User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-09

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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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

IP vandalism

The IP range 2600:8805:8880:2EE:0:0:0:0/64 (talk) was doing the same edits as the range you blocked earlier, 2601:3C7:8302:5F38:0:0:0:0/64 (talk). I thought you should know, and I assume they will be back soon based on their editing style. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wallyfromdilbert! Thanks for the message and thank you for letting me know about the IP range you've spotted that was continuing the same shenanigans as the first range that I blocked. I just took a look at both ranges you listed to make sure that they've been handled, and I'm happy to see that they've recently been blocked for three months. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you see any more issues like this that I need to look into, and I'll be happy to take a look. The recommended thing to do, however, is report them (or any other user who engages in repeat vandalism or disruption) to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This noticeboard is patrolled by numerous admins (including myself), who will likely be able to respond and handle the issue faster - especially during times where I'm busy, away from the computer, or offline. ;-) Thanks again for the message, I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and advice. I initially messaged you since they seemed to have stopped, and so I just wanted to put them on your radar for the future. I didn't know if an AIV report would be appropriate since the vandalism did not seem to be ongoing, but I eventually reported one IP on the range to AIV when they came back a few days later. I'm still trying to understand how IP ranges work so that it is easier to identify and report vandalism. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert - Ahh, got'cha! That makes sense, and no worries at all. I'm just used to mentioning AIV to others here; call it "second nature" on my part. ;-)

A range is simply a group of IP addresses with a common group of "blocks" or "numbers" as one another. Think of it as if you're pulling a root out of the ground and six carrots pop out attached to that root. You pulled one root from the ground, but a bunch of carrots are grouped together to that one root. We typically search for, examine, and handle IP ranges that belong to the same network. An easy example would be 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3... The two "carrots" are the ending blocks with the '2' and '3', and the root would be the "192.168.1" part. Easy! :-D

We block ranges (or groups of IP addresses) for many reasons - usually due to somebody causing disruption that is repeatedly changing their IP address (whether they're doing so purposefully or because it's changing incidentally due to the network or environment). Most common IP address hopping you might see are from users on cellular / wireless / LTE / data networks and from devices that move from tower to tower, or disconnect and reconnect quickly. We obviously have to be careful, because blocking groups of IP addresses can often mean that editors who happen to share that same IP range will be included, and that's what we try to avoid doing whenever possible. We want to block the disruptive user and have nobody else be affected whenever we can do so.

Let's start with a simple example... Let's say that I need to block anyone from IP address 192.168.1.XXX (each block, or "XXX", goes from 0 to 255). This example is just an IP range typically set by home routers by default and you won't see this range as public-facing, but this will make things easy... lol. We'll just stick to IPv4 for now... ;-) Anyways... we want to block everyone from 192.168.1.XXX, or all IP addresses from 192.168.1.0 to 192.168.1.255... because someone in the same parent network (where the "192.168.1" part belongs to the network, and the "XXX" part is given out to each child network or device) is being disruptive and blocking one IP didn't put a stop to it. He hopped from 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.43 and kept adding that same disruption. Whelp, that sucks... I'm obviously not going to apply 256 blocks one-at-a-time, because whose got time for that?!! This is where range blocking becomes quite convenient for us... ;-) Instead of applying 256 single IP blocks (yuck!), I can go and enter "192.168.1.XXX" (not actually that exact text lol... we'll get to that in a moment) into the "block user page", and it'll know that I'm referring to all IP addresses that start with "192.168.1", and anything after that... :-)

Now, you may have seen that range blocks look something like this: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/YY (where there's an IP, a slash, then a number after it)... which will look very weird to the typical user. What you're seeing is the CIDR notation of how we tell the MediaWiki software the exact group of IP addresses to block. You give it a starting IP address, then the "length" of the range that this block is going to be slapped onto. What you need to know is that the numbers in each IP block (between the decimals) that you typically see are just the short-hand way of displaying to humans what each computer or device actually uses. To us, 192.168.1.1 is much easier to read in our heads quickly than 11000000.10101000.00000001.00000001 (the actual way that network devices read it, which is binary, or 0's and 1's). Each block goes from 0 - 255, meaning that each block is exactly 8 bits long. The "/YY" part you see in IP range blocks is simply the number of bits, or how much of the IP is included as the "root" (thinking back to the "carrot from the ground" analogy). Let's go back to the example! I'm blocking 192.168.1.XXX... the "root", or common part of the IP that the range has in common is "192.168.1". Since each address block is 8 bits long and I want to block everything after the first three blocks, I would enter "192.168.1.0/24" into the "block user page" to block that range of IP addresses.

I touched a bit more on CIDR notation in a previous response I made on my user talk page a few months back. You're welcome to read it from my archive page by clicking here. I know that if you're like most other users I've helped with IP ranges and blocking, the concept of "ranges" is the part that's understood... it's the CIDR notation part that you see in each block log that looks weird and is confusing... If you feel that way, don't feel alone... You'll get the hang of it after you give it some reading and thought. :-)

I hope this lengthy response was helpful to you. I tutor and teach new users quite a bit, and have done so (both here and off-wiki) for many years. :-) If you have any more questions or if I can be of any more assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this response! It has been very helpful. I think I will have a few questions, but I want to take some time to read over everything you have provided again and look around a little myself. I really appreciate you taking the time to help out newer users like me. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert - No problem! Always happy to help! Sure, if you run into any questions, you know where to find me... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Block

I noticed you blocked Biziwe as a vandalism only account. I don't see such sign that the user vandalized Wikipedia. I'm not saying I disagree with the block, I think a better reason for blocking the account is not here to build an encyclopedia. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity - I think you're right; WP:NOTHERE would've been better to use for that user's block. I'll go replace the notice and the block reason right now. Thank you for messaging me and for expressing your thoughts and opinion regarding my actions. I appreciate it very much, and I'll always encourage and welcome criticism from others. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hello, I’ve noticed you on a few K-pop related articles and in the category of administrators willing to delete with revision deletion requests. Could you please delete two revisions from the recent history of N.Flying’s account? (one and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N.Flying&diff=913579363&oldid=913578881 two) the user replaced a reference with what looks to be an illegal website to download music. I wasn’t sure if this was appropriate for the copyvio-revdel template so I thought asking an administrator directly would be best. Thanks, Alex (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alexanderlee! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your request. Looking at the links and the description you gave here, I believe that they fall into being "spam links", which is specifically listed here as not being eligible for revision deletion. Per policy, I'm only allowed to hide these revisions if the link navigates readers to a page or site that disparages or threatens someone or something, is grossly offensive ("shock sites" being an example), or is malicious - meaning that it distributes viruses or malware, uses software or browser exploits or vulnerabilities to attack computers or software, or exists to scam, defraud, or deceptively engage in theft or criminal activity (phishing sites being an example)... stuff like that. Sure, tThe link sounds like it is distributing copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder...... well, actually... now that I think of the link that way......

