User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-08

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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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

Major Sockpuppet Help

I hope that you are doing well. I'm having some major issues with a varity of, what I strongly suspect to be sockpuppets, who are attempting to strongly push POV on United States Air Force Security Forces, Air force infantry and special forces, and infantry. The case is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrkoww, but I am unsure of how to proceed, as it seems that there is a major backlog. Do you have any words of advice? They do not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, but rather force their thoughts on these articles. Garuda28 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like they are correct on the content issue, and that you are insisting that casual, offhand references to "infantry" are reliable sources for such an assertion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s a content discussion I am willing to have. I am pulling primarily from a number of Air University reports, but there are other sources that support it as well. My larger concern is that it seems that either major canvassing or sockpuppetting occurring, which followed a significant amount of vandalism, making it next to impossible to have the conversation. If you would like to help be a third party opinion though, I would be more than happy to have you in the discussion. Garuda28 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that you are confusing casual, informal usage with something substantive. I encourage you to reconsider your position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Garuda28! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. Putting the content dispute and article talk page discussions aside and focusing only on your concerns of sockpuppetry: I took a look at the SPI report you created. I commend you for taking the time to create and insert a well-detailed analysis of your evidence and information, and for including diff links with almost each claim that you make in your description and evidence. Many (if not most) editors do not take the time to add their evidence and thoughts correctly and with diff links and as much detail as possible (something that is needed with every SPI report that is created); thank you for taking the time to do this. I've added a comment asking the user who used their checkuser tools to clarify something in their findings. After this is done, I'll take another look at the report and go from there. Regarding the content dispute and talk page discussions in relation to the dispute: I'll leave you to Cullen328's responses and his judgment, as well as Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol to resolve. ;-) That being said, please don't hesitate to respond with any further questions or concerns. Either Cullen328 or myself will be happy to answer them and discuss them with you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Retirement

Hi,

I saw this, and I'm sure you'll be delighted (or maybe not...) to hear that Wumbolo may not be the only one you need to talk out of retirement (not that this is the first time I've thought about quitting...). Writing articles and reverting vandalism used to give me satisfaction and pleasure. Now however, all that's gone down the khazi : I can't say or do anything without it being taken amiss. I think I know how Wumbolo feels, and I doubt anyone would care if I follow suit. I saw this article the other week, and I'd like to say it's shocking, but I can't because it isn't as I can relate to nearly all of it. No-one's dared to come out and outright say it, but I think it's been made clear (in ways that may not be obvious to you or to others but are to me) that I am not wanted on this project, yet for some reason I am still here. Do you have any idea what that reason could be? (I wonder this all the time and am frankly at a loss... ) Adam9007 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! I appreciate you for messaging me with your honest thoughts and feelings, and for asking me for advice in this regard. I'm sorry to hear that you feel unwanted on this project, and that you no longer gain any kind of satisfaction or pleasure from contributing your time toward Wikipedia. That's a feeling that I completely understand; I've felt this way with many other aspects of my time and how I've lived my life and dedicated my time toward. It's a feeling that isn't fun at all to experience long-term with anything in life (not just Wikipedia), nor is it a feeling that's easy to realize and talk about, let alone resolve on your own without help and support and/or making significant changes. :-)

I definitely want to help you; you're a dedicated and excellent editor, and I'd really hate to lose you... In order for me to try and help you, this will require that I ask some questions in order to try and get to the root of what's making you feel this way. Is there something recent or specific on Wikipedia that you witnessed, experienced, or were given an unpleasant response from a user or group of users? Something that's been bothering you or still makes you feel disheartened, sad, upset, or feeling rejected, excluded or left out by others from? Are you being harassed or consistently poked or given a hard time by a user or group of users on Wikipedia that's making you feel like it's becoming grueling? Is there anything going on long-term on Wikipedia that you're dreading or find yourself frequently trying to put off looking at, responding to, or taking care of? These sorts of things can definitely contribute to what you're thinking and feeling now. Getting input, support, and help with addressing them and putting these issues and feelings to bed will definitely help. If you're feeling burned out, tired, and need a break, definitely take one. There's no rush or obligation to dedicate edits or time here, and your personal life and time outside Wikipedia should always take priority. Let me know about the questions I asked you. I definitely want to help talk it out with you and help you if I am able. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there something recent or specific on Wikipedia that you witnessed, experienced, or were given an unpleasant response from a user or group of users? Something that's been bothering you or still makes you feel disheartened, sad, upset, or feeling rejected, excluded or left out by others from? Well, yes. Is there anything going on long-term on Wikipedia that you're dreading or find yourself frequently trying to put off looking at, responding to, or taking care of? Sort of. Are you being harassed or consistently poked or given a hard time by a user or group of users on Wikipedia that's making you feel like it's becoming grueling? Hmm... It's somewhat difficult to answer that, but yes and no. You're probably already aware of past dramas, but there are two recent incidents that have caused me to lose what little gaiety I have regained since. 1) I was removing copyvios and trolling (because I removed the copyvios) from the sandbox, only for an admin as good as blame me for starting the drama in the first place and refuse to do anything about it. I mean, these were copyright violations! I was under the (now apparently mistaken) impression that they were not tolerated anywhere on this project. 2) Once upon a time, comments like this were considered aspersions (and rightly so). Now however, that kind of behaviour seems to be acceptable (at least when directed towards me). Of course, I asked about it, and his justification was basically just "this editor says so" and blindly took his word as gospel. "This editor", by the way, seems to loathe me with a passion and I'm convinced he'd love to see me leave or thrown off the project. The fact that he didn't apologise, and no-one criticised him for it, suggests (however subtly) to me that the community as a whole hold me in complete contempt. Heck, someone once claimed that (if I remember correctly) I go around the encyclopaedia changing 'happy' to 'gay, and of course another editor blindly believed that and suggested I be indeffed despite having no proof that I have ever done anything of the sort. It all just goes to show that people will blindly believe anything negative said about me, which speaks volumes about what they think of me. There are some really nice people here, but the community as a whole is toxic and uncaring. And I meant what I said about relating to the article: there was one incident (nearly 2 years ago but it still haunts me) wound me up so much that I... probably best not go there here. But basically people really need to stop assuming bad faith, because that's what they're doing. Adam9007 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

reverting vandalism used to give me satisfaction Well, reverting all this gave me a hint of satisfaction, but only a hint . Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adam9007 - Wait, so you were blamed for causing issues because you were removing copyright violations from the Wikipedia sandbox? What kind of 'trolling' were you removing from there? Can you provide diffs so that I can take a look? As far as copyright violations go: It doesn't matter where they're added to on Wikipedia, violations of copyright are not allowed and have to be removed and (if necessary) revdel'd under WP:RD1. We're generally much more tolerant and loose regarding what is added to the sandbox in general. After all, it is a sandbox, and if someone is going to add the word "POOP" 10,000 times in a row, I'd rather they do it there than anywhere else. But... duh, there are limits! It's the same concept as adding death threats, blatant BLP violations, libel, or the personal information of another user: Just because you add it to the sandbox doesn't automatically make it okay. It sounds like someone handled this situation the wrong way, and you've been given the short end of the stick as far as the benefit of the doubt goes. I understand how these assumptions of fault on your part without any proof because you have some past bumps in the road would make you feel like it's always following you, and that you'll be constantly in that pit of being "marked" or "flawed" because of it, and how it would drag you down and make you feel like you're never going to get out of that "pit"... I'm sure that this is what's causing you to feel this way. That's not fair on you, and I don't like hearing that this is going on. I've of course only heard one side of the story, but this isn't about investigating and who was right/wrong... it's much more deeper than that. What can we do to get you out of this pit? What do you feel would make things right and make you feel better? Am I accurate with what I'm confirming in my response here? What do you think is the right policy regarding the trolling and copyvio content? I'd like to hear your thoughts behind this and see what I can do to help.... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, so you were blamed for causing issues because you were removing copyright violations from the Wikipedia sandbox? Well, no-one outright blamed me for anything, but the downright dismissal of my report (it was rather disruptive, even if it was in the sandbox) that said basically that I shouldn't patrol the sandbox certainly implied that the disruption was (at least indirectly) my fault as it wouldn't have happened had I turned a blind eye (are they seriously suggesting that I just ignore copyvios just because they're in the sandbox?!?! ). Or perhaps it was dismissed simply because it was me who raised the issues? (everyone knows how "disruptive" I am, so why should anyone take anything I have to say seriously?) I sincerely hope not. I can't know this of course, but I doubt (especially if something as serious as copyvios are involved) that such a report would have been dismissed had it come from someone else. What kind of 'trolling' were you removing from there? Amongst other silly comments, posts like this. As for the second incident, that's far more long-term (I don't know if you know the story behind it?) I mean, I'm being judged as a Wikipedian based purely on my supposed (I must stress that word, because it really doesn't matter if it's true or not: what does matter is that people here think it is) real-life beliefs (I should point out that, to my knowledge, nobody on here has ever met me in real life, so how can they possibly know for certain?). And anyway, I thought that if someone wants to accuse me of such a thing, it's up to them to prove my guilt. But of course with me, I'm guilty until proven innocent, as it is with just about everything else on here too. The supposition, by the way, is based purely on a misinterpretation of something I had on my userpage back in the days of yore, not my actions on the wider project. What can we do to get you out of this pit? What do you feel would make things right and make you feel better? I'm not sure that anything cam be done to reverse the damage. That's kind of the whole point . Adam9007 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - I'm sorry to hear about all this... no one's legitimate concerns should be dismissed and blown off, and users should never be discouraged (either directly or indirectly) from voicing their concerns and reporting what they believe to be issues that need attention - even if their concerns end up being incorrect or regarding things that aren't a big problem. Had I received this report from you regarding the addition of copyright violations to the Wikipedia sandbox, I surely would have acted upon it and handled the issue just like I would if it were added to any other page. Regarding the random silly comments and troll edits (such as the one in the diff you provided above): I would've just responded to you and told you not to worry about those. Like I said above, if users are going to add stupid stuff to a page on Wikipedia, I'd much rather them add it there. Unless it becomes threatening, libelous, or a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, just let them be stupid on the sandbox page and take the necessary actions (revert and warn) if their silly edits start to move anywhere outside of it. :-) That's all that should've been done and said to you in response to your report of concerns regarding the sandbox and nothing more... messages, comments, and replies in response to good faith reports and concerns should not be dismissive, uncivil, or scold or berate the user in any way - even if it's found that they've violated policy or done something wrong. It should obviously be mentioned and the user talked to about it, but admins are not above other users and admins are not users who get to scold, wag their finger, or treat editors as if they were below them and needing to be round up and disciplined. That's only going to cause them to feel exactly how you're feeling now. I'm sorry that your concerns weren't given the proper attention, response, and the proper direction and help. If it makes you feel better, you're welcome to report issues or concerns to me in the future, and I'm sure you know that they'll be looked into and/or handled, and I'll give you the assistance and follow-up that you deserve and should expect to receive.

You know, ...it never hurts to take a break and come back in a few weeks' time to see if your thoughts and feelings improve. :-) Please don't let yourself get burnt out; it's important to be healthy, have a balanced life, and put things down once in awhile to pick up other things for a bit. :-) I think that (as with the issues and bumps in the road that you experienced in the past) time will heal all things. If users are consistently not treating you the way that you feel you should be treated here on Wikipedia, stop being involved with them and stop letting them do that to you. Express your feelings to them directly, and tell them that the way that they treat you bothers you and that you don't believe that it's okay. You have the right to be treated fairly and like a human being; don't be okay with being constantly being treated in ways that leave you feeling how you're feeling now. One of the quotes that I have on user page is quite relevant right now: "Raise your words, not your voice. It is the rain that grows flowers, not thunder." You obviously don't want to be rude, uncivil, heated, or angry in your messages to users like this, but you should be assertive and express your feelings fairly. Why not take a break for a bit, and after returning, commit yourself to doing what you believe is necessary to ask others to stop responding and behaving in the way they are to you? What do you think? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to reply by email (for reasons I hope you'll understand when you read it). Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - That's completely fine. I understand; not a big deal at all, and you're of course welcome to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's finally been sent. I've probably missed out much of what I wanted to say, but it was jolly difficult to write (it's always harder than I think it'll be). Adam9007 (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand, and I appreciate the email. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

LAO VISA IS REQUIRED FOR PAKISTANIS!!PAKISTAN NOT INCLUDED IN LAO EVISA EITHER

i made another contribution regarding ethiopian evisa for pakistanis,so today simply wanted to correct another country,s visa requirements which is LAO,according to lao evisa official website,pakistanis are not eligible for evisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.138.247 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! If this is true, then there should be numerous reliable sources that you can find and cite in-line with the content you're modifying. I'd also discuss your changes on the article's talk page if you believe it to be legitimate and true. If it is, other editors will have no problem helping you to locate references and update the information. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano "Best Teeth in the Game"

Hello

You removed the line I wrote regarding Anthony Fantano's nickname, The Best Teeth in the Game as being a personal analysis. If you watch his videos, it's something HE refers to HIMSELF as. It isn't a bias.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLl-IfTj3WM 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUrwgufwfho 3.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVWEl_0nSMU

And many more. I will be reverting this change

166.62.251.17 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for clarifying what you were intending to add with your edit here to Anthony Fantano. It appeared to me at first look to be a random addition of content rather than an attempt to append a nickname to the infobox parameter. I also thought that (what I believed to be) the random addition of content seemed opinionated and not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This is why I reverted the edit and left the subsequent note for you on your user talk page. Again, I appreciate you for messaging me and for clarifying your edit. Just make sure that the addition of content you make also includes in-line citations to sources that are reliable. This is truly important given the fact that the Anthony Fantano article is a biography of a living person (which have stricter requirements regarding the need to cite reliable sources). I apologize for the misinterpretation of your edit, and you're welcome to restore the change you made to the article. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to help you further. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Courage the Dog

I'm not sure why I need a citation. All it says is that the last episode called Perfect is considered the most bizarre episode. This has statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.104.108 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message regarding the edit you made to List of Courage the Cowardly Dog episodes. I'll be happy to help answer your question. :-) When adding content to articles such as this - content that indicates that something is "frequently, highly, or commonly considered to be [something]" (namely, something opinionated or based on the viewpoint of others), this should be supported by citing a reliable source in-line with the text. This section of Wikipedia's verifiability policy details when a reference should be cited. Among content containing quotes, data, figures and numbers, dates, and other such information, content that is controversial or likely to be challenged if no reference is provided should include an in-line citation to a reliable source. The content you added was vague, and seemed like the type of content that normal readers and editors would challenge. Hence, a reference should be cited. Who is saying this? What people believe this? Who conducted the study and retrieved this information? How do you know for sure that what you added was true? That many people consider the episode to be "bizarre"? Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and statements such as these need references to verify and support the claim. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. I hope that my response was helpful and that it provided you with understanding with when and why such content needs to be supported with citations to references and sources. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Corvus macrorhynchos

How do i upolad a video i took in japan for this? (don't mess with this crow it hangs out with bears that are fighting) Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - You're trying to upload a video to the WMF to use within an article? Have you read through Wikipedia's page on the use of videos within articles? If not, I believe that this would be a good place for you to start. Let me know if you have any more questions. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Nice hair! THIS IS not vandalism. I am merely spreading Wikilove. 65.246.71.70 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

HA! I appreciate the compliment! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi oshwah

I'm putting in the reasons I'm sorry will try harder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilburrifahy (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gilburrifahy! No worries! Please let me know if I can help you with anything, and I'll be more than happy to do so! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		At first I thought this was a one off thing (and totally told someone off-wiki it was the sweetest thing ever!), but now I've seen it again in my watchlist. That's really kind of you to message a bunch of users kind things like that. (': ... and then immediately go back to blocking vandals lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi MJL! You were actually someone who was next on my list to message and say hello to! That's actually quite funny! ;-) Thank you for the barnstar and for the very kind words. :-) It's little things such as saying hello to others, wishing them a great day, and telling them that they're valued that will help to make the community culture a positive, peaceful, and collaborative one. I try to reach out to users like this occasionally and tell them how much they're appreciated. Given the recent frustration, controversy, and drama that's been happening with the community - it's more important than ever before that we do our best to maintain a happy culture. We need our experienced, cherished, and dedicated users and editors more than ever, and I'll do whatever it takes to help them to stay. Whether it means helping users during hard times, keeping them safe from harassment and abuse, or spreading some happiness and cheer in hopes that it makes a positive impact on at least one person... I'm happy to do it. :-) I hope you're doing well, and I wish you a great day and happy editing! Thanks again for the barnstar... I appreciate it very much. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] That's pretty funny! I couldn't agree more that stuff like that helps keep users around long term (Example) Community has been hurt pretty bad with this recent drama stuff, but hopefully we will get back to fine and maybe even better than before. You're a good admin Oshwah!
BTW, are you still accepting adoptees? Asking for a friend who is looking for one based on my offwiki advice. Sorry for the late reply. I'm suddenly very popular today. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL - I appreciate the compliment. It means a lot to me, and I can't thank you enough for it. :-) I'm always accepting adoptees and users who need a mentor and/or someone to go to for help. What's been going on with your friend? How new is he/she to Wikipedia? Are there any particular areas or past issues that are causing them hardship and stress? Any information that you can provide about your friend, what his/her needs are, what his/her desired goals and outcomes are, and exactly what situations, events, areas, or past issues and other things are keeping them from reaching those goals - I'll be able to provide more focused and detailed thoughts and help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on that reply... They said they would.. Hmmm... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi ~Oshwah~! I happen to know the identity of this mystery person. It is (drumroll) me! Anyway I did not know MJL was going to ask you for this, but a warm thank you to them and to you. :) In response to your questions, I'd like to send you an email. (I will also copy MJL on it.) (I'm both a slow writer and a procrastinator so give me a little bit of time...) WanderingWanda (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi WanderingWanda! It's great to meet you! Sure, take your time; there's no rush. I'll be in and out of coverage over the next few hours, so I'll likely be able to read my email messages later tonight. Rest assured, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Looking forward to helping you out and providing you with the assistance you need! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind email, Oshwah. I really appreciate it. Unless you have any objection, I'll put the adoptee template on my page. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda - Nope, no objections here! :-) You bet; always happy to help! Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home

