferences. Is there something I'm missing? Sorry to bug you but wondering if you'd know anything about it. Many thanks xx GOLDIEM J (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: {{Use dmy dates}} not gonna work. Try using something like this {{Start date and age|yyyy|mm|dd|df=yes|p=yes|br=yes}}. Hope this helps. Thanks. (talk page stalker). Masum Reza^📞 15:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: Thank you for helping me out😇 GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Happy to help. 😊Masum Reza^📞 19:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Masumrezarock100, for assisting GOLDIEM J while I was offline. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Account creator & Edit filter helper images

Hello Oshwah, I'm requesting a update to the current image for Edit filter helper. I'd do it myself if I knew all the copyright bs and upload fuctions. When I emailed the file to Admin xaosflux, I didn't know until later that the image was abit wider and taller than the other user right images. I have now updated it and would like to send you the file. I also have a new version of the Account creator that I would like to use. If you don't mind, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: unless you are trying to use a new, different, copyright type - you should be able to go to commons:File:WikiFilterLogo.png and just click "upload a new version of this file" - and basically, that's it. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII - Exactly what Xaosflux said above. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, thank you — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Oshwah How long does it take for the new file to start rendering on Wikipedia? I still see the same file on my user page but with low quality this time. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out already. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi JudeccaXIII! It should render right away. You'll just need to clear your browser cache and possibly purge the cache of the page that it's set to render on. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Zhu Mingye

Hey, any chance you can "free up" the article so it can be created? She won a gold medal at the World Fencing Championships today. ;) Kante4 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Kante4: I have created the article at Draft:Zhu Mingye; at present it is nothing more than a single sentence with a vague WP:NSPORTS claim. Once you have improved the article to mainspace quality, ping me (or Oshwah) and we can move it to mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Expanded it a bit. Kante4 (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think we need a bit of a fuller article before I'd be comfortable moving it to mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's ok as a start so others (with maybe even more knowledge languagewise and stuff) can expand it. Kante4 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kante4, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your request. Citing Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding sports and sports-people, I agree with Ritchie333's response above that the draft article (as of the time of this writing) is too short and vague, and doesn't appear to fully asses the article subject's notability (or the claim thereof) to the level that is needed. I did a quick search for sources that provide primary coverage of this person at all, but any results I found that were relevant were providing primary coverage of the championship game or championship events, not of Zhu Mingye herself. You will need to expand this article to include content (as well as the necessary sources cited to support it) that clearly demonstrate the notability of this person before I would feel comfortable moving this from a draft state to being published in the article mainspace. If you have any questions regarding Wikipedia's notability policies or guidelines, please let either myself or Ritchie333 know, and we'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange behaviour

Hey, Oshwah, I just thought I would run this by you - an editor (Sangson231) on 2019 Rugby World Cup who, IMO, was being disruptive last night, has copy-pasted a chunk of my user page on to theirs. It's bizarre, and I've ignored it, but does it matter? Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And now passing themselves off as an administrator. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Problem solved by Bbb23 - thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony Holkham! Sorry for being late to the party! I'm glad the issue has been resolved. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)