Okay, sorry about that. Feel free to ignore the text that I struck out above... lol ;-) I was typing out my train of thought when I realized that the diffs you listed should be revision deleted... it falls under the spirit of the RD1 criterion, so I'm going to hide them. :-) Thanks for the message and for letting me know about them, and feel free to message me again if I can be of assistance with anything else in the future. I'll be more than happy to help! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Alexanderlee -  Done. I apologize for the stupid-complex responses I gave above. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Alexanderlee - Oh, I forgot to mention this when I responded to your message above: If you have revision deletion requests in the future, you're always more than welcome to get in touch with me and let me know about it so that I can resolve the matter - just make sure that you email them to me privately. Leaving revision deletion requests here, where it's completely public, will result in significant attention being brought to the revisions. At the time of this writing, 981 users actively watch this very page, meaning that any revision deletion requests made here on my user talk page usually result in numerous people navigating to the diffs in question in order to quickly view them before they get hidden from public view. If you're aware of what the Streisand effect is, this is exactly what this is, and what we want to avoid as much as possible. ;-) Thanks again for the message and the request, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Curious block

An editor notes that they are unable to edit while blocked even though they are logged in. I didn't think this was possible. (This is documented at ticket:2019083110000936 , but you should not have to see that ticket — I will share enough information with you to explain the situation.)

I thought perhaps it might be a momentary glitch so I asked them to log out and log back in again to see if the problem persisted. They did so and are still unable to edit.

The username is: (Redacted)

I note that they were blocked for a week back in 2017 but I don't think that's related.

The block notice they are receiving is a range block applied by you to: 112.198.64.0/18

I looked in the block log and did not find that block, but I have seen a screenshot identifying you and the range.

Any thoughts on what's going on and more importantly how to resolve it?S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: As a followup, I found:

11:44, 4 June 2018 Oshwah talk contribs block blocked 112.198.64.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 2 weeks (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ... [original block]

But that was a 2 week block.

That was followed up by a longer block:

01:45, 9 June 2018 Drmies talk contribs block changed block settings for 112.198.64.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 01:45, 9 June 2021 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) [current block settings]

01:45, 9 June 2018 Drmies talk contribs block changed block settings for 112.198.64.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 3 years (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)

The longer block should be still in effect but it was placed by Drmies, and should not as far as I know, affect logged in users. The shorter block was by you but should not be currently in effect.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Any IP block without "anon. only" will prevent logged-in users from editing from the IP address. The current block on the range is 01:45, 9 June 2018 Drmies talk contribs block changed block settings for 112.198.64.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 01:45, 9 June 2021 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ({{rangeblock}}: IP hopping disruption by LTA User:My Royal Young) The original block (11:44, 4 June 2018) was placed by Oshwah for 2 weeks, which is why his name appears in the block notice. Drmies then extended the duration to 3 years at 01:45, 9 June 2018. Drmies then changed the block settings in the same minute to block all editors, not just IPs. Our options to allow the user to edit are to grant WP:IPBE or make the block anon only. Before doing either, it would be a good idea to get a CU​​ to look at this for other block collateral. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89, Thanks for the information. It sounds like the editor was caught by Drmies block, but, the block message clearly identifies Oshwah, and also states that it refers to "unregistered editors" and goes on to suggest that having an account will allow you to edit. In other words, the message seems consistent with the Oshwah block, but the action seems consistent with the Drmies block. I see you are OTRS, so you can look at the screenshot it it helps.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: [I've added some bold annotations to the block logs in your message above.] Block notices (and the block list) will always refer to the admin that made the block (Oshwah), not the last one to change the block settings (Drmies). The reference to unregistered users is from {{rangeblock}}, which goes on to say that logged-in editing may also be blocked and later says to use {{unblock}} if that is the case. Technically speaking, the block is working as intended. Whether the block has an acceptable level of collateral damage to logged-in editors is a question for the CUs. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89, Thanks for the elucidation. I've learned a lot (I've never done a range block.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, @JJMC89 and Sphilbrick: the block is pretty wide, but I'm not seeing too much damage. That'd be expected though as its almost completely out of CU's window. Anyone who requests on this range can likely be given IPBE safely. If it's causing too many issues in OTRS or ACC, it'd be worth talking to Drmies about whether or not it'd be a good idea to lower it to an anon-only block. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, JJMC89, User:Sphilbrick, if another admin judges there is too much collateral damage, I always defer to them. I always check and make that assessment, but others' mileage varies, and there may always be things that I overlook. If there's too much damage, go ahead and change the settings--but do keep in mind that before such a block is placed there's always been considerable disruption. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late response to this discussion here. Life has been busy! :-) It looks like others have correctly identified the reason that I'm still present in the notice, which is because I was the original admin who applied the block to the IP range in question. Other admins have also examined the range block and the collateral damage. Please don't let my response here interrupt anything; you're all welcome to continue discussing the matter on this page as long as you'd like. If I'm needed of if my input becomes necessary, just say so and I'll be happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

South Park seasons and general references

Hey Oshwah. I'd appreciate your input on this. For episode air dates in South Park seasons articles, is it okay to use general references instead of inline citations in tables in the same manner as in the Family Guy seasons (eg. 1, 4, 5, 8)? QuestFour (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi QuestFour! Sure, I don't see a problem with that. The important thing is that the content is referenced and to a source that's (hopefully) reliable, secondary, and independent from the subject (see this page for more information). How the citation looks and is displayed is simply cosmetic; that, if anything, can be fixed and improved later. :-) Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you and I'll be happy to do so. Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Oshwah, we could use your help on this matter. QuestFour is taking your statement here as permission from an admin to replace cited referenced sources in the various South Park season articles and replace them with genref's instead. Per a BRD discussion on Talk:South Park (season 1), his suggestion to replace the actual cited source location in the column header with a genref was rejected by every other single editor involved. A majority consensus was agreed that the cited source location was the preferred format. He now wants to override the consensus and do his own thing. Can you please assist with this? - SanAnMan (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add (after the fact) that this editor is extremely contentious and argumentative. He has had multiple warns/blocks for edit warring, and his talk page is full of multiple discussions on him. He seems to be one of those editors that is convinced that his way is the only way. Please help as soon as possible on this. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

SanAnMan - Sure, I'll be happy to help. I misinterpreted this user's question here... I thought that he was simply asking if it was okay to add references, but just not format them to be in-line citations. I thought that maybe he just wanted to supply URLs to sources and that he maybe didn't know how to format them properly. So, of course I said to him, "no problem - someone else can format them. Any improvement is fine; just reference reliable sources." I wasn't aware or under the impression that he was intending to replace sources with different ones... That may have been my mistake for not understanding his question properly. Either way, I'll be happy to help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for not clarifying, and sorry for dragging you into this... QuestFour (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

QuestFour - No apologies are needed, and it's not a problem at all - I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Wherever possible, we don't want to replace references unless the initial ones have serious issues and/or do not meet the standards of being considered reliable. Even in many cases, if you're adding a source that's reliable and the initial source supports the same content, data, quote, or information - you should add your source beside the initial source so that the content is now supported by two references rather than just one.