What did you completely protect the page? I requested it because a sockpuppet constantly adds unreliable content. --Mazewaxie 11:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Again I'm not a sockpuppet and your the one who started this whole edit war thing instead of taking to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killgrave45 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Killgrave45! Thank you for responding here and for providing input to this discussion. I agree that the issues regarding the two articles are content-related, that edit warring has been occurring on these articles over the last few days (if not longer), and I believe that unless detailed and convincing evidence is presented and a sock puppetry report filed and the matter investigated, it's not okay for one to refer to another as a "sock puppet". Even if the fact is true, calling someone a "sock puppet" is only going to make matters worse, cause the user to become angry and the situation to become heated, and (if anything) would only encourage the user to engage in more disruption and policy violations... why would we want to do that? :-) As I stated in my response to Mazewaxie below: You need to start a discussion on the articles' talk pages, and seek consensus using Wikipedia's proper dispute resolution protocol. This is how these disputes are going to get resolved - not with back-and-forth reverts and edit warring. Please be careful and please keep Wikipedia's edit warring policy in mind when making edits and when faced with a dispute like this in the future. It can result in your account being temporary blocked, which would obviously suck. So just don't do that. :-) If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to respond here and let me know. I'll be happy to help you and answer any questions. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Mazewaxie! I hope you're doing well and that you're having a great day! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. I'll be happy to discuss them with you, set expectations, and make sure that your concerns regarding sock puppetry are properly reported for investigation. :-) Given the back-and-forth edits being made between yourself and Killgrave45 between these articles, as well as the edit summaries you've both been leaving with these edits, it's clear that the issues that are currently present are over content-related matters. To resolve these content-related disputes, you must start discussions on the articles' talk pages, and you must properly resolve these disputes by seeking consensus. Continuing to make reverts in a back-and-forth manner as you both have been doing is disruptive, and clearly won't lead to the issues and disputes being resolved. In addition, these reverts are clearly in violation of Wikipedia's edit warring policy, which states that you must stop making reverts and edits to the article once a pattern of back-and-forth reverting begins to arise, and resolve the present issues or disputes by discussion and consensus. Please be careful and please keep this in mind when making edits and when faced with a dispute like this in the future. It can result in your account being temporary blocked, which obviously isn't a good thing. :-)

If you suspect sock puppetry by this user Killgrave45, you need to file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (SPI) and with full and proper evidence, diffs, and details provided; have you filed an SPI report about this user? Can you provide me a link to the report so that I can take a look at it? Who do you believe that this user is a sock puppet account of? Unless sock puppetry and abuse, vandalism, or other purposeful or malicious disruption is clear and blatant, we should not assume that one is a sock puppet because they have issues with the content or the article that you're editing, and we should not make such accusations without clear evidence to support them. Doing so is uncivil, and is generally very frowned upon and seen as disruptive by the community. We need evidence to your thoughts regarding sock puppetry, and until a case is established, we should not be calling other users "socks" or "sock puppets".

Please let me know if you have any further questions, concerns, or if there's any information or details that I've missed. I'll be happy to take a look at them and discuss them with you. :-) Please also let me know once you've filed an SPI report so that I can take a look and investigate. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Hi, thanks for your time. I have already reported Killgrave45 here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hhggtg3279. It's a situation that has been going on for days, this person keeps creating new accounts and he always makes the same edits on the same pages, adding poorly sourced informations (he uses blogs, rumors, leaks etc. as sources). I already reported him when he edited as DrChaos56 before as you can see here. I'm sorry if I was too frantic in my edits but this user brings your patience to the limit (I think you may have encountered similar cases in your Wikipedia career). I would love if you could check Killgrave45's contributions and compare them to Hhggtg3279's and DrChaos56's. You will notice that they are indeed the same person. Thanks for your time again and I wish you happy editing. --Mazewaxie 12:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Killgrave45 has been blocked. I think now you can remove the full protection on the pages. Thanks for your help. Happy editing :) --Mazewaxie 14:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mazewaxie! Thanks for the updates, the link to the SPI report, and for letting me know that the user was indeed a sock puppet account. I've gone ahead and restored the previous protection levels that were set on each article before they were modified by me today. I appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this situation and matter. As you probably know and understand already, when I have the "admin hat" on, I have to do my best to reserve judgment, act fairly and neutrally to all parties involved, make sure that the policies and guidelines are followed by everyone, act consistently and treat everyone the same (no playing favorites), and I have to assume good faith by default until I see clear evidence and information showing that I should assume otherwise. Until I was linked to the SPI and made aware of the resulting actions and the block, I had to manage the situation fairly with the information I had, which was why I initially treated the matter as a content dispute (I didn't see any blatant vandalism by the user; just content-related changes to those articles). In the end, the issue has been resolved, which is what's most important to the both of us. Thanks again for your messages and for following up with me here with your concerns. Please don't hesitate to message me any time you need my input or assistance, and I'll be happy to help! :-) Until our paths cross again... ;-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand everything and I think that you are doing your job really well. Thanks again for your kindness and for your professionality. I wish you a nice day and happy editing :) --Mazewaxie 14:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Mazewaxie - And to you as well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the same person that got blocked has created a new account and has started to make disruptive edits again. I reported him here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hhggtg3279. --Mazewaxie 10:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Mazewaxie! Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to your updated message here. Great! I'm glad to see that you've reported the user by updating and amending the SPI report you originally created. If it hasn't already been handled and closed, I'll take a look at it and see what I can do. :-) Thanks again - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Happy editing! --Mazewaxie 09:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A small request

Hello Oshwah, is it possible for you to delete the very first description I gave in [REDACTED - Oshwah]? It contains some private info (you'll see), which I would very much like to remove.

ty :) Mm.srb (talk)

Mm.srb -  Done. I've suppressed the revision you described and it should no longer be a concern. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Mm.srb (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the second one, just above the one you edited - moved User:...to User:Mm.srb: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "..." to "Mm.srb" undothank. Mm.srb (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Mm.srb - What concerns require this revision to be removed or suppressed? Can you elaborate a bit further so that I can understand? :-) Oh, and I forgot to mention this to you earlier: You should send deletion and suppression requests like this to me privately by emailing me instead of requesting them here or anywhere on Wikipedia publicly. As an example, my user talk page is currently being watched by 970 Wikipedia accounts and users, and they each are aware that someone has edited this page as soon as it occurs. This means that your requests can potentially draw the attention of 970 people immediately when you add them here. As the Streisand effect has proven time and time again, most users who read your request will purposefully try to locate the revision in question in order to view it before it becomes hidden from them. This is obviously not what you want to have happen at all, so make sure to email these kinds of requests to me privately in the future (for your benefit and for your protection). ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Good God, I did not have such a number of followers in mind at any moment. Point taken, you are very kind. It is my old nickname, which is related to some really bad memories from the web which I would like to surpress and undo on all levels. Mm.srb (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mm.srb! I appreciate the compliment and your kind words. :-) Unfortunately, this revision may not be able to be revision deleted or suppressed due to not meeting the criteria and requirements listed on each page. If this is incorrect, please let me know and I'll be happy to proceed. I'm just bound by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as the fact that I'd have my advanced user rights revoked in a heartbeat if I were to use these tools improperly and to hide revisions and content that do not meet the criteria required. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's well earned sir. :) I was a bit vague, if it is possible I could send you a link (via e-mail) which would explain the matter much better, as it is also a matter of privacy. Mm.srb (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Mm.srb - Sure, no problem. You're more than welcome to email me the information and details if you're concerned about matters of privacy. I'll await your email and get back to you there. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Help :)

Hi Oshwah, I would need a help if it is possible. An article (Draft:Anissa Lahmari) I have created got moved to draftspace citing lack of sources. I have added sufficient sources since then, however it is yet to be reviewed. Can you review it and make it as an article if it is possible? Thanks in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoeist (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kokoeist, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your concerns and your request. Unfortunately, I won't be able to review or approve of your draft for inclusion or publishing to the Wikipedia mainspace. This is because of the fact that active members of the AFC team, users who are familiar with the process of reviewing submissions and providing feedback, should be who performs the review of your draft. It would be improper and inappropriate for me to just step in and start performing reviews and moving drafts around; I would be interfering with the AFC pending drafts queue, how AFC users handle and respond to requests, and I would potentially be messing up their workflow and important elements of the project and process. They maintain an established culture and set of norms, as well as a list of users who have been OK'd to participate and review submitted drafts. I am not a user who is active with the AFC, and hence I would be causing disruption by performing reviews and modifying submissions without their permission and prior approval. Just be patient, and someone will review and respond to your request. If you have specific questions regarding your draft, or if you need help with something specific that doesn't involve actually reviewing the draft under the AFC process, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) I appreciate your message, and I hope that you understand why I cannot simply cut you to the front of the line, and step in without permission to perform actions that I'm not OK'd to perform. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, thanks for finding time to reply! Yeah, I understood how it works now. Didn't knew much about it before. Guess I will stay patient till they find my article :D Again, thanks for helping out. Have a good day! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoeist (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Kokoeist - I hope you have a great day as well! Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any more questions or need help with anything else. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding SPIs

Hi, i figured you're probably the right person to ask. Some weeks ago i noticed a pattern in the editing of a dynamic IP range that makes me think an indefinitely blocked user might be evading their block by editing through that range of dynamic IPs. I continued to assume good faith and of course not name them, but i've compiled a bunch of diffs which seem to back up my thought. Should i straight up open a sockpuppet investigation or post to some other noticeboard like WP:ANI? If SPI is the answer, what can be done about it, since IPs can not be linked to accounts for privacy reasons? Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 19:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyamo Kurosawa, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your observations and findings, as well as your questions with how to properly report your concerns. I believe that the best place to report your concerns is at ANI. SPI is for reporting users who are suspected of creating and controlling more than one account in order to cause abuse or for reasons that are against policy. While listing IP addresses within your SPI report is perfectly fine and happens quite often, you wouldn't want to create an SPI in order to only report suspicions of abuse between IP addresses and not any user accounts. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and please keep me updated and let me know when you've filed this discussion at ANI so that I can take a look. :-) I'm quite curious to take a look at it and see what I can find.... :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_block_evasion_by_Calvinkulit. Thanks for your assistance so far. Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 00:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nyamo Kurosawa - Thank you for the response and for the ANI link! I'll take some time tonight and take a look at the report. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any more questions or if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You might have already noticed that the IP got blocked a couple of days ago; the report is now archived here. Again, thanks for your assistance! Happy editing and Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 10:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Username

I seem to sense something a tad suspicious about this account, but can't put my finger on it. But it doesn't appear to be related to 96.72.167.254, so I'm wondering if it could be considered a misleading username? Am I imagining things? Adam9007 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! Your suspicions were correct! This account has been confirmed as an LTA and indefinitely blocked. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

LTA of who, I wonder? That kind of username rings a bell... Adam9007 (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Good question! I would perhaps ask the blocking admin (Edgar181) if he knows the sock master of this LTA. You could also try performing a search at SPI to see if this account pops up in any report filed recently... ;-) Let me know if you manage to find out who this account belongs to. I'd be quite interested to know! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, my first thought was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP (the username resembles an IP address, even though part of it is in Chinese numerals), but I don't think the account history matches... I'm currently busy typing that email though (not to mention it's 3:44am where I am :)). Adam9007 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Dang, dude! You're either up very late or woke very early! Don't overwork yourself and let yourself become exhausted. Remember that there's no rush and there is no deadline on Wikipedia. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope: there doesn't appear to be any SPI cases that have that username. There are also no links to either the talk page or user page. I'm still none the wiser :(. Adam9007 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Interesting... I wonder if perhaps Bbb23 is familiar at all with this sock user... I'm pinging him in order to see if he has any information that he can share that will help us. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry folks but I really don't see why this matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's Arturo, and I generally agree with Bbb23 on this. Also, don't file an SPI for any username like that. Just block and have a steward lock. They'll catch him on loginwiki cu. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Gardner Edgerton

The information on Wikipedia regarding the athletic conference in which GEHS plays is inaccurate. I was simply updating this information to reflect the accuracy of reality. Here is the link to the Sunflower League website which validates my change: https://www.sunflowerleague.org/g5-bin/client.cgi?G5genie=403. Even the Wikipedia page for the Sunflower League correctly identifies Gardner Edgerton as a member, not part of the EKL. Please review and revert my revision to present accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.48.58.47 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message and for letting me know about this. It looks like you've already restored your changes back to the article, so I'll go ahead and leave well enough alone and leave you to it. :-) Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything, or if you have any further concerns. Thanks again for explaining your edit, and I apologize if my revert caused any frustration or inconvenience upon you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dominatrix link

Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.248.250 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! :-) The reason that your edits to the Dominatrix article (such as this one) were reverted was because it provides an unnecessary external link to a website and in a manner that advertises and promotes it. Wikipedia is not for advertising and promotion like this, and links such as these are one of many that should not be added to articles on Wikipedia. This can be considered link spam, and is disruptive and not allowed on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for the message, and I hope that my response helped you to understand the reason behind why your edits were reverted. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take you to answer..

Why did you delete the dominatrix link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.248.250 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see my response to the message you left above. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparent COI needs explaining and resolving

Hello, the grinnest Wikipedia admin I ever met! I hope you are well and it's a beautiful weather at your place.
I haven't bothered you for almost a month, but here's another issue I don't feel able to resolve.

The automatic tag at this edit special:diff/908357035 in the article I watch attracted my attention to the user, and I found most of their recent contributions is adding references to the same scientific publication. I do not know that work and can't verify if it's really applicable to all those articles, but I'm concerned about the coincidence of the publication coauthor's name and the Wikipedia user name.

They were already notified about the concern at their talkpage and I feel it should be explained. However, as you know, I don't feel fluent enough both in English and in Wikipedia policies details to proceed. Not to mention I'm on vacation now, away from my computer, and with a smartphone at hand only, which makes hyperlinking with all the markup, as well as searching through Wikipedia resources, quite cumbersome.

So, if you don't mind I'd ask you to take care about explaining and resolving the apparent COI, as well as possible further reverting all coi-related edits done by the user.

May the gigahertzes and petabytes be with you! :) Best regards! --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi CiaPan, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns regarding this editor and the references they've been citing on articles and with their addition and modification of content. I agree with your concerns: The two sources referenced and cited by this editor in recent edits he's made (1, 2) appear to be written by this user since the author (or contributing author) of these sources is listed with the same name as the editor's username. The issue here is two-fold: Not only is this obviously a potential issue in regards to conflict of interest (which can add concerns regarding the content being changed and Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy), but also a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research since he's citing his own publications and references to support the content being added.

Sure, if the account isn't stale and the user has made more edits like this since the time you messaged me here about it, I'll be more than happy to talk to this user about their recent edits, and help explain the concerns and violations of policy that we're observing. Enjoy your vacation, be safe, and I'm sure we'll speak soon. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan - It looks like David Eppstein reverted some additional edits that were recently made by Alexeytuzhilin that were adding self-promotion and original research to articles, and he's talking to Alexeytuzhilin about it. Unless David Eppstein requires my assistance with talking to Alexeytuzhilin and/or helping to resolve the matter, I'm going to leave David Eppstein to it so that I don't step on any of his toes. ;-) Thanks again for letting me know about this, and I hope you have a great vacation. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

Hi Oshwah, hope you're doing good. I see you have left a message on user Idreamofjeanie's talk page regarding their use of rollback a while ago (which, AFAIK, they haven't responded to your message either), so maybe you can help me here. A few weeks ago, I partially translated the Gua sha page into Portuguese. While I was doing it I noticed two things: the wikilink on Placebo effect was going to a redirect page, so I decided to bypass the redirect; and when translating the History section I noticed that the section isn't really about the history of Gua sha, but only talks about how it was also part of Vietnamese culture under the name of Cao gio and the history of that. So, in my translation (), I decided to go with "Cao gio" as the section name, which felt more appropriate, and I left a comment on the English article's talk page suggesting the same be done there. After a few days without a reply, I went ahead and made the change myself, with an edit summary explaining it and pointing to Talk.