If a previous discussion has come to a consensus regarding the references that are currently being used to support the content you're modifying, you need to respect and follow those decisions and make sure that your edits don't conflict with them. These decisions reflect the collective input and collaboration of the community, and we need to remember that "two minds are better than one". Given that fact, anyone who purposefully makes edits or performs actions against consensus and in favor of their own ideas are usually not implementing a better idea; they're taking a decision that was reached by multiple users and after much discussion, input, collaboration, and time - and replacing it with a unilaterally supported idea (what they personally think is better)..... Heh, I'm sure you can see the obvious issue here, as well as why following consensus is important. ;-)

You also want to add your sources as in-line citations to article content wherever possible (unless a consensus, guideline, or special circumstance says otherwise). Don't get me wrong: General references are definitely better than having no references at all, but citing references and sources in-line with the relevant content in the article is significantly more beneficial and is absolutely crucial. They not only help readers to see and know exactly what content they're reading is supported by sources, and point them to the source for easy review and scrutiny - but they also help editors by organizing them to show their relevance in the article, and show what content is missing references and citations so that they have the opportunity to find references or remove the content.

I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your questions earlier, and that my answers sent you down the wrong path. When other editors come to you with concerns and issues regarding your edits or changes, it's always best to listen to them, discuss the issues peacefully and respectfully with them, and make sure that your changes are on par with policies, guidelines, and consensus. Admins don't have "authority", or the ability to "override" any policies, guidelines, or consensus, and "give permission" for users to make changes and edits against them. If someone says to you that an edit you'd like to make doesn't seem like a problem, they might not know all of the facts and they might be incorrect. If editors come to you stating that the edit has issues, they're doing so in good faith and in order to help you. Definitely listen to them, discuss it with them, and work with them...

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you with anything that you need. :-) I hope that my response here helped clarify everything, answered your questions, and addressed and sorted out all of the confusion and concerns. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for your input and time! QuestFour (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

QuestFour - No problem! Always happy to help! Let me know if I can answer any more questions for you... You know where to find me if you run into any. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A question

Hello, how can I remove the category which can be seen on my user page? I want to remove the one about my location. Cheers, Sadko (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko! I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) I took a look at your user page, and I didn't see where that category was explicitly present or added to the page itself - Are you sure that the category isn't on your userpage due to using a userbox or template there? Many templates (such as userboxes and other content) will also include specific categories if they're relevant so that the user won't have to add the category manually themselvecs. An example would be if I had a userbox on my user page stating that I'm from Texas... the userbox template itself could also be coded to add my user page to the category "Wikipedia users from Texas" (or something like that) if I were to add that userbox. If you're still unable to find what's causing the category to be present on your user page, please let me know and I'll be happy to help you and dig further into your user page design to find it. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! If I recall well I used one userbox which planted this code on my page. But I'm not using it for several months now and the category is still here, which I rather dislike. Sadko (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko! I found your issue. :-) In order to help you understand and for all of this to make sense to you (as well as any other users who read this discussion), I figured that I'd take a few minutes and explain everything from start-to-finish. I apologize in advance if a lot of the details below are things you already know about; I want to be sure that nothing is missed and that you're not left scratching your head... lol. In the years that I've tutored, helped, and taught others one-on-one, I've found that it's better to make no assumptions about their knowledge of a subject, and to explain the concept from "chapter one". It leaves nothing in the air and I've had the best success with helping others that way. ;-)

Okay.... So as you already know (lol), the MediaWiki Software (the web platform that Wikipedia runs off of) allows users to quickly and conveniently "add" or "include" the content of a page within another page. It saves us the pain and tediousness of having to copy and paste the text or type everything in manually each time we want to use or display the same content again on a different page. There are two ways that an editor can "add" or "include" a template (or any other page) within another page on Wikipedia - either by substitution, or by transclusion.

The usual way (and the way that you're used to seeing) is transclusion. This is where you simply edit a page, enter the name of the template page you wish to include and enclose it within two brackets (example: {{ExampleTemplate}}), and save the changes. Transclusion works by copying the content of the template to the destination page when it is viewed. If you transclude the same page to multiple other pages, all you have to do is update the template page, and the other pages that include it will display the new content (minus some server and browser cache technicalities, of course). Editing the destination page again will show the template call that you added.

Adding "subst:" to the beginning of a template call (example: {{subst:ExampleTemplate}}) will substitute the content from the template to the page instead. Substitution works differently by including the content of the template to the page when it is saved (as opposed to when it is viewed). The best way to explain substitution is that it copies the content from the template and pastes it over the {{subst:ExampleTemplate}} you added as the page is being saved and published. Updating the template page will do absolutely nothing to any page that it was substituted onto... since the content was copied and pasted when you published the changes to the page. Editing the destination page again will show the text of the template. Think of substitution as a feature that literally copies and pastes the content from the template to the page for you when it is saved.

As you can imagine, templates are ridiculously diverse in complexity and functionality, as well as what they're used for. Many templates are quite complex, and are designed with code that checks for certain conditions and look for specific data, and will automatically display different content on different pages depending on what it finds. We use transclusion in these cases. ;-) The reason that you didn't see the exact category you were looking for on your user page was because it was coded within a template that you transcluded. In this case, {{User:Commie99/kosovoserb}} was the culprit, and I commented it out for you with this edit.