Now, I think it's pretty clear that I made two good faith edits. I would go as far as saying that my first edit was objectively speaking an improvement (bypassing a redirect, which, BTW, a kind soul has just done it again) and I would be willing to have my second edit questioned and debated and maybe lose the debate, although I still feel like the current title of the section doesn't accurately reflect on its content. And then IdreamofJeanie rolled back the two edits.

So I went on their talk page and left a message. One day later, when I logged back in, I noticed two things: the user had opened Wikipedia and made several changes to pages (mostly reverts and rollbacks); and my comment wasn't answered. So I left another message. Then I waited, it's been a few weeks already, and now I would like to see if an administrator would look into their behavior. I took a gander at IdreamofJeanie's contributions and I get the feeling that this is a very useful, helpful user, with a good history of reverting vandalism, but maybe they're a bit too trigger-happy with that rollback button. Now, I don't wish to see them lose their rollback privileges, as I think the vast majority of their edits are positive, but having been at the other end of one instance where that privilege was misused, I would like for them to at least be made aware that they got it wrong this time, and to be more careful in the future.

Best, VdSV9•♫ 15:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi VdSV9! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns regarding IdreamofJeanie's use of rollback to revert the changes you made to Gua sha, and your request that I look into this user's behavior and use of rollback further in-depth. I definitely remember leaving that message on IdreamofJeanie's user talk page after I had noticed some issues and concerns last year. It's disappointing to see that more concerns are being expressed regarding IdreamofJeanie's use of rollback since then - especially knowing that they've been talked to before about this (albeit just over 7 months ago). It obviously adds even more concerns when I see that IdreamofJeanie hasn't responded to your messages and your requests for an explanation.

Other editors and admins who know me well can easily vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes and accidental reverts involving rollback over the years that I've been an editor here. :-) However, I will say that when I noticed or realized that I messed something up, I reverted my mistakes and fixed things as soon as I found out, and I did what I could to make things right for the article and the editors that my mistaken revert impacted. In general, that's what one should be expected to do when they've made a mistake like that: Clean up after their mistake completely (and without the other user having to perform any of that clean up), apologize to those that the mistake impacted, do what's needed to try and make things right, and make necessary efforts to try and improve from that mistake and avoid making it again in the future. You certainly don't ignore their messages to you asking "what the hell?", and leave that user hanging like this... :-)

I'll leave a follow-up comment underneath your messages on IdreamofJeanie's user talk page and see if I can't help nudge him/her to respond to your requests. I also feel the same way that you do: That IdreamofJeanie is a good faith user who makes positive contributions, does very good work, cares about the project, and wants to do what's within his/her ability to help build and improve Wikipedia and keep it free of disruption and abuse. No editor is perfect and we all make mistakes... especially an editor such as myself. :-P We always do our best to understand good faith mistakes, to educate, help, mentor, and coach other editors to improve and learn from them, and assure them that mistakes are a normal part of learning and that we don't hold mistakes made in good faith against them so long as they learn from them and do what's necessary to avoid repeating them in the future. Repeated mistakes made in good faith can become disruptive if the user makes them consistently or constantly, or if the user doesn't show any sign of improvement or that efforts are being made to improve and after repeated messages, warnings, and opportunities are given to them to do so. If repeated warnings and other measures are taken by an admin or the community to help the user correct the problem and to no avail, appropriate and necessary action can be taken in to prevent further problems (such as revoking the user right, escalating the matter to ANI, or other measure where appropriate). Mistakes can impact many people, take varying amounts of time to undo and resolve, and can be quite frustrating and perhaps upsetting to those that they impact. We must be sensitive to the good faith users who make occasional mistakes, and we should give them the appropriate space and room to improve on their own. However, at the same time, we should also be understanding to those who these mistakes negatively impact, and help diffuse frustration and anger when they arise.

I'm going to look into IdreamofJeanie's edit history and his/her use of rollback. If it's found that IdreamofJeanie uses rollback inappropriately or to revert good faith edits and at a rate or level that I believe to be unacceptable, I'll follow up with IdreamofJeanie appropriately. Please let me know if you have any questions or additional concerns, and I'll be happy to discuss them with you and help you. Thanks again for the message and for coming to me with your concerns, and I hope that my actions help to resolve matters and to ease any potential frustrations. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and thank you for taking the time to look into this. Please let me know if something comes of this. Cheers! VdSV9•♫ 12:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

VdSV9 - You bet. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Oshwah. Don't know if you noticed, but this isn't going well. VdSV9•♫ 18:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

VdSV9 - What do you mean? What's up? I'm taking a look to see what's changed. Please let me know as soon as possible... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

VdSV9 - Nevermind... I took a look at IdreamofJeanie's user talk page, and I discovered what was said by him/her in response to your messages... I'm sorry that you were treated this way and that your questions and requests for an explanation were not provided in the manner and tone that we expect of users who are given these rights. As of a few minutes ago, IdreamofJeanie no longer has the 'rollback' user rights. Please let me know if I can answer any questions or provide assistance with anything else. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey. Just dropping by to thank you for looking into this. Too bad about the outcome, but it is what it is. Be well! VdSV9•♫ 19:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ramrancher8

Hey Oshwah, you blocked User: Ramrancher8, and it looks like they violated their block by editing from 2606:6000:6a51:be00:94c4:faad:8ee5:bf14 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is Ramrancher8 edit and then the IP restored all the events that were removed in this edit [1]. The IP has also been editing the same genre of wrestling articles that Ram would edit such as Summer Supercard. What really gives it away is they both edited a random obscure non-wrestling article Wolverine World Wide. So maybe a block for the IP and a longer or reset block for Ram. Thanks for your time good sir. StaticVapor message me! 21:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi STATicVapor! Thanks for leaving me a message here and for letting me know about the ongoing problem involving Ramrancher8. It looks like the IP user you reported to me here hasn't edited since July 30, or else I would've been happy to take action against them. I went ahead and added semi-protection to the 2019 in professional wrestling for two weeks. If the issues continue after the protection expires, please don't hesitate to let me know or file a protection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (this is the recommended thing to do in case I happen to be away or offline). Someone will be happy to take a look at your message or request and do what's needed to resolve the matter. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This IP geolocated to the same city as the one we just talked about, also editing the same genre of wrestling articles, including Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Summer Supercard, World Wrestling Council and Honor For All (2019) (which Ram created). So it appears the block is still being evaded. I am sure Ram knows they are blocked they're just purposely editing under an IP to circumnavigate their block. StaticVapor message me! 17:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

STATicVapor - Sorry for being late to the party and for taking so long to respond to your updated message. The IPv6 address of the IP you mentioned above (2606:6000:6A51:BE00::/64) has been blocked due to abuse. Please update me here (or file an AIV or ANI report) if you see any more similar issues, and we'll be happy to take another look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:48, 8 August 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor - Acknowledged; will check my email and respond tonight. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fram

Hello there Oshwah! I hope you are well. I had a question regarding an incident which I'm sure you will know about regarding the admin Fram. I was wandering what it was all about (in simple talk, it was confusing when I was trying to read about it) and why people are annoyed at the WMF for the ban. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! Are you looking for a simple explanation of what happened and why it's causing a lot of frustration and controversy? Sure! I'll do my best to TL;DR it for you and in with a neutral point of view. If any information I state or summarize below is inaccurate or incorrect, please respond to this discussion and let me know! Here's an explanation of the "Fram controvery" that I can give and that's as simple as I can summarize it without leaving out key details and information:

Basically, it all started when the WMF imposed a one-year foundation ban on Fram, an admin and active editor on Wikipedia, as an official office action - citing reports of off-wiki harassment and an investigation that the WMF performed. The WMF removed the administrator user rights from Fram's account and blocked the account for one year. This comes after the WMF had amended their abilities to add that they can impose time-limited partial WMF bans on users for various safety reasons and violations of WMF policy.

Shortly after the ban was imposed, the admin rights removed, and Fram's account blocked for one year, a Wikipedia administrator reverted the block that the WMF applied by unblocking Fram's account. The WMF then went back and restored their one-year block by blocking the account again. Shortly after this was done, a different administrator went and unblocked Fram's account the same way that the first administrator did. The WMF then responded by removing the admin rights from the user who had performed the second unblock. A bureaucrat user then restored the administrator rights onto both Fram's account as well as the account of the administrator that reversed the block again and that the WMF subsequently removed the rights from afterwards. These subsequent admin and bureaucrat actions have prompted the creation of many discussions, debates, proposals, and ArbCom requests - two of which were accepted and one of which are still currently open (1, 2).

While some editors were okay with the WMF's decision and the actions they took, many Wikipedia editors were not. A significant portion of the community was upset by happened and what the WMF did, for various and different reasons among them. These reasons include (but aren't limited to): A lack of public-facing evidence proving that violations had occurred, the belief that the "partial foundation ban" gives the WMF too much power, what the WMF did was too much and/or without satisfactory input or involvement with the community, and many others. The WMF has since offered some statements in response to the series of events that occurred and made promises to improve communication and how things are handled in the future. They also indefinitely suspended the use of "temporary Foundation global bans" and "partial Foundation bans" (see this section of WMF's Office actions page for details) while community discussions and relevant matters are worked out.

You can read more information about everything by visiting this community discussion page. I hope that my explanation was easy to read and understand, and that it didn't go into too much detail for being a TL;DR. ;-) I haven't read up on the issue recently, so things may have changed or have updated since I last looked through relevant discussions. If you have any questions, you're welcome to ask me, but you may receive a better and more up-to-date answer by vising the page at the link I provided to you above. Thanks again for the message and the request, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, your summary is very well written and I thank you for it. If you could sharpen your pencil and trim 1/3 of the words, it would probably end up as the best summary available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328! I appreciate the comment and your very kind review of the summary that I gave above. Trimming it down by 33% wouldn't be hard to do. ;-) I'd just trim the different reasons editors are upset that I listed to be down to just a few, and cut back some of the details (that the ban came after the WMF modified their abilities, that the WMF indefinitely suspended those abilities, etc). Thanks again for your thoughts and your input. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Great! Send me the bill for your pencil sharpener, and I will forward it to the WMF for reimbursement, after having rubber-stamped it "Approved!" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 - HA! That's funny. :-) If, however, you think I should actually shorten my summary (maybe put an updated version below) so that it could be used somewhere, do let me know and I'll actually shorten it. I doubt that this is the case, but I figured I'd mention this just in case I'm wrong and it really is. :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My friendly suggestion is to just edit it down a bit so that you so that you do not feel obligated to mention TL;DR in the second sentence or include any emoticons at the end. That is all up to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 - I like the suggestions; thank you! :-) However, I didn't think of those paragraphs as actually being part of the summary that I gave - those were just responses directly to Willbb234. I added a collapse box around the actual summary in order to resolve any possible confusion. If I'm missing something from your suggestions, if my response doesn't resolve the reason you suggested the changes, or if you still think that the "TL;DR" and the emoticons still involve issues with the summary or vice versa, let me know. I might just be confused with the "why" behind the suggestions you made. :-) Thanks again! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought of it is thoughtful fun, but opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Ah, got'cha! No worries; I think that's where I got confused. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That really helps and I can now understand the fustration. My question came in light of an admin request for Fram’s second account (I believe) and also the fact that I kept on bumping into ‘Fram this’ and ‘Fram that’. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - No problem! Glad I could help! Please don't hesitate to message me if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi,

Would it be possible for the developers to move the 'Good edit' button away from the revert buttons? I accidentally marked this as a good edit! Adam9007 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! HA! I've accidentally done that before, too... a good handful of times. :-) I even had to modify my Huggle settings and remove the 'G' key from being mapped as a hotkey (it marks the edit as a 'good edit' by default), as I found myself accidentally pressing it instead of another hotkey, and marking edits as 'good edits' that way.... ;-). Have you expressed your idea on Huggle's feedback page yet? This is the place to propose these ideas and changes, as it is monitored by Huggle's IRC channel and patrolled by active developers and users of Huggle. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Even worse things have happened (not just on Huggle) as a result of me pressing/clicking the wrong button! (and I'm always pressing the wrong button, usually the button next to the one I intended) Maybe the interface should be customisable. No, I haven't put anything on the feedback page. I'm not really sure what to say... Adam9007 (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - That might be a difficult task to make the interface modular like that, depending on how they've coded it. If you find yourself annoyed with the button clicking, you should perhaps take a look at the hotkeys and get them configured to the way you want them. If you do it right and in a way that's comfortable to you, you shouldn't run into any more "accidental presses". ;-) There's no "special" trick, language, or use of words that you need to know about when it comes to starting a discussion on the Huggle feedback page; the exact way you worded it in your original message here is perfectly fine. Just start a discussion and express your thoughts and ideas... nobody is going to bite you. :-P lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

nobody is going to bite you I wouldn't be so sure of that, lol. Also, has that "older than 1 day" bug been reported before? I'm still getting that. Adam9007 (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - That sounds familiar. Is this the issue where warnings and messages aren't left on user talk pages because Huggle believes that the disruption occurred more than 24 hours ago? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Joy..... it can't hurt to bring up that issue there as well. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for acting fairly and decisively, and keeping Wikipedia free from vandals and spammers Railfan23 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Railfan23! Thank you for the barnstar and for the very kind words. I appreciate it very much, and it means a lot to me to hear that what I'm doing makes at least some positive impact on other users. :-) I'm happy to hear that my actions are seen upon as quick and decisive, but much more importantly I'm happy to hear that my decisions and actions are neutral and fair. Again, I appreciate you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nate Speed

Did you get my message about his death "threat"? I was thinking (second thoughts) that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to send it to you after all? (but his socks really were/are out in force tonight!). Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007 - I just got home and sat down at my desk. I'm going through my emails and responding to them now; stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I got those threats too, reported them to WP:EMERGENCY and to WP:SPI. --IanDBeacon (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And I've just received another abusive email. Didn't forward it to you this time though. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah beat me to it, Ian. He's on call, apparently. I may not be here for much longer; don't know what bbb is up to, but it's a Friday night, so they're probably out clubbing. I know bbb is a big Prodigy fan, and it's been almost five months since Keith Flint's death. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, Adam9007, IanDBeacon - Don't worry, I'll be around and available to help throughout the evening should more threats, abuse, and other shenanigans occur. Just let me know and I'll be happy to handle the matter and take care of it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you believe someone just vandalized Tuscaloosa...as if that town isn't already battered enough. / Oh, it was someone from Marion--no wonder. At least Tuscaloosa has past glories it can pride itself on. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think my brother saw those messages and (or so I'm told) he thought I was winding him up! HA! Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Tehepicness appears to be going through articles removing and altering punctuation, piped links, and special characters, leaving the articles consistently worse off. They have continued doing this despite multiple warnings on their talk page. I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia, but you and your talk page watchers have more experience in making that judgment, so I'm reporting it here. If you have a chance to take a look, thanks in advance. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bakazaka, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the edits made by Tehepicness. I appreciate you for letting me know about this. It looks like this user hasn't edited since earlier on August 2. I can look into what's going on, but I'll need to hold of on taking potential administrative action until the account becomes active again. In the meantime, you're welcome to file discussions and reports at AIV or ANI if you feel that this is necessary. I'll see what I can't find as well. Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

They're back, doing the same pointless/disruptive edits. Bakazaka (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bakazaka! Thank you for updating me on this user's contributions. I've reverted the edits that the user made, and left a message on their user talk page in order to try and help and educate the user. Please keep me updated, and let me know if the user continues to make these edits. I'm hoping that the user will follow my advice and reach out to me with questions. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

And again, they're back. I reverted the edits that others didn't already catch. Bakazaka (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Bakazaka - I blocked the user temporarily for these repeated changes. Hopefully this will get their attention and either open a door for communication, or get them to watch their edits and review the guidelines that we've repeatedly given them. Let me know how it goes. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia

Why is this version protected? Santasa changed it in the middle of the night, and "his" version is full of Bosniak nationalism. He is not participating in any of the discussions or meditiation I've opened (at least to my knowledge), just playing edit wars. I'd asku you to at least change to previous version till the discussion end. Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Čeha! When applying full protection to an article, it's not appropriate for me to choose a revision or modify it unless there's a serious violation present on the current revision (such as a BLP violation or violation of copyright). I don't get to go back and pick a "good revision" that I favor or think is better and revert anything. I'd be choosing a side over another, playing favorites, and giving an editor an advantage over the other. That would be inappropriate and unacceptable behavior on my part, and I would be violating the protection policy and the community guidelines and norms if I did this. The dispute needs to be discussed between yourself and the other editors involved. If the other user is not engaging in the discussion or responding to your pings and attempts to work this out, let's reach out to other editors who have modified the article and get their input. This way, we can come to a consensus and get a revision published that's agreed upon... consensus doesn't require that editor's participation. If he/he isn't responding to reasonable attempts to get them involved, things need to move on without them. I personally agree that the article should not have content that's favoring or pushing a point of view that isn't neutral, but I'm bound by policy to be a neutral and uninvolved party when taking actions such as this. I hope that you understand... Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. The sooner that consensus can be reached, the sooner that the revision can be modified and such content removed. ;-) I wish you good luck, and I'm here and available if you need me for anything. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Tnx. Is there any way to speed up the process? Some meditation maybe? --Čeha (razgovor) 11:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Since this thread concerns me and implicating me directly, I am compelled to do what I avoided on previous occasion when page was protected and user panickingly started making threads like this, that is to make just one important point:

User:Ceha didn't start this thread nicely - they misleadingly implied, in their words: "He is not participating in any of the discussions or [meditiation] I've opened (at least to my knowledge), just playing edit wars.", it is actually quite the opposite. I started all but one discussion, and this one initiated by the User was not in line with the basic guidelines of the projects, especially those concerning conducts, nevertheless I responded to that one as well but without user further engagement. User did panicked when the page got protected on previous occasion, and instead of engaging issue with me on TP they started running around various notice boards, lamenting its protection in a way just like here - unconstructively - and since I am not too crazy I avoided, like everyone else on those threads, to engage there. So just to clear the air a little bit, in case user persists in seeking further assistance from User:Oshwah. It's quite telling this amount of panic and contempt.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Santasa99! Thanks for responding with your input and thoughts regarding this issue and dispute. If there are concerns about someone not participating or responding to relevant discussions and attempts to communicate, or concerns about someone going to different noticeboards and other locations to try and forum shop and have someone endorse their preferred revision, we can easily resolve this confusion by simply starting a new discussion on the article's talk page, and where you're both notified and aware of its presence, and where you've both given the expectation to work things out peacefully and follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol. :-) Ceha, I'm pinging you in my response here so that you're notified and aware of the plan. I just started a new talk page discussion here; can you both navigate to this discussion and join in so that I can help you two work out a solution? :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Tnx! I realy hope that something can be worked out, less Santa starting ad hominem "panic" accusations and similar behaviour. Cheers :) --Čeha (razgovor) 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Čeha - Keep participating in that discussion, and keep working with Santasa99 to try and find some common ground. You don't have to agree upon a revision that has all of the solutions present. If you two can at least find a revision that you both are okay with and that resolves some issues, even partially (and even if they're small), and that can be published for now while you two work out other details, you'd be off to a great start and you'd be starting things off on the right foot this time. ;-) Be patient, be civil, be respectful, and be kind. Make sure that maintaining a peaceful and friendly discussion has just as much of a priority to you both as the discussion itself and reaching a consensus regarding the article content. I'm here, available, and happy to help if either one of you runs into any questions or needs my input or advice - all you have to do is let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying, but the guy hasn't stoped. He systematicly removed any traces of Croatian people and history in the article, and worse yet he litteraly speaks about nothing, spining the discusion and accusing the others. I suggested going trough all the changes to see what could be compromise in it, but he declined it. Please help. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

For third and last time, page protection is the best opportunity for you to make constructive changes, because in this mode your every edit will be endorsed (or not) by administrator(s') approval, while not me or anybody else will be able to meddle or undo your edits. Of course admin who controls the process will certainly tend to adhere to WP guidelines very, very stringently.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Santa, have you read what Oshwah wrote? Current version is a random one. I suggested that we compare both versions of the article, paragraph by paragraph (with Oshwah help if possible), and find a solution, but you cling to your version of article?

The one which breaks every possible wiki rule, the one which talks about austro-hungarian conspiracy against not existant country at the time? Oshwah, please help--Čeha (razgovor) 00:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99 - What Ceha said above was correct; I kept the latest revision that happened to be published on the article, because it would be against policy as well as my duties and responsibilities to change the revision and purpose save a different one. We of course modify the revision to be saved and remove any serious violations of policy (such as copyright violations, violations of BLP, libel, and other things), but otherwise, I don't choose a revision that I think is "better" and save it. It would be seen by the community as 'playing favorites' and 'choosing sides' if I did so. Have you two reached any kind of agreement on the article's talk page? Anything at all? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, your patience is something rarely seen around Wikipedia. I understand your position perfectly, and I even have this proposition: I wouldn't mind if you retroactively change article to Ceha's preferred reversion, but maintaining and even lengthening protection for another, say, two weeks, but on one small condition: that you are willing to broaden your involvement just enough to understand issue better, in order to help in bringing it to its conclusion.

This could mean that you need to:

0) - essential - you would control any of the proposed moves, mergers, changes, based on WP policies and guidelines;

1) spend some time and read through all the discussion points on article TP;

2) ask Ceha, me or anyone else about sources (and verifiability in general);

3) check the state of two other articles on the same subject (Bosanska Krajina and Donji Kraji - yes, it's a blatant case of forking for reason only gate-keepers could explain);

4) - important one - you would than express your insight, and possibly: i) give us your suggestion, or ii) ask for suggestions, iii) or both, or propose something completely different;

I know that your involvement in this way would make Ceha more flexible, and I know that guidelines and policies would be your main compass, so I would accept any of your solutions, assuming you are at that point familiarized with most of the important points.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

One additional thing: as an administrator, I am guessing here, you probably have some option of summoning your peers, with Balkan history issues and editing experience, at your disposal. I wouldn't mind if admins like Joy (who is himself Croatian editor) and admin Peacemaker67 (almost completely devoted to Balkan modern history), or editor Surtsicna (who is devoted in editing and promoting East-European history articles to "Good") could accept to join in resolution of the issue.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I know this is humongous request, you have your own life beyond these pages, and on them you have your tasks as an admin, but matter is both very simple and unsolvable at the same time - simple, according to WP guidelines and policies (article was already merged once, but then created again in same form without any sources, so it should be merged again but this time with the deletion of redirect and restriction on new re-creation); unsolvable, with editor who doesn't know WP guidelines and policies, or doesn't care and /or accept them, or for whatever reason doesn't understand them.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User Santasa removed my response in this paragraph, I'll (in good faith) supose it was an accident. It's this edit; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOshwah&type=revision&diff=909913775&oldid=909905786

Personly, I think that it's very simple, and that it should be changed back to my prefered version, and anything on that can be discussed on page talk version. Without imperialistic conspiracy theories, and similar vordings...--Čeha (razgovor) 20:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course it was an accident. Discussion between two of us shouldn't go on and on on admin's page. Article page is protected for now and any subsequent revert wouldn't be appropriate, but I suggested it on very specific terms. However, I don't think it is a fair toward Oshwah to demand such involvement.

Now regarding "conspiracy" claims of User:Ceha :

- Austria-Hungary (see Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina) entered Bosnia in 1878 as an occupying imperial force and held a country for full forty (40) years as an occupier and for the good half of population (mainly for Bosnian Serbs) as a worst kind of oppressor and an enemy, which ended with an Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, which lead to WWI;

- Croatian pretensions (as well as Serbian) on Bosnia began to realize with Cvetković-Maček agreement deal, and came to a full fruition with a begining of the WWII and occupation by forces of Independent State of Croatia (or NDH for short) and its Ustashe as part of the Axis powers. And again with Croat-Bosniak war 1993-1994.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, first, the occupier was the Ottoman Empire, imperial force with permanent expansionist aspirations and permanent danger for neighbours and that eradicated the Christianity, especially the Catholicism.

Worst oppressor were the Ottomans. With the Austro-Hungarian rule, there was no more humiliating 2nd degree status for the Christians (Croats and Serbs). No more forceful islamizations that occured even in 19th century.

With the Austro-Hungarian rule, Bosnia and Herzegovina felt unprecedented quick development on all fields (equality of all citizens, infrastructure, education, media, traffic, healthcare, economy - industry, science...); Yugoslavia bragged with success that Austro-Hungary achieved.

Assasination of the Archduke has been the terrorist act. He was not killed because the "oppression" towards Serbs, but because his policy directly endangered Serbian territorial aspirations. Until 1903, Austria-Hungary was major Serbia's external partner, and since the coup of 1903, Serbia turned against Austria-Hungary and pro-English and pro-French.

Turkish Croatia was the name of Kingdom of Croatia that has been occupied by the Ottomans, and that's why the name Croatia appears on the old maps, before the end of Napoleon's times.[2][3] To take the crown of Kingdom of Croatia, Habsburgs had to accept the conditions that Croatian nobles gave (otherwise they would choose the another monarch) - the return of territories occupied by the Ottomans. [4] (map from 1791, by Austrian cartographer Franz J.J. von Reilly: Special Karte von dem oestreichischen and osmanischen Koenigreich Kroatien) Bosnian Eyalet was also on the territory of todays Croatia, as well as its part Sanjak of Bosnia. [5] [6] (Donji Kraji are just small portion of Turkish Croatia). That has been accomplished in several waves; or do You find the liberation of Slavonia, Moslavina, Syrmia, Baranja, Lika, part of Dalmatia and later Croatian requests for uniting of Kingdom of Croatia with Kingdom of Slavonia (done in 1868), Kingdom of Dalmatia (virtually in 1868), and Croatian and Slavonian Military Frontier (Frontier reunited in 1881) as "Croatian imperial aspirations"? The same was required for the territory liberated from the Ottomans.

It is wrong and unfounded to explain the events from 1526 (Election in Cetin), 1791 etc. with the events from several hundreds years later. Kubura (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

As user Kubura explained Santasa removed historical data with pseudohistory and conspiracy theories... There is no Bosnia at that time, there is Otoman empire which spreads through Balkans and Central Europe. Bosnia is not a state, but a province.

In kingdom of yugoslavia, all historical provinces were erased, only later Croats managed to unite few of them with Croat majority (two banovinas and nine counties) into Croat unit.Etc. pleasw Oshwah, can you help?

--Čeha (razgovor) 02:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Osh! (By the way? can I call you that?)

Thank you Oshwah for deleting my user page and giving me an explenation instead of just making me think you did it for no reason. You probably saved me from a bunch of stuff! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintmcneal (talk • contribs) 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flintmcneal! Welcome to Wikipedia! No problem; I'm always happy to help new users and lend them a hand in order to make sure that they have a good start here! :-) Sure, I don't care - you can certainly call me 'Osh' if you'd like. ;-) 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 don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or need any help, and I'll be happy to assist. :-) Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope you stay awhile! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem like such a cool person! Thanks for being on Wikipedia!

Hey Osh, do you wanna be "Wikipedia Buddies"? Lol. But seriously, you seem like such a cool person! Thanks for being my "Wiki Bud"! Flintmcneal (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flintmcneal! I never say "no" to making wiki-friends with another editor! :-) Your pal, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bye Oshio!

Bye Osh-Bud! I'll stop talking to you for now (unless you wanna keep talking)! Flintmcneal (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flintmcneal - I'm always happy to keep talking, but you should definitely go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial instead! It's going to provide you with a lot of important and useful information that you should know about. If you have any questions after finishing the tutorial, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Call me Striker!

Hey dude! BTW, could you call me Striker? It's the name of my dad's comic I found it in his sketchbook while cleaning the garage (also my spin-off) and I thought it would be appropriate since i'm calling you Oshio and stuff like that. (You don't have to if you don't want to). Also, do you watch the show Cheers or is that just what you like to say? Flintmcneal (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flintmcneal - Why not change your username to 'striker' or something close to it (since 'striker' is taken)? That way, you'll be referred to by that name by other editors, since it'll be your username. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

GlobalYoungAcademyTeam

Hoi, at Wikidata and English Wikipedia I have added many members of Youth Academies. The Global Young Academy is the international organisation. The objective of the user GlobalYoungAcademyTeam is to have a user that owns all the pages that will be on user pages on many wikipedias. Currently they are a [of my profile]..

So please unblock the user GlobalYoungAcademyTeam, it will be used for this particular purpose. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi GerardM! Thanks for the message regarding these two accounts. Unfortunately, these account usernames are not in compliance with Wikipedia's username policy. If I could rename them to something else (a username that represents an individual person, such as "Nick from Global Young Academy" for example), these accounts would no longer have any issues and I could then unblock them. Please let me know of two usernames that I can rename them to, and I'll be happy to take care of that. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

nighty night!

Gonna go to bed now Wiki-buddy! Goodnight! Flintmcneal (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flintmcneal - Goodnight, my friend! See you next time! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flint

Hi Oshwah, could I get your advice about our apparently mutual friend Flint, above? They're not vandalising anything, but all their edits seem kind of... high, as well as tendentious. Were that to continue, what'd be the right response? Of course, you can act independently; I was more wondering how I should respond myself if I came across something similar in the future. It's a kind of timewasting that doesn't fit the style of the boards I read most. › Mortee _talk 12:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mortee! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions, which I believe are excellent ones to ask. :-) Users who solely or primarily use Wikipedia as a social network, or a place to chat or communicate in manners like this, aren't collaborating toward the project's goals and its growth, and hence ultimately are considered to be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. This use of WP:NOTHERE is a somewhat catch-22 issue, though; accounts that are determined by discussion or other means to be not here to contribute to the project are usually those who are purposefully or intentionally causing disruption to the project to some level or degree. However, even users who aren't intent on causing disruption or harm to the project can be determined to not be here to contribute to the encyclopedia if their edits show that they primarily or solely use Wikipedia for purposes that are not in-line with our goals, or for purposes that it isn't for. We should always assume good faith when we encounter these users, and encourage them to go through Wikipedia's new user tutorial, and help them to get involved with a project. This usually resolves the matter without further problems. :-)

The last thing we ever want to do is bite them or (even worse) chase them away or show new users like this the exit door if they were simply editing in this manner because of their lack of experience and understanding. This "tendentious behavior" you're observing could be positive enthusiasm expressed by the user because they're excited about the project and their intent on contributing positively to it. If this is the case, we should never turn these people away. They are who will be here to edit and take Wikipedia in its next direction as older and more seasoned editors (sadly) retire or move on, and we need all the positive users we can get! As years go by, this kind of positive excitement and enthusiasm has become all but a rare thing to see around here, and it would be horrible of use to chase someone away who intends on adding that positive attitude as a member of the community. If worse comes to worst, we'll have to take action upon the user in order to prevent further disruption, but until that becomes even a thought, we should try and help the user focus their energy to helping us. This user reminds me of exactly who I was when I first joined Wikipedia in 2007, and had I been given the boot, I wouldn't be here talking to you, nor would I be the editor (or even the person) I am today. :-)

If you have any more questions or concerns, or if you need my input or advice on anything else, please let me know and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, I wouldn't want to bite anyone and I've answered them positively at the Teahouse. I was just thinking ahead, but in the process I was probably getting ahead of myself. Thank you very much for such a detailed and thoughtful reply, and your emphasis on being welcoming. You're entirely right and I appreciate the nudge towards being charitable. › Mortee _talk 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Mortee - No problem; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) Like I said, if worse comes to worst, we can handle the matter very easily and put a kibosh to the disruption. I try my damnedest to try and educate and help the user, and exhaust all of my available options before going down that route... but it's sometimes inevitable that some users will have to be blocked before it'll stop. Some people out there just don't want to accept our help, and would rather continue about their business even after being told that what they're doing is disruptive. You just have to do your best, play your full hand of cards, and hope that they'll understand and cooperate. If I can answer any more questions for you or explain anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know. :-) I wish you a great day and happy editing! Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

for summarizing WP:FRAM for your talk page stalkers. I was really looking for one. Wish we could talk about it more over a beer if only Kms didnt matter. DBigXrayᗙ 15:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray! Thanks for the pint, man! :-D I'm happy to hear that the summary I gave is helping others to understand the situation and what happened. I hope that we can move on from this, and that we continue to grow as a project and a community of users. We need to enact necessary measures so that we consider the WMF to be a valuable resource that helps the project and the community grow and improve, and not just some entity that we reject and shun from being able to stop harassment and abuse. If we fail to put a stop to the harassment and abuse that many users face, this project's growth will only be cut that much more short... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree on everything you have said. I consider Fram as a very good admin. Did WMF release the details of Fram's crime ? Do you as an admin consider the crime (or whatever is known of it) block/desysop worthy ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah ?--DBigXrayᗙ 11:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray! I apologize for the delay responding to your follow-up question here. I've been busy with work and other matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, requests, emails, pings, and replies that I received. :-) My answer to your question is no. Neither myself, nor anyone else in the community, have been provided or given any details or information from the Wikimedia Foundation regarding the one-year ban that they imposed upon Fram. Since they also applied a block onto Fram's account and removed the administrator user rights from it as well, I would assume that they did this purposefully and for reasons that made them feel that the action was necessary. Whether it simply be for security-related purposes since Fram's account would therefore now be inactive for one year, or because they felt that the evidence and findings were severe enough to warrant a desysopp... I don't believe that they actually made a statement regarding the removal of Fram's administrator user rights and why, and hence we don't really know the true reason they did so. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you, and I'll be happy to do so. Thanks again for the response, and I apologize again for the delay getting back to you and answering your questions here. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad that you beat the archive bot in reaching this message first. Thanks a lot for the detailed reply. You have no idea how much time you have saved for me and your talk page watchers by summarizing this lengthy case. We can now use the time to build the encyclopedia. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray - No problem! I'm glad that I was given the opportunity to neutrally summarize the events and help explain everything. :-) For the record, I don't use a bot nor any kind of automation to archive my user talk page. I do it all manually, and after I know that each discussion has either been resolved, been closed, or has gone completely stale. ;-) Please don't hesitate to message me if I can provide any input, guidance, summaries, explanations, or other kind of help. I'm more than happy to do so. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

YGM on a different topic. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray - I believe I just responded to it. Let me know if I'm not correct on this... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