Whew! ;-) Okay, I know that was a lot of text and information to throw at you, but this explanation should help you to understand how templates work exactly, as well as why your user page was included in a category while the page's source didn't have it listed. :-) If you have any questions, concerns, further requests, or if I can help clarify anything that you're confused about, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help you further. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! This was quite an essay. Thank you for your time and hard work. You are one of a kind! Sadko (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sadko - HA! Thanks! I hope that it wasn't too overwhelming. You're welcome; please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything else. I appreciate the compliment. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 20#What wp is not

I would like to request assistance in closing this discussion. As a non-admin, I am incapable of closing the discussion as it would require deleting pages. Consensus appears to be in favor of keeping all redirects beginning with "Wikipedia is not." Thanks! Invalid^OS (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi InvalidOS! Sorry for the late reply! It looks like an admin has closed the discussion, so I'm going to assume that everything is good to go. If this isn't true, please let me know and I'll be happy to help. Please also don't hesitate to message me if I can help you with anything else - I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Coventry University

Hey Oshwah, long time no talk. Just wanted to say a quick thank you for handling Coventry University and all of the sockpuppetry. Hope you're doing well! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi LuK3! I appreciate the message! It certainly has been quite some time since we've last said "hello" to one another; I hope you're doing well, and it's great to see you around on Wikipedia. I'm doing fine... just been busy with life and other things, which unfortunately has been cutting into my Wikipedia time. No worries though! I'm still very much here, active, and happy to help should my assistance be necessary. ;-) You're welcome; that was a mess, and it needed to be handled pronto. If you see any more shenanigans like that, please don't hesitate to let me (or another admin) know - I'll be happy to put a kibosh to it. :-) Thanks again for the message... I appreciate it a lot, and I hope that we speak again soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ACC tooluser acceptances

Hey Oshwah, I’ve been pending for ACC tool user access for about a month now, without receiving any sort of denial or acceptance talkpage notice or email. I’m wondering if I was denied and simply didn’t get the email or if I’m still pending. Is it possible that I could be informed of the current status?
As a side note, happy late adminship anniversary! Congratulations on another successful year. Redactyll Social pub of talking 05:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redactyll! I just took a look at the ACC new user application list, and you're still there. The discussion regarding our current lineup of applicants is still open; I'll send a nudge to the other ACC admins so that we can hopefully wrap it up and send out responses very soon. I'm sorry for the long wait... stay tuned; I'm going to try and keep the ball rolling. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:39, 15 September 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 (We are the champions, my friends) 22:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Acknowledged. I'll be checking my Wikipedia emails tonight, and I'll get back to you when I do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Need Eyes on a User and/or opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.13.229.18 Talk Page consenses seems to be to have them in a sepreat table. but I dont know if I am reading the talkpage right or not. Should I revert explaing the above? I dont want to get into an edit war.(also apolgies for the bad spelling, autocorrect does not want to work with wikipedia for some reason and it is hard to type on an iPad)LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 13:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi LakesideMiners! Sorry for the delayed response to your message here! Life kept me busy over the last week. ;-) I'm a bit confused... are we talking about this user's edit here to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, and a discussion on that article's talk page? If so, can you point me to the exact discussion you're talking about so that I can take a look at it? It seems like the IP user removed the content to a poll from the article with the belief that it wasn't legitimate... I'd recommend not reverting and restoring that content unless there actually were reliable sources that it pointed to. Remember, the responsibility to provide sources and to confirm and demonstrate legitimacy and verifiability of content rests with the user that is adding or restoring it to an article. If this IP user happens to be correct in their edit summary, you don't want to be the user who repeatedly reverted and restored it without knowing for sure that the data is good or not first, and be the user who has to answer for it when others come banging on your door about it. ;-) I'd start a discussion to have involved editors locate the sources for the data, make sure that it's good, then restore it after this is done. :-) Who knows, I could be completely on the wrong track here, and you might have been referring to something completely different in your message... lol. Just let me know when you can if I'm on the right track, if any developments or updates have occurred between the time you messaged me above and when I responded to your message now, and if there's anything I might be missing. I'll be more than happy to provide you with input and with help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Fly High in the Sky

Are you familiar with this person? This LTA recently returned on what looks like his primary IPv4 range: 86.178.176.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? You mind blocking it for around 6-12 months? All of the edits dating back to August 2018 appear to be exclusively his, including the various personal attacks, airplane-obsessed edits, and tropical cyclone information vandalism. The last 6-month /24 rangeblock doesn't seemed to have really dissuaded him from disrupting the site. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem has blocked this user range for a month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 - Sorry for the late reply! Life has been keeping me busy lately! It looks like this has been taken care of. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help with anything else. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Liz - Thank you for responding here while I was offline. :-) Much appreciated! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ouachita Hills College

@Oshwah: This college keeps being constantly vandalized. By the same person for a few days straight. Can you please put some protection on this article.Catfurball (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave a short block to the most persistent IP vandal but there has been no disruption today. You can talk to Oshwah or I should it start up again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll check out the article today when I'm back at my desk, and I'll see if there's any deeper or further investigation that's necessary. Another thank you to Liz for handing this matter while I was away. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Catfurball! Thanks again for the message and for letting me know about the recent vandalism to Ouachita Hills College. As Liz indicated above, the vandalism seems to have stopped since September 17, so I'm going to hold off on applying any page protection to the article. Unless the vandalism picks back up and continues, there's no point in applying protection to the article now. Please don't hesitate to let me know if any edits like these do come back, and I'll be happy to handle the matter and put a kibosh to the disruption. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting for a block

Hello Oshwah, I may have sent you a message once last month. I want to tell you that this username, User:BabyGreenPoop, needs a block since it does not meet the username policy. Is there anyway you can block this user? I'm glad your working as an admin on here. Thanks and have some nice editing! DumbFriesNub —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done (talk page stalker) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Bot edits

Hello Oshwah. Is there a way to hide bot edits from my watchlist? I mean a way besides the option on preferences. The option does not only hide the bot edits from the watchlist, but also the other most recent edits made before the bot edits. This is a problem. Puduḫepa 07:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Puduḫepa! Yes you can! While on your watchlist, click on "filter changes" located next to the magnifying glass located above the list and the "live updates" button. Scroll down the list, and tick the "human (not box)" option. This will filter your watchlist to only show edits made by humans. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Puduḫepa 19:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It has exactly the same problem. Sigh. Puduḫepa 19:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Did you make sure to apply the change you made to the filter? You gotta make sure that you apply and save it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I applied. Puduḫepa 02:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - ...And it still showed bot edits on your watchlist? I was incorrect about earlier; there's no need to "apply" any filter changes you make. I was able to just check the "human (not bot)" filter condition after opening the filter list, and my watchlist updated immediately after I did so. I just uploaded a screenshot for you to take a look at - it is here. Can you take a look at it and confirm that this is what you did and that this is what your watchlist interface looks like? All you should need to do is tick that checkbox as shown in the image. Your watchlist should immediately apply that change and only show edits made by users that are not flagged as a "bot account". Let me know if this image upload is helpful, and keep me posted; I'm curious to see what's causing your particular issue or holdup. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No no, it does hide the bot edits. By "the same problem", I meant, it also hides the edits by the real editors that were made before the bot edits. For instance, if an unsigned editor comments on a talk page discussion and then SineBot signs for the editor, the page that the editor commented disappears from the watchlist. Puduḫepa 05:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I should rm the "Latest revision". But I don't want to see all the changes - I have a large watchlist. Anyway, apparently we have no option to hide the bot edits and to see all the most recent changes made by the editors, at the same time. Puduḫepa 06:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Yes, the "latest revision" condition is exactly why you're seeing only one revision per page like you described above. So, you're trying to hide all bot edits and only see the latest revision to each page? Ticking both the "human (not bot)" condition and the "latest revision" condition in your filter should do that for you. If you're just wanting to see the last change per editor to each page on your watchlist, I believe you can try to see if that can at least be somewhat achieved by modifying the results and time period options (the image of the gear, located on the right side of the page opposite of the "live updates" button). Let me know if I can help you further with your watchlist. If I'm making incorrect assumptions with exactly how you want it filtered, please elaborate and describe how you want it with as much detail as possible, and I'll be happy to help you filter your watchlist to your liking. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"Ticking both the "human (not bot)" condition and the "latest revision" condition in your filter should do that for you." No, it doesn't. Please see above. I am having difficulty explaining the problem well, as I am not fluent in English. I have given up. Thanks anyway. Puduḫepa 06:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Puduḫepa - If you want to hide all bot edits and show all edits from humans to each page you've added to your watchlist as they've been made, you just want to tick the "human (not bot)" condition to turn that filter on, and untick the "latest revision" condition to turn that filter off. Does your watchlist display how you'd like it to? Or is there something else wrong? If so, what exactly is wrong? What is displaying that shouldn't be? I hope that my responses are helpful. :-) Let me know... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah. But I have explained why I don't want this. I have a large watchlist and therefore I only want to see the latest revisions, not all changes. Due to language barrier, I couldn't explain myself well- sorry for this. I don't want to waste your time, thus I have given up discussing this issue. Thank you for your interest... Puduḫepa 06:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Your request for help is not wasting my time at all. I'm more than happy to spend the time necessary to help you with anything you need. :-). Ahhhh, okay... I think I was just confused beteen exactly what you were looking for and what you weren't looking for. :-) If you only want human edits and only the latest revisions to each page displayed on your watchlist, then you'll just want to tick both the "human (not bot)" condition and the "latest revision" condition in your filter. You can also save that filter and have that be the default filter that's used when you navigate to your watchlist as well. I understand; I have quite an extensive watchlist as well... In fact, I need to take some time and go through it to remove anything I no longer need to be watching... lol. It's obviously your decision if you don't want any further help with this, but please know that if you're "giving up" only because you don't wish to "bother me", you're definitely not bothering me or causing inconvenience upon me at all. I'm happy to help, and I hope that I'll be given the opportunity to try and do so if this is what you need or would like. Just let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ticking both "human (not bot)" and "latest revision" does not help, as it hides the most recent edits by the real editors as well. That's why I wrote "It has exactly the same problem". See the example regarding unsigned editors. Despite it would be a the most recent edit, it would not appear on the watchlist since SineBot would sign for the editor. Bot edits fill my watchlist and removing "latest revisions" would cause the similar problem by filling the watchlist with serial edits by the editors. Puduḫepa 07:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Ohhhhh, I see what you mean. If a bot makes an edit to a page that happens to be the latest revision, you'll see nothing if both of those options were ticked. You want to see only the latest revisions to each page, but the latest ones excluding any bot edits that happen to have made the latest change. So for example: If SineBot fills in my signature for me after I edited a page, you want my edit to show as the latest revision to the page in your watchlist, not the bot (and certainly not nothing at all... lol). The closest that I could get my watchlist to display in the way that you're looking for was to only have "latest revision" condition ticked. The obvious downside is the fact that you're going to see bot edits listed if they've made the latest change to a page... However, if the reason and the desired outcome for you here is to reduce the overall list size of your watchlist page, then I think that this is as close as you'll be able to get to that result while having it as close as possible to the way that you want it. Keep in mind that many bots will trigger and update pages only after a human editor has updated it. A bot edit as the latest revision (depending on the page, of course) will typically mean that a human has modified it since the last time you visited the page. If you want to narrow down the list even further, you could consider ticking the "unseen changes" condition, which will not display any pages in your watchlist if they haven't been updated or changed since you last visited or read it. This might help you to further refine your results. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. (: Puduḫepa 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Indeed, and I owe you my apologies for taking so long to understand exactly what you were looking for. Did you take a look at the "unseen changes" condition? Was that suggestion helpful to you at all? I know that it won't result in exactly what you'd like, but I'm hoping that it'll at least help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"Did you take a look at the "unseen changes" condition? Was that suggestion helpful to you at all?" No. :) Anyway, at least, I noticed the "filter changes" option. It would be helpful for other stuffs. Thank you. Puduḫepa 12:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - No problem; always happy to help. :-) Please don't hesitate to message me here if you run into any more questions or need help with anything else. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey !

Hey Oshwah, happy to see you online ! i was wondering if everything was going well for you, since i saw you on Wiki less than usual these days. Hope everything is going well for you anyway. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani! Thanks for the message! I really appreciate it, and I'm happy to see you online as well! I've been busy lately with life, work, and other matters - which unfortunately has had to cut into my "Wikipedia time", but I'm still very much here, active, and more than happy to help with anything should my assistance be necessary. ;-) How's life for you? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, i understand that ! time flies, i am in the same situation, trying to be here on Wiki whenever i have enough time for that, but very busy with real life matters. Wish you all the best man, was good to hear from you ;-)---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani - It's good to hear from you as well! Be well, and I hope you keep in touch! Please don't hesitate to message me any time you need or want to; my user talk page is always open to you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Black Flag

Hi you reverted my edit even though I quoted the author and book the information was obtained from, you said the information is unreliable, have you read the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoontag (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zoontag, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the edits you made to Black Flag, Western Australia. The reason that I reverted your edit to the article was due to not actually citing any source in-line with the content. If you take a look at your edits to the article here and here, the content surely states that the information came from a book, but it appears and is displayed without any citation to a reliable source. Anyone can claim in a book that they wrote that they were the first to discover gold in that region, but reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the person in reference are what we use to support content on Wikipedia, and these sources are what make an encyclopedia and its content as accurate as possible. Content needs to be verifiable... In other words, readers need to be able to see and view the references that content is based and supported from, and those sources need to be as legitimate as possible. This is why I reverted the edit you made to the article. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I linked in my response here, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. I highly recommend that you give them a read if you haven't already. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