FIST

Hello Oshwah. Are you familiar to this tool? It just doesn't work or I don't know how to use. Puduḫepa 16:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Puduḫepa! I've seen this tool a handful of times, but I've never run a search from it myself. It should search and locate public domain and free-to-use images on various sources, such as the internet, Wikimedia Commons, and other locations, and locate articles relevant to those images where they can be added in order to improve them. I tried running a few searches just now in order to test it out, but I'm not getting any results. I wonder if there's documentation somewhere that we need to find and read through so that we can retrieve results that we're looking for... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - AHA! I changed the option on the top of the FIST page from "categories of articles" (the option selected by default) to "articles", entered the word "tree" into the search box, and it came back with a result. It looks like we just need to select the options that we're trying to search for... :-) It looks like the search box is supposed to take a list of data, not just a single entity... this is also probably why we're seeing such little (or zero) results. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I have entered the same word (tree). The tool has found one article but does not specify which article is that. Puduḫepa 16:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - I think the search we entered was the article, and it's trying to locate free-to-use images for it... I think.... I could obviously be wrong. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks anyway:) Puduḫepa 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - No problem. Sorry I couldn't be of much help here... Let me know if you manage to figure out how to use it. I'd be interested to see what you find out. If you need my input or assistance with anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Will let you know when I manage to figure out how to use that tool. Happy editing(: Puduḫepa 17:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Puduḫepa and Oshwah! Possibly you should also fiddle with options in the last section of the tool's form and change the default choice 'List - Articles that have no image' to 'All articles'. Otherwise the example Tree article should not be listed as it contains images already. But that seems a secondary issue. The most important is after finding one image the search ends with a message 'There was an error running the query []' which seems to be a result of executing some empty query. I have no idea though, what the exact reason and context of the aparent failed empty search is. --CiaPan (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Yes, I am A Wikipediholic.  :-) --CiaPan (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa and Oshwah: now I found the message about 'one found' does not mention any image but rather article. And it changes to '3 articles' when I enter three page titles in the first textbox of the form. So this is a report on parsing the user's input and has nothing to do with actual search for images. --CiaPan (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Puduḫepa and Oshwah! The tool is described at m:FIST and there's also a link to it's author's User page there. Possibly he should be notified about the issue (if he is still active, which I didn't check). --CiaPan (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's not that new: a similar or even the same problem has been reported at m:User:Magnus Manske#FIST is broken in 2008. --CiaPan (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa and Oshwah: I have registered an issue at BitBucket:

https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/fist/issues/10/error-running-the-query

and notified the author at m:User talk:Magnus Manske#FIST error running an empty query?. Best regards. --CiaPan (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, CiaPan. Puduḫepa 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan - Excellent! Thank you for doing this! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa and Oshwah: Still no reply from Magnus. I have copied a message at his talk page at de-wiki de:User talk:Magnus Manske#FIST error running an empty query?. --CiaPan (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan - Interesting... I wonder why he/she didn't respond. Thank you for the update and for letting us know; hopefully you'll hear back from him/her soon. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Protect

Hey, I saw that you recently protected the article Yandhi due to frequent vandalism. I'm not sure if this is the right way to ask, but can you protect the article ASAP Mob too? There's been frequent vandalism from multiple editors adding "A$AP Donny" and the such as a member as a result of ASAP Rocky's trial in Sweden. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nice4What! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your request. It appears that the article was semi-protected by another admin since the time you left this message, so you should be all set to go. ;-) If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help you. :-) I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

AIV

Hi again,

I came across this, which is, although not technically a report in the usual sense, clearly an attempt to deflect blame and get me into trouble. Is {{Uw-aiv}} appropriate for edits like that? I think it's within the spirit of the warning, even if not the letter. I fear I may have caused further aggravation by using it in this case (although he was in a mardy mood anyway). Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! If you're a completely uninvolved and neutral third-party who happens to run into a report at AIV reporting a user for vandalism when they haven't engaged in such, then yes - {{subst:Uw-aiv}} (make sure that you substitute it, not transclude it) would be a perfectly fine note to leave for that user (other than just leaving them a custom message). If you're in the situation just like the one you linked in your message here, and where someone is reporting you to AIV, I wouldn't respond, do anything, or take any kind of direct or indirect action as a result of that report. Let someone else handle it. The only things that will result from doing so will be negative and a waste of your time. It'll give the user "ammunition" to load and wave around, and use to further push their thoughts around... "Look, he even left me this warning about my AIV report about him. This clearly shows that this user is hounding me and trying to push his preferred revision by calling my legitimate report a mistake"... It will also show the user that the report is "getting to you", and will encourage any troll to keep up that exact form of trolling (if such reports were filed in order to be disruptive). There's just no good that will come from you removing such reports and leaving such warnings if you're involved or if they involve you. :-) Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or provide any more input or advice, and I'll be more than happy to be of service. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wiki-Bud

So, I saw the conversation you and Mortee had about me and I promise to never discuss anything unprofessional again and to only expand to Wikipedia. It was a great day being friends with you, but it is unlikely you will hear from me ever again. Thanks for being so cool! Flintmcneal (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flintmcneal! The discussion above was simply someone asking how it would be best to handle an editor or user who only used Wikipedia for chatting and for social networking. So long as you also make some meaningful edits and contributions to this project, it's perfectly fine to message and talk to other editors on Wikipedia, and absolutely nobody is going to take issue with that. :-) It's when messaging and social networking becomes a user's entire focus and use of their account where we might take issue and express these concerns directly with the user in order to educate and help them. We would assume good faith, and we would work with the user to get them familiar with Wikipedia and proficient with how things work... Don't take the discussion above as a "warning" that you'll be blocked or punished if you don't use your account exactly like we want you to; take it as something to keep in mind, and should it become a problem, you'll know because someone will talk to you about it kindly, and offer to help you. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Harassment

Hi. Could you please have a look at this - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_shared_account/paid_editing? and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Henley_Passport_Index/The_Passport_Index. I undid one edit by this IP user that introduced a completely different style and understanding of things to the rest of the articles in the same category. I tried explaining on Commons why certain designations are used (binding findings of the European Commission etc.) but to no avail. The user exploded with anger making schizophrenic accusations that I work for one company, then for another one, then that I demand all articles must be first approved by private companies, that asking for respecting the MoS is demanding all articles to be the same, he is planning a revenge nomination for deletion of all articles I work on, he then copy/pasted the entire discussion on another noticeboard etc.etc. It is all completely insane and I really feel harassed at this point, hope you can look into it. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Twofortnights! Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the issues you're running into with an IP user, who obviously seems to be casting aspersions at you causing you some grief. I'm sorry to hear that this is going on, and I'll be happy to take a look at the discussions you linked me to here. I'm going to finish up with taking care of a few administrative backlog, then I'll take a look at the discussions immediately afterwards. Shouldn't be too long. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Twofortnights - I added a response to the ANI discussion here. I didn't see where this user "[demanded] all articles must be first approved by private companies", nor did I see where he/she was "planning a revenge nomination for deletion of all articles" you created or have been working on. If you could provide diffs and show me exactly where these were happening at, I would appreciate it and it would help me to be able to amend my response with additional statements and questions for that IP user. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking this matter. I've seen many bizarre things over the years but this one perhaps tops the list.

As for the two particular issues you've raised, the user claimed that "The other user is basically saying that no-one is allowed to change anything on any of those articles unless they are approved by Henley & Partners' [85] or Arton Captial's [86] staff," and went on to say that he thinks "that all "Visa requirements for XXX citizens" article [should be] be removed" - diff.

It can be a tedious job to keep all those articles up to date, but I've received many messages where readers expressed their appreciation and how interesting and useful it is for them, so I am happy to continue editing these travel related articles. Thanks for a quick response again!--Twofortnights (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Twofortnights - Ah, okay. That's what I figured, but I wanted to ask you about it here in case I was wrong and may have missed where the user may have said something on a different page. Good; don't let resistance, push-back, or even accusations such as these discourage or deter you from editing articles and pages in areas and subjects that interest you. :-) It definitely feels rewarding and satisfying to receive messages of appreciation and gratitude from editors of the community for your edits and your time; I'm happy to hear that you appreciate them greatly and that your heart is in the right place. No problem; always happy to lend a hand and do what's necessary to maintain order, peace, and civility on the project. :-) Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything else. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and supportive words. I really appreciate it.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Twofortnights - You bet. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sameold sameold

Care to close another case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Train Master? Thanks. Cards84664 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Cards84664 -  Done. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers, my friend - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

About my profile

How can I get to my profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Michaelchi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ronald Michaelchi - See my response to your message below. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with my profile

I want to be seeing my profile and chatting with friends and family Ronald Michaelchi (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Michaelchi (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ronald Michaelchi - Are you perhaps talking about your user page? Just click the link with your username ('Ronald Michaelchi') located on the top-right of every page on Wikipedia, and it'll take you there. You can also click here to go there. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. 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. Welcome to Wikipedia; I hope you enjoy your stay with us. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by an IP you blocked

[7] - false claims about a source (which I even quoted in an edit summary). Doug Weller talk 11:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller - I've blocked the IP user for two weeks for continued disruption to the project. I'm looking into the range as well in order to see if there's similar abuse by different IP addresses within it. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller - No problem. :-) Keep me updated. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No subject

Oshwah, you and I spoke recently about the page SpaceportCamden. I am the PR representative for this effort. WE have been experiencing a variety of disruptive edits from the user CamdenTaxpayer who is making biased changes for advocacy purposes. Based on your advice, I have abstained from undoing these changes to avoid "warring."

Any chance you can review these changes for accuracy, and/or prevent CamdenTaxpayer from continuing to edit this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsimpson81 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jbsimpson81! Welcome back! I'll be happy to continue to help you with the dispute with the Spaceport Camden article. :-) Have you tried to open a discussion with Camdentaxpayer about his/her edits to the article. I note that users have left conflict of interest warnings for Camdentaxpayer on this page, but I must also note to you that you have a conflict of interest with this article subject as well (based off the information you provided to me in your message above). Ideally, neither one of you should be making edits directly to the article, but should request edits be made to it instead. This way, you'll be able to help improve the article, but someone else who isn't conflicted with the article subject can review and move forward with the changes suggested if they're found to be necessary. I would suggest starting a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to discuss the user's behavior. Just be warned that users who participate there will look into both sides of the issue, and they may also find you just as disruptive as CamdenTaxpayer. Either way, I'd file a report there to have this looked into fully.

Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah - I stumbled upon this message board today and saw the above comment from Jbsimpson81. He has expressed concern to you about "disruptive edits" made for advocacy purposes. I make those edits. Yes, as a Camden County taxpayer I have a very different view of the spaceport project than JBsimpson81's perspective as the project's PR consultant, but I suggest that my perspective is no less valuable to Wikipedia readers than his paid boosterism. More importantly, none of information I post in my edits is untrue, whereas much information in JBsimpson81's editing is inaccurate or imprecise. Certainly, we both are guilty of emphasizing some information and de-emphasizing other. I understand that this message board is probably not the best place to debate, and I am open to suggestions. Salut, Camdentaxpayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdentaxpayer (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Camdentaxpayer - I appreciate you for responding here and for providing your thoughts and input. The problem here is that the Wikipedia article should not contain your "perspective" (or point of view), nor should it contain Jbsimpson81's perspective... the article should be worded to reflect a completely neutral point of view and not contain any commentary, bias, or "perspectives" directly from people who are closely involved with the article subject (whether it be financial, associative, emotional, political, or any other conflict of interest). If the two of you are having trouble keeping the article neutral and within compliance of policy, perhaps we both need to step away and let uninvolved editors modify the content. :-) Encyclopedias are not about adding the truth... it's about adding facts. Facts are statements that can be proven to be true using evidence. In this case, we're talking about the in-line citation of reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the subject... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet activity

Hi,Oshwash. I just wanted to point out that there's a sockpuppet whose account was blocked indefinitely and whose IP, 194.61.223.68, you recently blocked temporarily that is engaged in disruptive editing on the "Kala Kato" article. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:680F:91E8:654C:BDBC (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for letting me know about this. It looks like another admin has blocked the IP user from editing further; I'll take a deeper look into this and see what connections I can find between the edits by the IP user and others. If you have any more questions, concerns, or if you need additional input or advice, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help! I appreciate your message and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

IP:81.170.16.236

Hello Oshwah, Just to inform you that the IP you recently blocked 81.170.16.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resurfaced making inaccurate edits, on at least two occasions, to The Searchers and removing warning from their Talk page. They do not seem to be hear in any constructive way and takes no notice on reversions and warnings. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a further week by another admin, although has attempted to remove their blocking notice. David J Johnson (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David J Johnson! Thank you for letting me know about this. I'll take a deeper look into the matter and take care of any ranges or other networks that need to be investigated as well. ;-) If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help. :-) Thanks again! Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No subject

hi, I am new at editing Wikipedia, I need your help 203.215.185.73, 103.255.6.109 vandalizing the page "Amb (princely state)" and "Mir Painda Khan". How to complain about the IP address to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor839 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor839! Welcome to Wikipedia! You can report users who you've seen repeatedly add vandalism to Wikipedia by filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. 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. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Can you help me figure out if we should nuke Penis graffiti, despite the work Þjarkur put in? It's MRY, of course. User:Javierjoy is a perfect match with Fatterman, BTW; I don't know if MRY ever did anything useful in their life, but this may be their good hand, now retired. Ferret, thank you for protecting PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, no objection from me – Thjarkur (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Drmies! I hope you're doing well! :-) Sure, I'd be happy to help. The article was created as a draft by an IP user and moved to the mainspace by Þjarkur. Do we know if the IP address or range of the user who created the draft is connected to any recent or past LTA abuse at all? At first glance, I didn't find any edits to show that it was (even though the range is huge at 182.168.0.0/14; I glanced through the contributions of 182.168.0.0/16). What exactly is making you believe that this article should be nuked? Any details, information, and/or elabortion will help me to see exactly what you're thinking here, and make sure that I'm not missing anything... :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, it's a match with Fatterman, so that part is not in question. The only thing is, is it worth keeping. I don't think it is, despite Thjarkur's good work, and I don't want to reward the sock ("haha, I got a penis thing on Wikipedia"), but I don't really want to decide that by myself. And Javierjoy needs to be considered: I think it's a perfect technical match but the behavioral connection hinges on whether we believe there's good-hand/bad-hand editing going on. If we don't, it's not a behavioral match, if you understand what I mean. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Drmies - Ah, okay... That was what I was confused about: The match with Fatterman. I'm on the fence with you as well. I'd really hate to remove Thjarkur's good work, but I also don't want to reward the sock with keeping such an article. I personally side more-so with deleting it... if anything, it can be easily restored later if need be, and we're not giving the LTA any kind of recognition. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Just an aside, Fatterman is one of the sleeper accounts I was just referring to at RfPP. El_C 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

El C - Ah, good information. Thanks ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It's gone. And now for Javierjoy. Who else knows MRY well? Can you check the CU wiki? I don't have access/a link to it from here. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies - I would check the CU Wiki, but unfortunately I'm not a Checkuser. ;-) Here's a link to the CU Wiki here if you need it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping to be appointed to that role this year, though. We'll see... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry--I thought you had ALL the hats, except for "Founder". Drmies (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies - LOL. Nope, not all of them... at least not at the moment... but I'm hoping to apply for the CU role come this year's round of appointments. We'll see.... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Damn. I set up two-stage authentication, and I got a new iPhone a few months ago. Aaaargh... Drmies (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies - Ruh roh! There's an authentication service that lets you install its app on multiple devices and machines, and then let you grab an authentication code from any of them. I forget what the name of the company / service is, but there's a free one you can check out. Someone was talking about it on IRC a few months ago, and it looked cool when I checked it out... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I use Google Authenticator, but apparently didn't "save" or transfer the CU Wiki information. I'll find some supergeek to ask... Drmies (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies. You're talking to one right now... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 20:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Flounder Award
	For your services to our beautiful project, which are whispered to approach those of our resident founder Mr. Wales. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies! Thank you for the (very interesting) barnstar and the very kind words. I enjoy the dedication, energy, and time that I spend toward Wikipedia, and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. ;-) I appreciate the compliments; they mean a lot to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

ProtectorOfWorldSaves

I think this reply and the associated edit history calls for a block per WP:NOTHERE. I don't think time sinks should be allowed, even if they're polite. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chris troutman! It's good to see you again! I hope you're having a great day and that life is happy! I apologize for the delay responding to your follow-up question here. I've been busy with work and other matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, requests, emails, pings, and replies that I received. :-)

It looks like the account has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE (and even had their user talk page access revoked), so it looks like everything is taken care of now. ;-) Thanks for the message and for letting me know about this. If you see any more issues or need help like this in the future, please don't hesitate to message me (like you did here, lol) and let me know. I'll be more than happy to take a look and handle the matter. ;-) Until we meet again.... Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

New pages reviewer and AFC

Hi Oshwah, I hope you are doing OK and that life is treating you very well. I was given the new page reviewer right by Kudpung for 3 months. I have been reviewing new pages for a while. I also asked to be on Articles for Creation but the same administrator declined to put on the list. He thinks I won't need the NPR right at all, but I really want to review new pages for the foreseeable future. Do you think now would be a good time to ask for NPR right permanently? Interstellarity (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Asked with admin help template on my talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Interstellarity! I apologize for the delay responding to your questions here. I've been busy with work and other matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, requests, emails, pings, and replies that I received. :-)

I'm curious... why were you granted the new page reviewer user right temporarily? Why for three months? Did you request these user rights using the request for permissions page? Or did you request / receive them through other means of communication? It looks like Kudpung was the administrator who granted these rights to your account temporarily. Per what's stated here on the new page reviewer Wikipedia policy page, administrators can grant this user right to accounts temporarily in order to put them on a probationary period where their proper use of the tool will be under watch and review. This is most likely why Kudpung only granted them to you temporarily. If you're looking to request the new page reviewer user rights permanently, I would do so when you're near the end of the temporary time period that you currently have them granted; you don't want to make this request too soon (I see that your temporary access to the user rights don't expire until October 9), else you could be seen as "rushing things too quickly", which would give many administrators pause when making a decision. Another reason you should wait is so that you'll have plenty of edits and contributions to show the reviewing administrator that you have a good demonstrable record of using the tool properly and within compliance of policy. As you probably already know (lol), your contribution history will be evaluated when you request the rights permanently. You should wait until the need for the tools becomes apparent (I'd wait until the end of September before filing a request). This way, you'll have more edits and contributions to support your request than you would if you made your request now.