An easy question

Hi there Oshwah! Is there a Wiki rule which regulates if unregistered user's are eligible to vote on Wiki matters? For example - a renaming of an article. cheers Sadko (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko! Anonymous IP users are allowed to participate in Wikipedia discussions and to the exact same level and fashion as users who contribute to Wikipedia using registered accounts. If anything, the spirit of Wikipedia's principles and different policies would say the opposite - that we're not to discount, disqualify, or remove the input or votes made by users simply because they don't have an account. The only exceptions would be technical restrictions (such as page protection preventing anonymous users from editing the page), IP users who are confirmed to be engaging in sock puppetry, block evasion, or violation of active sanctions (we'd obviously strike out their votes in those cases), and the participation in elections (such as the Arbitration Committee elections and Steward elections). Those election processes use SecurePoll, and require participants to have an account that meets eligibility requirements in order to be able to vote so that each person can vote once. Those are the only situations that I can think of that would prevent anonymous IP users from participating. Other than that, there is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that prevents or disallows their participation and input / votes in discussions such as page renames (page moves), articles for deletion, requests for comment, or any others. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, how have you been? The said editor is not an unregistred user [1]. Anyways, you explained relevant policies very well and I believe Sadko will not get confused in similar situations in the future. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ktrimi991! Thank you for responding with the diff link, and for restoring the comment made by Roy17, who is definitely not an anonymous user (even though, as I said above, that fact is completely irrelevant). I think Sadko might've just gotten confused and thought that the user wasn't registered. He also must've been given the wrong impression or the wrong idea that discussions are for registered users only... I just hope that it wasn't another misled editor that gave Sadko that impression. I appreciate your feedback regarding the response and explanation that I gave above, and I agree that it's clear enough to where Sadko shouldn't have any issues with this in the future. Everybody makes mistakes... Hell, there are many users here who will gladly vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes on Wikipedia over the years I've been here. :-) Mistakes are a normal part of learning and growing, and they're not a big deal so long as we improve from them. The true measure of a good editor and a good leader isn't how often they make mistakes nor the fact that they make them in the first place - it's how they behave, handle, and respond to those mistakes after becoming aware, as well as how they respond when being asked about them - that distinguish experienced editors from the novice and the new, and separate leaders from those who follow. Give Sadko the benefit of the doubt, and I'm sure that he'll do fine and there won't be any more problems. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree. Ah, if there was a competition for mistakes, I would win the first place ;) I am very "talented" for that. After you explained relevant policies, of course Sadko will not get confused again if similar situations emerge. Btw, that requested move discussion has been open for more than a month, and probably it is better to have it closed. Is there any place where I can request closure by an uninvolved and interested editor? If I am not mistaken, there is a page where closures for RfCs can be requested but I do not have any idea whether similar requests can be done for move discussions. Cheers and keep up the good work ;) Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ktrimi991! The Administrators' noticeboard is where I often see requests for an uninvolved editor or administrator to close a discussion come in. Just explain that the discussion has been open for some time, when the last comment or input to the discussion occurred, and that you believe that it would be good for an admin to review and close it. Just make sure to explain why. If the discussion is still active and if users are still participating or adding comments or input to it, an admin will most likely tell you that it needs to wait. Otherwise, if it's stale, contentious, and a close call regarding consensus, ask for someone to close it there and an admin will be happy to do so. :-) Cheers, and thanks again! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Great. Thank you very much Oshwah! Much appreciated. Cheers :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 - You bet; always happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There will be no confusion of this sort in the future, that is for sure. It just happens that I have seen a different policy, from time to time, in Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian Wikipedias. cheers (and thank you for following the topic closely). Sadko (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sadko - No worries! I appreciate your participation and for taking the time to make sure that you understand policies where there might be questions or confusion. That's the mark of a good editor whose dedicated to the project. Keep up the good work, and please don't hesitate to message me if you need my input, thoughts, or my assistance in the future. I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential COI or paid editing

Hi there Osh, hope you are well. Could you take a look at Deke Sharon please. There are a huge number of references and immaculate positive writing on the subject making me suspect a COI or paid edit. The majority of info has been added by IPs, so that you are aware. I'm looking foward to hearing back from. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! Sure, I'll be happy to take a look at the article and take a shovel to anything that isn't worded neutrally or up to par. Have you or any other users tried to do this and without success? I'm just trying to get an idea of what's been already tried, and what kind of resistance we might encounter when we try to fix things there... ;-) Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, apolgies. I am currently on mobile and will not be on desktop until tomorrow. I often find it hard to edit on mobile. Also, I would rather a more experienced user look at this as paid editing can be very hard to spot. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - No apologies are necessary at all. :-) Editing while on a mobile device is a challenge for me as well. I use the desktop version of the site on my mobile device, and the Android OS (at least the one that my device is running) isn't the most friendly or optimized for editing or adding comments and replies in an easy fashion... lol. ;-)

I took a look at the article text, and I agree that it has some issues - mainly in regards to detailing the article subject's creativity and involvement in major productions to an overly-extensive level. I edited part of the article and fixed some of it here. Are there any particular users that I should look into specifically that you believe might be making undisclosed paid edits or editing in violation of a conflict of interest that's obvious? This information will help me to investigate and look into the users involved, and take matters from here regarding issues of undisclosed paid editing or COI. Let me know when you can; there's no rush, and it's fine if you'd like to wait until you're back at your desk and on your desktop device before responding. It's not easy to look at edit histories, copy users and IPs, respond with comments, and list users like this on a mobile device (heck, I should know... lol), so please don't worry about or feel any "urgency" to get this information to me... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the empathy. I'll list some of the diffs and you should be able to pick out the user(s) involved:[2], [3], [4], [5]. User:Totalvocal is, in my opinion, the sockmaster (the IPs which have edited use the same unfilled references, irregular and brief edit summaries and other traits the same as this user. Thats speculative, but I would appreciate your opinion. Once again, apolgies for the brevity. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - No apologies needed; this'll do just fine for now. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It's okay

Thank you for your concern, but as you noted, i stopped putting the project first. The reason is that i have lost faith in the way decisions are made, and that some users are allowed to belittle others as long as they don't technically cross the line. I am not a hypocrite, and it was not a "line" holding me back or guiding my behaviour for four years. I will not be responding to any new messages, i just wanted to thank you. Radiphus (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Radiphus! I appreciate you for leaving me a message here, and for expressing your honest thoughts about what happened and how you feel about everything. I really hope that you take some time off, refresh your mind, take a break, and reconsider your retirement down the line, and that you decide join us again and continue to help us grow and improve the project. Like I said, we all make mistakes, and nobody is perfect. We all lose our cool and let aggravation and frustration get the best of us sometimes, and I don't want what I (or others said) in the dispute resolution discussion to mean or make you think that you've blown it and "see you later, goodbye". Civility is something that I believe that we don't hold users accountable for to the level that we should be, and the fact that you (and many others) feel that users can get away with incivility so long as it doesn't reach a severe enough threshold is simply not okay. That needs to change, and we all need to be better about doing what's needed to defuse situations before they become heated, and politely point out and call users out on unacceptable conduct or behavior when they violate Wikipedia's civility policy, and/or when they engage in making personal attacks toward others. I understand that you know that your recent behavior was not okay, and I'm confident that you'll learn from it and that you'll grow from this if you give yourself the chance to do so. I'm not sure if you'll read my response here, but I really hope that you do, and I really hope that you give it some thought and some consideration. I hope to see you back on Wikipedia, whenever you feel that you're ready and wishing to do so. :-) Thanks again, I wish you the best of luck, and be well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove full protection Captain Obvious