I'm not sure as to why your request to join the articles for creation team was declined, nor do I know any why Kudpung (apparently) thinks (and possibly told you) that you "won't need the NPR right at all" - you'll need to ask him directly if you're seeking answers to those questions. One thing that I can add is the fact that there are requirements to becoming an AFC participant; go through the list and make sure that you meet all of them. If you don't, this may be why your request for AFC participation was declined. :-)

Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you or provide you with any more input or assistance. I'll be more than happy to help. :-) I wish you a great rest of your day, and I hope that I was able to answer all of your questions and explain everything in an easy-to-understand manner. Again, I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may come up with. :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Many admins are now exercising more control when according/declining applications for additional user rights. Two main reasons: the rampant hat collecting that goes on, and the requirement to establish an actual need for the tools. The entry thresholds such as for example 500 edits/ 90 days, etc., are a guideline only and not an automatic access to the user rights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung - Thanks for the comment and for responding to the discussion here. :-) I agree that a high but fair degree of control and expectations should be sought before access to any tools (especially permanently) are given out to any accounts. I guess I haven't noticed this trend change, and I didn't notice that there was a small mention in the NPR section that temporary access is sometimes given... even though, like you said, it's not a policy but a guideline for each user right that's stated, and use of judgment is appropriate (if not encouraged) when handing the keys to user rights and tools. I pinged you in my response above so that you were aware of this user's questions and potential requests, as well as to ask the questions that I asked (even though I ended up finding the answers to them easily... lol). Again, I appreciate you for taking the time to weigh in and respond. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung and Oshwah: Thanks for your assistance. I will continue to review new pages until my trial is over, once that is done in October, I will apply then for the right permanently. Nosebagbear already helped me with this question before you did. See User_talk:Interstellarity/Archives/2019/August#New_pages_reviewer_and_AFC for reference. Interstellarity (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploads

Hey I'm new to this and am not really sure how it works. How do I create my own wiki pages? Sorry. It would be great if someone could walk me through it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merge8productions (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

@Oshwah: The articles Kat Von D and Davido are being constantly vandalized and need to be protected.Catfurball (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Catfurball! I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. I've been busy with real-life matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of my Wikipedia messages and emails. :-) I've applied pending changes protection to both of these articles for one month. If vandalism and disruption continues after the protections expire, please feel free to let me know by leaving me a message here, or (recommended) by filing a page protection request here. Reports and requests that are filed to this noticeboard will result in quicker action during times where I'm away from the computer. It's patrolled frequently by multiple administrators, and will most likely be seen and handled sooner than if you were to simply leave a message for me here. :-) Please let me know if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A problematic editor has returned

Hello Oshwah, maybe you remember me from a rather unpleasant edit warring conflict that took place in the article of Demographics of Mexico that took place from January to early March [8] with an editor called Hueyxocoatzin who was repeatedly removing several reliable sources without any valid reason (this the section I opened in your page back then to denounce it [9]). Well the thing is he's back and seems to be in the same loop he was back then, modifying data just because, disregarding what the sources say, and just like he did back then [10] he is again making intimidating threats about calling administrators[11], I opt this time for notifying an administrator early on rather than let the conflict grow at a point it becomes unbearable and hard to follow as it happened the last time and resulted on me getting sanctioned aswell. Thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

An absolutely disingenuous recounting of my edits. I and others have made efforts to reach consensus with you to no avail,[12][13][14], you continue your reliance on ambiguity and source misrepresentation[15] and that's ultimately not the use for an encyclopedia. I'm back now to continue this and await a response from @Oshwah:. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pob3qu3, HueyXocoatzin - I responded to the message left by Pob3qu3 on my user talk page back in February (diff, permalink). I asked if this was still an ongoing issue (I was busy and unable to respond until a week or so after the message was left), and didn't hear back from anybody. Looking at the links to the different discussions, it seems that this dispute has been ongoing and involving just the two of you and over many different pages. Have you tried following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and implementing other steps in the process in order to get these issues to come to a consensus? If there's anything (even small things) that you both do agree on, go ahead and implement those changes; there's obviously a consensus since you both agree on them. :-) If you're both in a continued dispute and completely disagree with one another on everything, then there's obviously no consensus in the discussion until either other editors weigh in and give their own input and thoughts on the matter, or other steps in the dispute resolution process are performed and (if done properly) successful.

You both should do everything possible in order to resolve the dispute and the issues without having it escalate to administrative noticeboards or administrative attention. Be calm, respectful, polite, and civil with one another at all times. Always use positive words and constructive dialogue in your discussions, and never resort to making chippy, rude, or sarcastic remarks at one another. If the dispute resolution protocol isn't working to resolve the matter, or if there's clear evidence of repeated or ongoing violations of policy without any foreseeable acknowledgment or corrective action from the party involved, or if the other party repeatedly resorts to clear and unambiguous remarks or comments that are uncivil and make clear personal attacks toward another editor without any indication that it will stop, then I would file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in order to have the issues discussed and handled. You absolutely must include strong evidence and numerous examples of repeated instances to support your accusations... diff links to the exact edits and behaviors are what's expected. There are clear accusations of POV pushing by HueyXocoatzin, as well as accusations of repeated removal of content and sources without sufficient explanation by Pob3qu3. You both just need to start over and on the right foot, and try your best to work things out peacefully and according to the dispute resolution guidelines. It's within your rights and your abilities if you wish to escalate the matter to the administrative noticeboard if you feel that it is necessary; just make sure that you follow the directions on the top of the page when posting a report there. I hope that things don't have to resort to such measures, but if they do - it's completely your prerogative to go through that process if you wish.

Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to help. I hope that I was able to answer your questions and point you both in the right direction. :-) I wish you both well and that these matters are resolved in a complete and peaceful manner. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Oshwah. Thanks for the reply. I have one question. Will involving a verified professor, anthropologist, or institution--that studies and teaches the subject--into this matter help resolve the dispute once and for all? The contentions I have are beyond a personal matter, and at least I don't have the time and energy to continue arguing this topic to no end. The content dispute is being misrepresented as something that's up to subjective interpretation by citing sources that don't explicitly state what's being claimed [16] and part of a conspiracy to hide "real demographics"[17]. I believe the only way consensus can be reached is if someone with scholarly knowledge on the subject edit the pages that revolve the subject [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. I think consensus shouldn't be determined by who is the most Wikipedia-savvy or has the most free time, it should be determined solely through actual academic consensus. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

HueyXocoatzin - I don't see the involvement of a subject matter expert to be a problem at all... so long as they reference reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the article subject to support their input and statements, sure... should be fine. Another thing that must be avoided at all costs is this person potentially citing their own work, experience, relationships, research, websites, or published works to support their statements. Wikipedia has policies against users who try to add their own or original research to Wikipedia articles. This is not allowed on Wikipedia; sources that are cited should be secondary (they reference primary sources), void of any bias or points of view (in order to keep articles neutrally worded), and has been subject to peer review and scrutiny by others. This is what keeps sources accurate, facts correct, and authors and publishers honest... and assures that we only use sources that go through all of these checks. So long as the subject expert complies with Wikipedia's policies, is a neutral third-party in the dispute (not hand-picked by you or someone else... you know what I mean lol), I don't see a problem with it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah Thanks for the reply. And once the expert has their credentials confirmed by Wikipedia, what should be the next step? Will they be free to edit the article in question--adding in new sources and information? Will they have to first go to the talk page to debunk the false claims and then edit the article? Will they need to keep arguing with Pob3qu3 if he cherry-picks a statement that leads to a perpetual cycle of the expert having to add more and more context to the cherry-picked statement to no end [26] [27]? Will this need to be repeated on the talk pages of the multiple articles that have been edited to present the refuted false information? I would think that their credentials would be enough to avoid the fruitless back and forth Pob3qu3 has had with other editors and myself, and the expert would most likely not have the time or interest to come back to continue arguing the edits. Though, if arguing the edits is required and the first expert does not return, I'll make sure to find another expert. Cheers. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

HueyXocoatzin - This expert you speak of would be treated just like any other user; he/she would be free to create an account and start editing Wikipedia articles and content just like anyone else would. So long as they comply with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they're free to edit and contribute anywhere they wish. Again, they're just like any other editor, and we'll hold them to same accountability level as anyone else; they're expected to avoid topics and article subjects and areas in which they have any kind of conflict of interest with, and they're expected to add content that's worded to reflect a neutral point of view and with reliable sources proved and cited in-line where needed and required. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Oshwah. To answer your comment about wheter a discussion is over or not, the honest answer would be that I don't know, because the discussion stopped for months before the opposing editor reignited it. Said behavior it's something that has become habitual in articles related to Mexico, specially in the article of White Latin Americans, on which every six months or so a new account appears trying to alter the percentages related to Mexico, in fact, the exact arguments that HueyXocoatzin is using have been used by other 2 accounts before (Wikiedro[28][29] [30] and Ignorantes22[31][32]) both of which were included in a sockpuppet investigation back in February [33] (not sure if I have mentioned this to you before) but it was dismissed for being too spread out. Anyway, I'll keep you posted if the discussion resurfaces. Thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

To deflect the fact that you're a Wikipedia dragon, you go on to baselessly accuse me of making multiple wiki accounts because your edits are fundamentally disagreeable... And just to clarify, the sockpuppet investigation you requested was dismissed for insufficient evidence on your part.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

Pob3qu3 - Goodness... I'm sorry to hear that the discussion went dark for awhile until it randomly started to pick back up again. That can be quite frustrating and lead to a pattern of ongoing "discussion loops" and "discussion rot"... where you lose memory and track of the many details of the discussion after it goes dark on you, and then you keep having to re-discuss the matter again when it picks back up... and the cycle continues over and over. When a discussion starts to go dark on you, my recommendation is to obviously give the other user a fair amount of time to respond to you. But after time passes, give the user another follow-up ping under your last response and politely let them know that you're still awaiting their response and their answer. If this goes to no avail, leave them a message on their user talk page directly and remind them of the discussion. Again, be civil and respectful toward them in your follow-up pings and reminders; the user involved obviously won't be very motivated to respond to the discussion if you go at them in an attack-like manner or with rude and uncivil words... lol ;-) Then, you know that you've done all that you can to keep them involved, and if they no longer participate in the discussion after that... life (and wiki-business) can move on, and you can proceed and go about your business regarding the dispute. If they want to pick it back up later, fine... just discuss the matter and don't be afraid to get a third opinion or ask for uninvolved input if the other user becomes pushy and all of a sudden wants things to just go their way. ;-) Keep me posted and let me know how things go. I'm available and more than happy to help if you need my input or assistance again. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, dealing with those irregular discussions loops can get frustrating, I haven't been able to expand to other topics as much as I would have liked to because I have to keep track all of them. Thanks for your reply, I appreciate the support I've gotten from you and other regular editors in Wikipedia. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Pob3qu3 - You're very welcome. :-) Oh, I almost forgot to tell you this... Another suggestion I have for you, should the discussion go dark again (and after you've attempted to ping and message the user as I described above), is to keep the discussion active by asking for additional eyes and input by the community. This way, the discussion can continue and be able to come to a consensus without the need for the user's active presence and input / agreement. ;-) I'm always happy and willing to help and support you any time that you need it. My user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me here any time you need or want to. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

Hey there Oshwah The boi is back. Doing what he does. Letting you know at your request. — Smuckola(talk) 11:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked. Muhahaha, I beat Oshwah for once! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@K6ka: I see you. I shall submit an URGENT ADMINISTRATIONAL EMAIL to Oshwah informing him that he is all oshwashed up because u r da 1. It is known! — Smuckola(talk) 20:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@K6ka: Furthermore, I submit that Wh0oshwahz's edit count of 415,592 is ludicrously high, probably a hoax number, and must be decreased. Please turn some of them into 'thank' clicks for my edits, which are far superior. — Smuckola(talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL. You beat me... this time. :-P Thanks, K6ka, for taking care of this while I was offline. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Revisit a BLP issue

Hi there, can I have you look into this [[34]], [[35]]. There is some improvement they are sourcing SOME of their edits but there is still zero discussion and this is another BLP bio. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hell in a Bucket! I apologize for such a delay responding to your message and your request here. I've been busy with work and other matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, requests, emails, pings, and replies that I received while I was offline. :-)

I agree that a lot of the content added by Kingant1016 wasn't adequately referenced by reliable sources as required by Wikipedia's BLP policy (the exact text is here). There did appear to be a good faith attempt at adding reliable sources to the article regarding the "homosexual matters", but I would've worded the content much differently than the way that it was added, as well as added additional sources to support the content. It looks like the content has since been removed from the article and is no longer a current problem. I noticed that other users have attempted to add unreferenced content to the article since then, so I've added pending changes protection to the article for a month. This should hopefully put a stop to the publishing of BLP violations by forcing all edits by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous users to be reviewed before becoming readable by the general public. If you have any more questions or need anything else, please don't hesitate to message me and let me know, and I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Thanks again for the message about this, and I apologize again for the delay responding to you here. I hope that you have a great rest of your day and I wish you happy editing! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Potential assistance

Hello, again! I'm only here to ask your opinion on recent edits from an IP, namely User:93.143.65.77, with a different editor other than myself. A fuller summary can be found here and here, but in short: The IP believes Bhutanese football is professional (highly unlikely), but hasn't discussed things nor added reliable sources to back up their claims - this has lead to reverts and disagreements, as you'd expect. That's not necessarily why I'm here though, I wanted your opinion on these edits here. It's difficult to tell, as they are speaking a different language, but it seems threats are being made. It could just be tit-for-tat nonsense, but wanted to check in case it escalates. R96Skinner (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi R96Skinner! Thanks for leaving me a message regarding this IP user, and I apologize for such a delay getting back to you... life's been busy for me these last two weeks. ;-) It definitely looks like the user was either trolling or just confused; removing the emoji icons and translating the text from their message on Snowflake91's talk page returns, "here you are and this, you are technically a robot, you do not exist because this is not a social network. there is no money so let's take mine, eh it can't but watch out for the Bhutanese army with the help of "Chinese" what they would say" [end of paragraph] "You are embarrassed enough by fake and wrong editing!" ... I think the IP user thought that Snowflake91 was a bot and was leaving a message to be a troll? Either way, it doesn't appear to be a clear or unambiguous threat of harm... I'd just let it go. :-) The IP user hasn't edited Wikipedia since August 13, but the contributions for the CIDR range of the network (which is very wide) shows ongoing and continued editing from different IP addresses (see here). Whether these edits are from the same person or not is something I can't determine for absolute sure without evidence, and something I didn't look into very deeply. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Thanks again for the message, I apologize again for the delay responding to you, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries! I didn't think it was anything serious, but thought to check around just in case something was there. Appreciate your response! R96Skinner (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - Sure, any time! Always happy to lend a hand if you ever need one. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In which case... :D Assuming it continues, would it be possible to have some sort of protection on the Raphaël Messi Bouli article? It's been bombarded with edits from IPs following the player's transfer, a lot of vandalism as well as those who don't know how Wikipedia works leaving it in a mess. It's controllable as it comes through, but as seen in the edit summary it can pile up quickly. R96Skinner (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - I've applied semi-protection to the article for two days. I'm hoping this will slow down the disruption, but if it continues after the protection expires, let me know or file a request at WP:RFPP. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice one. Thanks! R96Skinner (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - No problem! Give me a shout if I can help out with anything else. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC). 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.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket - Acknowledged; I'll be checking my emails today and will respond to yours as soon as I read it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

/* BBC IP - yet again!

Hello Oshwah, To inform you that 86.9.95.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emerged again after a one years block, making exactly the same unsourced/unexplained changes to a variety of BBC pages. They have been warned multiple times and have tried block evasion before - but seem to take no notice. I think another longer block is in order. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There also appears to be a possible sock in Nzggsvd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is restoring unsourced/unreferenced additions. David J Johnson (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock has been blocked by another admin. 86.9.95.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains though. David J Johnson (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ponyo has blocked IP for another year for inserting unsourced/unreferenced changes. David J Johnson (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David J Johnson! It's good to talk to you again! I hope that life is treating you well. :-) I apologize for the delay responding to your follow-up question here. I've been busy with work and other matters, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, requests, emails, pings, and replies that I received. :-) It looks like the IP user has been handled already, so I'll consider this matter resolved. If you need my input or assistance with anything, please don't hesitate to message me (just like you did here) and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your help and friendship are always appreciated. Best, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

David J Johnson - And yours as well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

About your last message

Hi Oshwah, I never visited Altitude (triangle) or any math-related wiki. So editing that wiki page is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.41.225.35 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for the message. :-) If you're messaging me in response to a warning that you received from me regarding edits that were made to Altitude (triangle), it's possible that the message was intended for someone else who is sharing the same internet connection and is on the same network as you. This happens often, and if you didn't make any such edits, you can just disregard the warnings you may have received or seen. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan

Hi. The ANI discussion about this user was archived without any admin action being enacted. I wanted to ask if something is being done about them. The pointy behaviour and spamming is still continuing, and latest edits include edit warring to force bogus chronology templates on Taylor Swift album articles despite opposition from several users, see here.—NØ 04:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi MaranoFan! I'm sorry to hear that the ANI discussion that was opened became archived without any administrative action being taken. Can you link me to the ANI discussion that was opened? I wasn't able to locate it. You can search through the ANI archives in order to look for it (just look for the search boxes near the top of the ANI page). This will help me so that I can read it and have a full understanding of what's been going on, who responded, what actions (if any) were suggested or proposed, and what maybe should've happened. I won't be able to answer your questions or provide much in-depth details or input without this information. Once I have a link to the archived instructions, I'll be happy to read through the discussion and try and follow up on the information and details added to the discussion. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Oshwah. Ad Orientem since put a 24 hour block on the user in question [36]. I’ll contact you should the disruption resume again.—NØ 04:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan - You bet; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting for protection.

Hello Oshwah! I just want to say that I want to ask you for a protection on the page Orinda, California. It's been vandalized by IP address and it has also been edit warred. I'm requesting you to semi-protect the page. Thanks! Have a good day also. - DumbFriesNub (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DumbFriesNub! Thanks for the message and the request! I took a look at the article's edit history, and I definitely see what you're talking about. There are tons of back-and-fourth edits and reverts that were being applied throughout the 13th of August, and again over the span of a few days at the beginning of August. The disruption and edit warring has since stopped and hasn't continued since August 13, so I'm going to hold off on taking action or applying protection at this time. If any vandalism or disruption continues on the article, please let me know and I'll be happy to take another look. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Require assistance

I have been trying to add a source that is linked on an official website to the article Brian Blair. A user is now Edit warring with me over it saying that WP:PW/RS says it can't be used. Which is not true and says nothing of the kind. I have tried to discuss this with the user on their talk page and they insist on removing the reference to the video citing WP:PW/RS. This is not the first run in i have had in the last 5 years with this user who several times in the past has reverted my edits only to allow another user with a user name reference the same stuff. I fell the user is targeting IPs and I have seen in the past that you are an admin who actually looks into things and solves the issues. If there is such a section that says that the reference used cant be used I will not use it again but the user in question has yet to provide any proof it cant be used. 2601:805:8205:7E0A:901F:10F8:CFDB:D528 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The user has now gotten the page locked from IPs as to take ownership of it agai, No where does it say on WP:PW/RS the reference I have provided on Brian Blair can't be used. The source is valid and is from not only an Official site but also the company who runs the official site. No where have I been provided anything that says it can't be used. Please see for yourself this is a valid video that backs up the retirement of the person the article is about and when it happened which can be seen here. I have referenced nothing that is unsourced or poorly sourced and was targeted as an IP and I believe that 100%. When something valid is shown to me that says it cant be referenced then I wont add it but the user has failed to do so pointing me to an article that has NEVER said it cant be used and I have seen used in the past on other articles. User has now reverted the edits yet again for the 4th or 5th time and now says its per WP:EL which also does not say a post from Facebook cant be used. 2601:805:8205:7E0A:901F:10F8:CFDB:D528 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

IPs using this facebook source which contravenes our WP:ELNO policy. Besides, the retirement date/year is already supported by the article's subject's "Official website" and the YT video in it. I see no reason to add an unreliable unverified EL which doesn't serve any purpose in the article other then taking up space. Unless the IPs have some agenda to promote their facebook pages, in this case "Chris's Web Designs". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

YOU said it needed more sources and even put it in the article it needed more and that it had to be something besides the official website, I have provided 2 different sources and you have had an excuse both times why it couldn't be used. you target Ips and have done so many times in the past. I'm not promoting anything I was providing another source that was posted audio and video that confirmed the exact date of July 26th of his retirement. You have linked 2 different articles saying that they say Facebook posts cant be used and neither article says anything about Facebook not being used, so you again lied. If a confirmed user did this nothing would have happened and you wouldnt have done this. You edit warred and violated 3RR and then got the page semied from IPs so you could do what you wanted with it. I did nothing more than provide 2 different posts from 2 different pages on facebook that are both linked to the official website for brian blair and you removed both different references and now you are claiming I am trying to promote a facebook page with nothing to support that i have anything to do with that page or company. So now you have not only targeted an IP who was posting valid references but you are now making false accusations. I have been an IP user for 5 years and this isn't the first time you have done this crap to me claiming the a source I provided isnt valid and then turn right around later and let a confirmed user post the same reference. Users like you are why IPs and new users are afraid to edit here and you clearly had an admin in your pocket as you violated rules and received nothing for it. 2601:805:8205:7E0A:901F:10F8:CFDB:D528 (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note for reference The 1st reference I posted was from the Official Page of the Killer Bees which was visual of when the retirement match was happening and the 2nd reference I posted was from another page that is for the company that does the website that was of a video showing the actual match and when it happened. So the accusations I am promoting anything other than the retirement match is a flat out lie.2601:805:8205:7E0A:901F:10F8:CFDB:D528 (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue here is more of a miscommunication. The issue isn't that the source being used is against WP:PW/RS, it's that 1 - the information is already sourced and more importantly 2 - links to Facebook and other social media accounts are not generally usable as sources except in really exceptional occasions. See WP:FACEBOOK for some more information. Realistically, I'm not sure why you would want to add this source to the article, it doesn't add much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Finally someone who links something that is correct, thank you Lee. If that would have been linked to begin with instead of false article links this wouldn't have happened. Fyl has said since this began it needed more sources which I provided and in turn they removed those references and they gave false links to articles that said nothing about using a Facebook post and then turned around and made false accusations with no proof what so ever that I was trying to promote something I have nothing to do with both here on Oshwahs talk and here I was simply doing as Fyl instructed me to do months ago and provide another source. As Blair isn't in the mainstream anymore sources are hard to come by and a post with video and audio that provide the exact date it took place was a good source I believed and would show valid information. This isn't my first run in with Fyl and in the past he has removed other valid sources because I'm an IP user but then turned around and did nothing when a confirmed user referenced the same thing and readded it. Again thank you Lee for providing the correct information instead of more nonsense.2601:805:8205:7E0A:EC5E:278F:C9A8:404 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Providing another source doesn't mean that you start adding facebook links, that too unverified. I was always telling you not to include Facebook links (WP:ELNO) and for finding reliable sources, keeping WP:PW/RS guidelines in mind. Secondly, that "Offcial Website" link is not Independent and you kept deleting the "better source" tag. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference, the article does need more references, but those references should be ones that cite the claims in the article that are currently unsourced (there's quite a lot). The other user here suggested looking at WP:PW/RS to find some sources (there's actually a pre-created Google search on there that's worth checking out) that would be both WP:RELIABLE and WP: INDEPENDENT of the subject. A lot of the current sourcing is unreliable or primary, but if you would like some help, drop me a message on my talk and I'll give you a hand sourcing the article properly (if we can find some sources) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I apologize for such a delay responding to this discussion. I've been busy over the last two weeks and I'm just now catching up with all of the Wikipedia messages, pings, requests, and emails I received while I was offline. :-) Lee Vilenski is correct with his input above. Overall, I believe that WP:ABOUTSELF explains it the best: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field". This means that we only accept sources from Facebook, Twitter, or other social media feeds if it's from the verified account of the person and the information is about themselves. For example, it would be okay to add a Facebook source to a BLP article about a person announcing their pregnancy if the Facebook account and post belong to the person and they're talking about themselves. It would not be okay to use a Facebook post or feed from another account or someone else, nor would it be okay if the post was in regards to information about other people or anything else. I also wouldn't recommend that editors use a social media post or feed as the only source of information when adding content to a BLP article. However... I think that these references are okay if they supplement other secondary sources that are independent of the article subject and confirm such information. This lowers the probability that the information is false and was posted by someone who is unauthorized or who hacked or gained entry to the account maliciously. Again, I apologize for the late response, and it looks like I'm late to the party and the dispute has been resolved. I just wanted to respond and add my input and confirm the correct information supplied here. If anyone has any questions or needs additional input or assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice

As my official adopter, you might want to be aware of this, although I'm sure you would've noticed it without my having said anything: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Flyer22_Reborn_accusing_people_of_bias_based_on_trans_status_+_possible_hounding. (I was actually going to ask you for advice about starting an ANI thread regarding Flyer, but someone else beat me to the punch.) WanderingWanda (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi WanderingWanda! I hope that your day is happy and that life is treating you well! :-) Thank you for letting me know about the ANI discussion; I'll take a look at it and see what input I can provide. :-)

Sure, I can give you plenty of advice regarding ANI, what you should do before starting a discussion there, and how to properly start one. :-) Before you decide to take anything or anyone to ANI over a dispute involving any content-related matters, you should make sure that you've done your upmost due diligence and have attempted to resolve the dispute properly first. Be calm, respectful, polite, and civil with everyone at all times. Always use positive words and constructive dialogue in your discussions, and never resort to making chippy, rude, or sarcastic remarks at others, or make the discussion negative or heated. If the dispute resolution protocol isn't working to resolve the matter, or if there's clear evidence of repeated or ongoing violations of policy without any foreseeable acknowledgment or corrective action from the party involved, or if the other party repeatedly resorts to clear and unambiguous remarks or comments that are uncivil and make clear personal attacks toward another editor without any indication that it will stop, then I would file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in order to have the issues discussed and handled. Make sure that you haven't engaged in the disruption, edit warring, or behavior issues that you're reporting... a very important essay you should read before starting any ANI discussion is WP:BOOMERANG. It's about "shooting yourself in the foot", and the section is specifically regarding users who report issues to the administrative noticeboards. If the community finds that you were the instigator or someone who also violated important policies during the dispute (think "two wrongs don't make a right"), you will be held just as accountable for your violations as well.

When filing a new ANI report or discussion, you absolutely must do two things: The first is to notify all involved editors that you've started a discussion regarding an issue or dispute they're involved with (there's a template provided that you can use to do this very quickly). This is a requirement that's displayed in big bold letters at the top of the ANI noticeboard page, and not doing this will definitely get noticed and draw negative attention toward you in the ANI discussion. The second is to include strong evidence and numerous examples of repeated instances to support all of your accusations made toward other editors involved. Diff links to the exact edits and behaviors in question are what's expected in nearly all new ANI reports. If you're reporting a user for gross incivility, the statement in your report better come with diffs to show this. Is someone pushing a non-neutral POV? You need diff links to prove it. You say that you've tried countless times to reach out to the involved editor and to no avail? Diff links. You should support your statements with evidence, even if nobody looks at it. It makes your ANI report and your statements verifiabile and genuine. Other than that, just remember to stay calm and civil in the discussion, and answer any questions that are asked of you in the discussion. Be truthful and honest, even if it means that you admit that you did something wrong or that you did something that you shouldn't have done. It's much better to be honest and say that you messed up and apologize up front than to lie or become defensive and dance the questions, and have someone find out and call you out on it. Any negative attention and possible ridicule made in response to your honesty will be much better than what you'd get from the community if you lie and are found out. Editors will look through your (and other involved editors') contributions and they will find the truth.

If you have any more questions or need any more input or advice, please don't hesitate to reach out to me here and let me know. I'll be more than happy to help you. My user talk page is always open to you, and you are welcome here any time you need or wish to post a message here. :-) I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, thanks for the general advice. I'll keep it mind if I ever have to file an ANI in the future. As for the one I linked you: it's already closed, so no need to worry about that. (All I'll say about it is that I think it could've gone better and it could've gone worse.) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda - No problem, and thanks for letting me know about the ANI. I'm sorry that it didn't close in the way that you believe it should have; at least it overall went neutrally for you. :-) I'm available and happy to help should you need my input or assistance with anything else... just let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Request

I will love you to help me, just wanna get my personal profile to be on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petsam06 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Petsam06, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for users to publish personal profiles or pages about themselves. You must keep in mind and remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place to advertise or promote things (including yourself), and it is not a social networking service. We maintain neutrality and verifiability by doing what's necessary to discourage users from editing any articles involving subjects or people that they have a personal conflict of interest with, and specify that reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the article subject are used to cite and support content. What you're requesting (a "personal profile to be on Wikipedia") is simply not something that can be done. While this site cannot accommodate your primary request, there are plenty of other external Wiki sites and locations that can. You can refer to Wikipedia's list of alternative outlet sites to find the place that you're looking for. :-)

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. I hope that you decide to stay with us, and that you decide to help contribute to this website as an encyclopedia. I'm more than happy and willing to provide you with tutorial and help pages, as well as input and assistance if you need any - just let me know. :-) Thanks for the message, and I hope that I was able to answer your question. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Iamotu usurp

Hi, than you for offering to 'usurp' my username back to the one I had before (Iatmotu). Does that mean that the new Iatmotu account will have the same history as the old one? Shhh101 (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shhh101! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your question. Unfortunately, usurptions don't combine any accounts nor any of the contributions from your old account into your current one (Shhh101); it only involves changing the username of your old account from "Iatmotu" to a different username (such as "Iatmotu old") in order to make it available again so that I can change the username of your current account from "Shhh101" to "Iatmotu". In the end, it just changes your username. It's called an "usurption" simply because it involves an additional step of renaming your old account to a different username first so that I can rename your current account's username to become that one. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. If you want to proceed and go forward with the process, let me know and I'll work with you to get that done as smoothly as possible for you. Remember, you're not obligated at all to do this... only if you want to. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll just stick with the new name. Thanks for the offer though. 17:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhh101 (talk • contribs)

Shhh101 - No problem. :-) If you change your mind or run into any other questions, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Archiving my talk page

Could you move my talk page to User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 10? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano - Sure,  Done. :-) I accidentally left a redirect when performing the move; I went and deleted it after noticing that I had done so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Hi there Oshwah. I think I have already awarded you a barnstar, but here’s another one. Thanks for all the support and help you have given me, you’re one of the reasons that I’ve continued editing here and you’ve helped me understand some pretty complicated stuff. Best wishes, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! It's great to talk to you again! Goodness... your barnstar means a lot to me. It put a smile on my face and it made me truly happy... thank you. I'm happy to see and know that the energy and time that I spend on Wikipedia makes at least a small bit of a positive impact upon other editors around here... even if it's only a few. I'm happy to be one of the reasons that keep you contributing to Wikipedia as an active editor and member of the community. You're a positive asset to this project, and you make a big different here. It's awesome to know that I've helped build you to become who you are today. You're doing an excellent job here, and we need you more than ever before... especially given the recent Wikidrama that caused a lot of anger and frustration among the community. It's people like you who will be absolutely key players among the community that will help build us back up, and it's people like you that we absolutely cannot afford to lose as an active member of the community. I'm here should you need my help, input, advice, guidance, - anything you need. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Thanks again... it really meant a lot to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say the same about you! Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - I appreciate that. :-) Until next time.... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Restoring a page

Good evening sir ,pls one of my contribution was deleted by you .Kelblizz , pls sir i would want you to restore it. Bigboss18 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bigboss18! Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the article you created and the request to have it restored. Unfortunately, the article content failed to establish a credible claim of significance for the article subject, which is why it was deleted under A7 of the speedy deletion policy. Aside from this, are you sure that the intended article subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of people? I sense that you're going to run into problems here in this regard, and I want to make sure that you check these things thoroughly and before you begin creating articles. This is important... you don't want to end up spending hours of time creating the article and writing content just to have it deleted per a discussion or under a criterion for speedy deletion...

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 I can answer any more questions, and I'll be happy to do so. Welcome to Wikipedia! I wish you happy editing, and I hope that you take off your jacket and decide to stay with us for awhile! We need more editors, and I know that you'll be able to learn the ropes and become a proficient contributor in no time. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User page reviewed

Just today, I’ve received a notification that says my user page, User:Power Plant Uranium, has been reviewed by you. I just want to ask, is my user page okay? Power Plant Uranium (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Power Plant Uranium! Yup! Else it would've been deleted. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks a lot! Power Plant Uranium (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Power Plant Uranium - No problem! Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything, and I'll be more than happy to do so. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay with us! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No subject

Hey Osh, I’ve come across a lot of unreviewed user pages. Is it worth reviewing them? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! Yes, absolutely. Reviewing the user creation log and going through the user pages of new accounts will quickly tell you whether or not the user is here to build an encyclopedia, as well as what their likely intentions are to do on Wikipedia (whether they be constructive or disruptive). Spammers will use the user page to publish links to their "awesome totally-not-a-scam website" (LOL), users and even LTA sock puppets who evade their blocks will sometimes crate a user page with attack pages aimed toward other users or the admin who blocked them, users who solely wish to advertise or promote something (whether it be themselves or a company product or service - see my essay on identifying blatant advertising) will quickly start doing so on their user page, and many other situations. I make it part of my patrolling routine to frequently keep an eye out for new accounts that go straight to creating a user page, as it will often uncover potential problems that are clearly shown in the content they add to it. Do know that many users who do create a user page in their first edits do so just to perform testing, or just to add a quick summary about themselves. That's totally fine, so long as they don't violate policy. However, taking a peek at what they added to it will easily reveal issues that they should be talked to about before they wind up finding themselves in trouble, if not blocked immediately for policy violations and abuse. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way... I know that you were just following up due to the discussion on my user talk page above, and I'm very happy that you did so. ;-) You did absolutely nothing wrong at all by adding your question to the discussion instead of starting a new one. I just figured it was best to move your question to a new discussion in case the user above needed to respond with any additional questions or requests for help. It'll make it easier for him/her to do so. ;-) I just wanted to let you know so that you don't feel that my decision to move your message was an implication that you did something wrong. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. What do you do when one of the cases explained arises? I know there is the contact a user option, but in the cases explained, the users will usually not listen. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, the problematic ping (sounds like a horror movie lol) caught my eye so I just had to change it! Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - If we're talking about user pages belonging to new accounts that were just created... if you choose to talk to the user about issues, violations, and concerns with their user page first, and doing so goes nowhere, just go about your business. Depending on the situation, the user likely has already abandoned the account (such as user page spamming accounts). Tag their user page for speedy deletion under the right criterion, report the username at UAA if it clearly violates Wikipedia's username policy, or report them to AIV, ANI, or the proper noticeboard in cases of sock puppetry, abuse, or other clear problems that need attention. I feel that it's better to take action and have them understand and correct the issues and violations as soon as they're discovered with new accounts than to wait and allow the issues to manifest. Please let me know if you have any more questions, or if you'd like me to provide any input or guidance regarding a specific situation. I'll be more than happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted the user page User:Dilip_Wagh

I'm not finding a valid reason for deleting the page User:Dilip_Wagh You are referring to as advertising while the page was intended to show case my profile and the proof of the statements. So, tell me how do I get back my page to be active?

Thanks, DW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilip Wagh (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dilip Wagh, and thank you for leaving me a message here regarding your user page and its deletion. I'll be happy to explain the reason behind the decision and the Wikipedia policies that are relevant to the deletion, as well as set expectations regarding the compliance of Wikipedia's policies. :-) Your user page was deleted under G11 of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion due to being an unambiguous attempt at self-promotion. We must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for advertising or promotion. Specifically, #4 of this section of Wikipedia's policy page on what it is not designed or to be used for specifies that self-promotion is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia. Furthermore, this section of Wikipedia's policy on user pages states that advertising and self-promotion is not acceptable content to add to user pages. Given the text and content that was added to your user page, it was unambiguously self-promotional and therefore was deleted in order to enforce the compliance of these policies. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the information I've provided to you here, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. I apologize if the deletion brought any frustration upon you, but Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines that must be followed, and your user page was not in compliance with the policies I cited in this response. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Dilip Wagh - I noticed that you re-created your user page with the same content that existed previously, and I have deleted it again for the reasons I stated above in my previous response. Please do not create this page again if it is not in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (namely, the policies that I cited above just a few minutes ago). Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

author kunal banerjee

i am an author and has written 8 academics book and i am a city icon in jamshedpur. how can i make myself available in wikipidea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:88F:3115:0:0:161B:D0B1 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions! When you ask about "making yourself available" in Wikipedia, are you asking how you can join and contribute to this project as an editor? If so, that's easy! You can join and start helping us right now! I highly recommend that you create an account for yourself, and then go through Wikipedia's new user tutorial and complete the entire list of walkthroughs and guides that are listed there. After you've done this, you should have a basic level of knowledge to be able to find your way around the website, join WikiProjects and groups that focus on subject areas and topics that interest you, and start editing articles and content in order to improve and expand them. :-)

If you meant something different with your question, please let me know. I want to make sure that I fully and completely answer your questions and help you with anything that you need. I hope that you decide to join us as a contributor and that you become a long-term experienced editor on Wikipedia. It's a truly fun, rewarding, constructive, and impactful way to dedicate any time that you can spare and toward volunteering with a project that makes such a significant impact around the world. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI: 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57

Look, I don't understand why ip edits keep getting reverted on ANI, but let me pick up the ball here and help this guy out. The reply you posted in this section is meaningless. Why? The section was opened BY the IP editor in the title. He simply copy/pasted the warning on his/her talk page and pasted it onto ANI. It's not an actual case opened by an editor trying to get help, it's an ip editor vandalizing the page. If you want to do something about it, you'll have to deal with the editor, not just reply to a bogus section. Hopefully this message will actually get to you instead of someone reverting simply because I'm an ip editor myself... 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Don't worry, I'm not going to revert your message here... :-) Okay, I'll look into this matter further. I felt that the IP user was adding CSD templates and being disruptive, which is why I posted that comment seconding Decltype's response to the ANI discussion. I appreciate you for expressing your thoughts and input on my user talk page here; I absolutely believe in the principle that anonymous IP editors are humans too, and I implement this principle in the edits and contributions I make, and the administrative actions that I take on Wikipedia. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I replied in the section. It appears the editor has been blocked for 3 months anyway, so it's moot now. I just wish editors wouldn't be so quick to revert ip editors, especially if it's not vandalism. Just because I don't register an account doesn't mean what I say is invalid. Thank you for listening. 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Also as a quick FYI, Decltype's response was made ON the ip editor's talk page so he probably has no idea you replied, or that he's even a party to the ANI filing. No one who was involved does. The editor literally just copy/pasted his talk page onto ANI. 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree; I also wish that editors would not add bias to their thoughts regarding edits from anonymous users and make the assumption of bad faith with the same edits from anonymous users than if they had been made from Wikipedia accounts. Anonymous users are exactly the same as users who use accounts to edit, and they should be treated with the same level of respect as users who use accounts to edit, and their edits be given the same assumption of good faith as well. Thank you for providing the additional information and thoughts; I understand that the IP user has been blocked, but I'll take a look into the matter and make sure that the actions taken upon the IP user reflect the reasons specified in the block. I hope that you have a great rest of your day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I was aware that the IP pasted the contents of his talkpage to ANI, but I figured there would be no point in formulating a response as he was going to be blocked anyway. I also second Oswah's comments above. I don't disregard edits just because they were made by an unregistered user. Regards, decltype (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Having known and worked with Decltype for some time, I also believe that Decltype treats all users the same and does not automatically treat a user dismissively or make the assumption of bad faith on their part simply because the editor in relation is an anonymous user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Abdullah Tahiri

Hi. I've been working at WP:UAA and passed on User:Papa Stalin love wourkourpedoura. I'm not entirely sure their edit at Abdullah Tahiri was malicious. From what I can tell - from the article and a quick Google search, Tahiri was a member of the Kosovo Liberation Army ("an ethnic-Albanian separatist militia that sought the separation of Kosovo from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Serbia during the 1990s and the eventual creation of Greater Albania due to the presence of a vast ethnic majority of Albanians in the region").

"Tahiri organized his fellow citizens around his ideology of freeing Kosovo from Serbian influence" seems more likely in that case than "Tahiri organized his fellow citizens around his ideology of freeing Kosovo from Albanian influence". --kingboyk (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns regarding the edits made by Papa Stalin love wourkourpedoura to the Abdullah Tahiri article. I just saw that the changes made were not supported with any references, and I thought that changing the word 'demonstration' to now say 'protest' might be potentially problematic in that it implies a point of view that isn't neutral. If you believe that the changes made by this user were justified and correct, please feel free to revert my actions and restore the content. I apologize if my edit caused any confusion or frustration; I simply thought that the changes were potentially problematic. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I quite understand; it is confusing and I'm not 100% sure in my analysis, but that's not your fault :) Your edit certainly hasn't caused any frustration, so no apology needed!

Thanks for the reply. I'll sleep on it, and have another look tomorrow. If it still appears to me that the edit was correct (notwithstanding that the editor was rightly blocked due to the trolling username) I'll undo with your blessing. Thanks again - I really appreciate it. --kingboyk (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Kingboyk - No problem! Always happy to lend a hand! ;-) If you decide that the content that I reverted should stand, go ahead and revert my edit; you don't need my approval first... well, I guess by saying that, I technically give you my approval. LOL, you know what I mean... just go ahead and revert it. :-) Please don't hesitate to message me if I can do anything else for you, and I'll be happy to help in any way possible. :-) Cheers, my friend - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This article settled it for me. Thanks again - it was a pleasure speaking with you. --kingboyk (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Kingboyk - Cool deal; I'm happy that we were able to figure out the best solution. It was a pleasure speaking to you as well, and please don't hesitate to message me here if I can be of assistance with anything in the future. My user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message and comment here any time you need or want to. :-) I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. Until next time..... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Another Life (TV series)

Hi, I'm a new editor and I notice Another Life is semi-protected. I'd like to rewrite the Synopsis for Another Life. The current Synopsis is actually a synopsis of episode 1 of the show. Here is my proposed synopsis:

Another Life opens with the arrival on Earth of Möbius strip-shaped flying objects, which when they land, crystal-encrusted menhirs seem to self-construct or “grow” from them. Erik Wallace (Justin Chatwin) is a scientist employed by the United States Interstellar Command who is tasked with figuring out how to communicate with the alien monolith that has landed in the United States. However, this task proves difficult and so far unsuccessful. Wallace’s wife, Captain Niko Breckinridge (Katee Sackhoff), is tasked with taking the spaceship Salvare and its crew to find the origin of this sophisticated alien object.

What do you think? Slowmusketeer (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Slowmusketeer! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you joined the project and that you're here to help grow and improve Wikipedia. :-) Skimming through the content you proposed above, I don't see any obvious issues or red flags and it looks good to me. In order to be able to edit the article, you can do two things: You can either create an edit request so that someone else who has the ability to edit the article can add it for you, or you can file a request to have the article's protection level lowered or removed so that you can just edit the article and add it yourself. Either option will work just fine and (so long as no issues are found) will result in the content being added to the article. Just add the content you provided here to your request, and you should be good to go. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or provide any more input or assistance for you, and I'll be happy to help! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah. Slowmusketeer (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Slowmusketeer - No problem; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Hi CAPTAIN RAJU! Thank you very much! I totally forgot that it's my "adminship anniversary"... wow, three years already. Time flies! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC). 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.

___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Acknowledged; will be checking my emails tonight when I'm home and I will respond to you then. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see the new note. Thanks.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 01:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Acknowledged; will read and respond to your message tonight. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

Please help me find the original in your archives ;) - I have no time, getting ready for singing THE concert tomorrow (see my talk)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt! The diff to the original you're looking for is here, and it's listed on my user talk page archives here. ;-) Thanks for the message and the anniversary reminder! It means a lot to me, and I appreciate it greatly. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, - wow that was fast! Sorry, I looked the wrong year, and somehow the search function wasn't too helpful. Any comments to the peer review or just corrections to the article greatly appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - No problem! That search function we have can definitely use some improvements for sure; I find myself not finding exactly what I'm looking for as the top result, even though I searched for the exact text. Oh well... Sure, I'll be happy to take a look at it for you and offer any help that I can! Give me some time to get some important tasks done first, and I'll definitely take a look afterwards. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

A question for ya

Hey, yo! This is ThatOneGuyIncognito writing to ya, and whatever happened to my user page!? I just wanna ask you nicely, by the way. --ThatOneGuyIncognito (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ThatOneGuyIncognito! Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that your user page was deleted was because much of it seemed to be written in order to socialize; it wasn't Wikipedia-related. The main issue was that you encouraged people to view and join your Twitter feed, which isn't a Wikipedia-related topic. The first part of your user page before that seemed just fine. We typically keep eyes out for new users who create user pages immediately after creating their account and as their first edit... mainly due to the fact that a significant portion of them misuse the page in order to advertise or promote, host or add content that's not Wikipedia-related, or violate other user page policies or guidelines. You're free to re-create your user page, but I strongly recommend that you avoid linking to any of your other social media or personal pages or information. One reason is in order to keep your personal information and privacy safe. Many people who added this information wish that they hadn't done so later. I'd recommend that you avoid doing this, and for many reasons. :-)

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 I can answer any more questions for you, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Thanks again for your message, and I wish you happy editing! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Aw, bugger! Sorry, that's my error to misuse it. I'm just a nice dude and I'm not rude, yo! --ThatOneGuyIncognito (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ThatOneGuyIncognito - No problem! You're brand new here, and nobody is going to go after you for making mistakes in good faith and doing so unintentionally. :-) Go through that new user tutorial I linked you to above, and you'll be given a lot of good and important information and tutorials to help you quickly learn the basics and how everything works around here. If you have questions about anything after going through and completing the entire tutorial, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! English is my ONLY language I totally understand, as you may know. I'm a grown-up, as I would like to brag. For your information, I created my OWN Twitter account y'all wanna follow me, and it's [REDACTED - Oshwah] ! Catch ya! ;) --ThatOneGuyIncognito (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my error again!

I do NOT mean to reveal my Twitter account, but I'm TOO important to be banned from Internet. I wanna prove myself as a good guy, yo! I'm GUY INCOGNITO, by the way. Just wanted to be nice with y'all and you follow me there on Twitter! I'll be famous, especially here on Wikipedia, yo! ;) --ThatOneGuyIncognito (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ThatOneGuyIncognito - I hope that you do become a well-known and highly respected editor on Wikipedia. So long as you follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take feedback well when others message you about issues or mistakes, remain civil and positive in your messages, comments, and responses to other editors at all times, and you refrain from edit warring and other disruptive behavior... you'll be just fine, and you won't run into any trouble. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No subject

Why did you just delete my page that I just made a few minutes ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms Jay DaSilva (talk • contribs) 14:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ms Jay DaSilva, and thank you for leaving me a message here regarding your user page and its deletion. I'll be happy to explain the reason behind the decision and the Wikipedia policies that are relevant to the deletion, as well as set expectations regarding the compliance of Wikipedia's policies. :-) Your user page was deleted under U5 of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion due to containing content that is not Wikipedia-related, and due to also appearing to be an attempt at self-promotion by discussing your career. We must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for advertising or promotion, nor is it a place for hosting content or the engagement in social networking. This section of Wikipedia's policy on user pages lists the content that does not belong on user pages, and will help explain the reason for deleting your user page in-depth. New users who immediately create a user page about themselves and who don't contribute at all to other places (such as articles or Wikipedia-related discussion) risk having their user pages deleted for these reasons. It's done in order to enforce these policies and principles, and help guide users toward contributing to the encyclopedia rather than just "building a profile page", which Wikipedia is not for. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the information I've provided to you here, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. I apologize if the deletion brought any frustration upon you, but Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines that must be followed, and your user page was not in compliance with the policies I cited in this response. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m not self promoting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms Jay DaSilva (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ms Jay DaSilva - I appreciate the explanation. What is your user page intended to do? What projects and articles do you plan on editing or contributing to on Wikipedia? Is there a specific reason as to why you're here? Is there anything that I can help you with? Have you gone through Wikipedia's new user tutorial yet? Please let me know if I can help you with anything, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2600:1008:B144:86C3:A173:1521:E317:9BB7

Hi Oshwah, @Kuru: blocked this IP but they do not appear to still be active today and the IP has started making personal attacks on their talk page so I am thinking their talk page access should be revoked. Do you mind taking a look? S0091 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No need. Kuru handled it. S0091 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi S0091! Cool, thanks for letting me know that it was taken care of. Otherwise, I would've been happy to take care of it. If you need my assistance like this in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you change your signature?

It looks different to me for some reason. I'm guessing you changed your signature in some way, the colours maybe? Or maybe I'm just forgetting what your signature actually looks like. Clovermoss (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss! Nope, my signature hasn't changed at all. I've been using the same one that I created... oh man... 10 years ago? It's been the same since the beginning. ;-) I hope someone isn't going around trying to impersonate me again (usually an LTA). That hasn't happened to me for awhile now (surprisingly), but it used to happen all the time. Ha, there was even one instance where the LTA created an impersonator account with a username close enough to mine, that people thought that his shenanigans (going around giving bad warnings, threats, etc with my signature) were actually from me. I received a good ear-load from a group of people on my user talk page until they collectively realized that it was an LTA and not me.... LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha, there was even one instance where the LTA created an impersonator account with a username close enough to mine, that people thought that his shenanigans (going around giving bad warnings, threats, etc with my signature) were actually from me. I received a good ear-load from a group of people on my user talk page until they collectively realized that it was an LTA and not me.... LOL I remember: was it Oshwash by any chance? Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Yeah, I think it was! XD ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It was the opposite for me: when someone impersonated me, they were going around giving barnstars! Adam9007 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - HA! Good times! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)