Hi, can we trial removing the full protection of Captain Obvious? {{ping|waddie96}} {talk} 14:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Waddie96! Sure, I don't mind. I went ahead and lowered the protection level to indefinite semi edit and move protection. If any disruption starts back up or resumes, we can always increase it from there, but I don't see a problem with lowering it to try it out and see what happens. All set! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you {{ping|waddie96}} {talk} 10:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppetry help

Hello. The article Shrine of Meher Ali Shah was protected a few months ago due to Sock puppetry and removing of references by somebody using wikipedia as a guest. The same has been done again. Please check and help. The edits should be reverted to the one done in February 2019 and the article to be added to the protection list. Zaydbinumar (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zaydbinumar, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns over recent edits made to this article. I took a look, and since November 2018, only two edits have been made to the article - both of which were by the same IP user. This happened about three days ago, and it didn't continue after you reverted the two changes. I don't think there's any need for panic or action right now. I think we just need to keep an eye on it, and I'm pretty confident that this'll be an isolated observation. If things do pick up and if things start occurring again as they did back in November 2018, definitely let me know so that I can put a stop to it. However, for now, there's no need for panic and there's no need for action. Let's just keep an eye on it, and I'm sure it'll be fine. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Just wanted to let you know that the same edits were made again to the pages Golra Sharif, Shrine of Meher Ali Shah and Naseeruddin Naseer Gilani. I and one other user have reverted the edits. Zaydbinumar (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message. I just left a message on your user talk page; please let me know if you still need assistance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete

Hey Oshwah, can you delete this this userpage?Andrew Base (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Base -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

How can i upload geogle map of my society on my wikipedia page

I want to upload geogle map of my society so that finder can reach easily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Saleem Tahir (talk • contribs) 08:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muhammad Saleem Tahir! It sounds like we might have a few issues with what you're trying to create. 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. You seem to be creating an article about something you've invented, made up, or that belongs to you and may not be notable. This will be problematic, and will ultimately result in it being deleted. The new user tutorial will help you to learn the basics, as well as what are and aren't good subjects to write articles about. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. I hope that you take my advice and go through and complete the tutorial. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Nusantaraqq

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Cahk -  Done. Thank you for letting me know about this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Pokerqqonline99

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Cahk -  Done. Thanks again ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

In need of help

I want to upload my information on Wikipedia page but i don't ever know how to upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilmoder sa (talk • contribs) 11:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lilmoder sa! It sounds like we might have a few issues with what you're trying to create. 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. You seem to be creating an article about something you've invented, made up, or that belongs to you and may not be notable. This will be problematic, and will ultimately result in it being deleted. The new user tutorial will help you to learn the basics, as well as what are and aren't good subjects to write articles about. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. I hope that you take my advice and go through and complete the tutorial. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

New page deieted

Hi, I created a page yesterday 9/21 under the user name Shepardforman which you apparently deleted. Can you tell me why it was deleted and reconsider? Otherwise, can you tell me how I can recover the text for other use since aí spent some time writing it. Thank you. Shepard Forman. Shepardforman (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shepardforman, and thank you for leaving me a message here regarding your user page and its deletion. I'll be happy to explain the reason for its deletion and explain the relevant Wikipedia policies involved. :-) Your user page was deleted under U5 and G11 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 yourself in an autobiographical manner. 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)} 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

New page deleted

Hi, I created a page yesterday 9/21 under the user name Shepardforman which you apparently deleted. Can you tell me why it was deleted and reconsider? Otherwise, can you tell me how I can recover the text for other use since aí spent some time writing it. Thank you. Shepard Forman. Shepardforman (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

See the response I made to your original message above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted

I created a user page yesterday 9/21/2019 under the user name shepardforman which you apparently deleted. Can you please explain why it was deleted and reconsider? And can you tell me how I can recover the text? Thank you. Shepard Forman Shepardforman (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to the response I made to your original message for an explanation of why your user page was deleted, and the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that are relevant to this issue. Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No subject

>(talk) Hello. I am hoping that you may once again be able to assist me. I created an infobox on the page for the Biblioteca Marciana which looks as I had wanted. It covers the Marciana both as an institution and as an historical building. The only problem is that it may not have been done correctly since the "V" and the "T" in the lower-right corner are red. Can you provide any guidance or assistance?Venicescapes (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes! That's very easy to fix. All we need to do is click on the red "V", paste the code for the infobox onto this new page, and save it. Aferwards, you'll just remove the infobox code you added to the article and replace it with a reference to the template page you just created. In order to help explain and for this to be easy, I went ahead and did these things for you. If you look at the article and the infobox now, you'll see that the "V" is now blue, since the infobox's code now "lives" on that page instead of within the article. The "T" link is simply for the template's talk page. It can be left empty until someone needs to add a discussion there. :-) Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Cheers, and excellent job on the infobox, by the way! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you so much. I was afraid to do something wrong and delete everything. Have a nice day.Venicescapes (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes! No, not at all... even if you had "deleted everything", no big deal. Everything on here is revertable and can be restored. It's perfectly fine to make mistakes; it's a normal part of learning and growing, and everyone is expected to make them. :-) Please let me know if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. Cheers! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

HG

My Huggle is screwed up, can u help me? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Sure, no problem. Did you receive the response I made to your email regarding Huggle? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to check my email at this time--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser! I just got home and just sat down at my desk. My response was to have you reinstall Huggle, and make sure that the Microsoft Visual C++ 2013 redistributable is installed onto your machine as well. You can download it from here. I believe that it's bundle with the Huggle installer, but you can use that link to download the redistributable package by itself. Make sure that your SSL libraries are still installed as well. You can go here to download an installer that will put those onto your machine and add it to your system's environment as a target. Let me know if this fixes the issue. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You fixed my huggle thank you. (I blame windows 10 for this... )

A goat for you!

YEET!

Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You've done a lot of work. Keep it up! DumbFriesNub (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi DumbFriesNub! Thank you for the barnstar, and for the very kind words. I appreciate it very much, and I hope you're doing well. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

SUCH a minor point

Hello, Oshwah,

I hope you know how much I appreciate all that you do. I do! But it drives me crazy that your user talk page doesn't have a table of contents at the top of the page. Such a minor point. But you are such an accommodating person, I hope you will take a second and remove whatever code is repressing the TOC so that I can come to your page and easily click down to the bottom of the page. Thanks, in advance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz! There's definitely a table of contents on my user talk page here. I just implemented a script in order to have it collapsed by default so that it wouldn't get in the way and make discussions located near the top of the page difficult to read by new users. You'll see it immediately underneath the user talk page header that I designed. It's yellow, left-justified, and labeled as "contents". ;-) Let me know if you don't see it. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Liz - I just modified the script code and renamed the title of the collapsed list to be "table of contents" instead of just "contents". I'm hoping that this will make it easier to locate, so that other editors and readers won't be given the impression that I disabled or removed it entirely, and will be able to use it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

you should make a script code that gives you and I, free and unlimited cash Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Who says that I don't already have one that does so for me? :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

I had asked at huggle feedback with details and a screenshot of what was going on, maybe you can take a look there, since most of my information provided is over there, thank you. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Did you see my response to your previous discussion above? Did you give that a shot? What happened? Sure, I can take a look over at Huggle's feedback page as well. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:ᎾᎦᏔᎯᏁᏦᏋᏒ

Are you able to globally block this account? They keep vandalizing my userpages on other Wikis. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4 - I can't globally block users, but a steward can! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Impressive

I noticed the discussion you started here and wanted give you some credit. I think admins are often seen a pompous, arrogant, know-it-alls on wiki. (perhaps justifiably at times). I thought your openness and your approach in asking for other views was a refreshing moment. Thank you for that, I thought it was impressive. — Ched (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ched! Sorry for the late reply! I just got home and sat down at my desk... :-) Thank you for leaving me this message here, and for sharing your honest thoughts with me about the discussion and administrators in general. I appreciate it very much, and it meant a lot to me. :-)

I unfortunately have to agree with you... I've observed very arrogant and uncivil behaviors on Wikipedia by administrators before, as well as situations where an administrator will straight-up refuse to apologize for a mistake they made, either by ignoring messages from others who are asking about their administrative actions, or by resorting to making excuses and blaming others regardless of the clear evidence that shows otherwise. It's very disappointing and frustrating to see it happen... We're supposed to set the example for all users on this project, and it puts a ding in all of our characters when someone doesn't behave at the level that's expected of them. It's those exact kinds of unprofessional and unhelpful thoughts and behaviors by admins that contribute to the negative way that some readers, editors, and even people from the general public think of us. I believe that arrogance and the "I'm better than you" way of thinking is degrading and detrimental to not just other editors, but this project as a whole. Unfortunately, there are just people out there who have this way of thinking as part of their personality. As I've said to some editors on Wikipedia before: Some people just can't be helped, no matter how hard you try to do so. They're reject and be insulted by kind and appropriate feedback and take it as an act of aggression or harassment, and they'll refuse any opportunity to improve their editing and behavior that's offered to them. But we still try to do our best to try and help... :-)

As an admin, I refuse to allow myself to stoop to that level of thinking, and I'd much rather be open, honest, and accept that I did something wrong in the past if I notice something inconsistent or incorrect - I'd rather discuss it and get input and clarity from others instead of just sitting silently and letting the possible issue continue. Above all else, it's just the right thing to do... :-) Thanks again for the message. I hope you have an excellent day and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sojourner Truth

@Oshwah: The article Sojourner Truth earlier this year was vandalized 13 times and was protected. The protection for this article has expired and know this article has been vandalized 6 more times this year. Twice today, good grief this woman needs a rest. Can you protect her article, from these stupid nonstop vandals.Catfurball (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Catfurball, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns over repeated vandalism being made to Sojourner Truth. I went and took a look at the article's edit history, and it looks like the disruption has stopped. I'll keep an eye on this, and if the disruption picks back up or continues and by multiple users, I'll definitely apply a level of page protection in order to stop it. Thanks again for the message, and please don't hesitate to message me again if you notice things continuing on this article and want me to take another look, or if you have any questions or need my assistance with anything else. I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I like your Intrigues... Businux (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I hate to say this just after this user gave you a barnstar, but I have a feeling that this user has been here before. Only 2 contributions, one to their userpage and the other a WikiLove, this looks suspicious. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

ZLEA - I marked Businux's user page as 'patrolled' just a bit ago, which sends him/her a notification that I did so (since that user was the creator of the page). This is most likely why he/she left me this barnstar... otherwise, I'd be inclined to agree with your suspicions... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Businux - I appreciate the barnstar! Thank you very much! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ed Vulliamy

I think this [6] is what I'm supposed to do (I reverted myself because there was another edit by the same IP editor that I missed the first time), but I'm really tired right now. I should try to go bed soon, as my thought process is not the best. I want to make sure I made the right choice here, as this is a BLP. Clovermoss (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss! Seems alright to me! If your intended task was to revert all of the edits by that IP user, your second revert did the trick. Get some rest, man... have a great night and we'll speak tomorrow. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:28, 27 September 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.

Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I'll check my email tonight and get back to you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Brahmi script

It's a content dispute with someone pushing an ethnic nationalist line so far as I can see. They think, and I don't blame them, that the Tamil government publication on archaeology should be a reliable source, but nationalism in Tamil language issues is a big problem. I run into it fairly often. I wouldn't trust the Indian government's statements on any archaeological issue either. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's another example[7] - newish editor, probably no clue about our policies anyway, pushing the same line. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Doug Weller! It's great to talk to you again... it's been awhile since we've said hello! :-) Thanks for messaging me with your thoughts and input regarding Brahmi script and the request that was filed to have it protected. I thought that I saw the same thing when I reviewed the article's recent edit history as well. I applied full protection because I felt that the back-and-fourth editing and reverting by both sides needed to stop, and the issues needed to be discussed on the article's talk page. Did you feel that a different action should have been taken? What are your thoughts regarding the protection request? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmi_script.

The objections raised here is political one.

I have given valid references and the conclusion that earliest brahmi script dated to 6th century is based on archaeological evidences. FYI the materials with script were tested by foreign labs. I don't want you to accept what govt says but I hope you would at least respect the test-results from reputed laboratories.

Let us not suppress the FACT and keep the wikipedia up to date.

Regards

Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin7013 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Robin7013 - I appreciate your input on this discussion and the content within the article. You need to discuss the issues and the dispute on the article's talk page and work with the other editors involved in order come to a consensus in a civil and peaceful manner. If you haven't read through Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol, I highly recommend that you do so. It will provide you with important information and resources necessary to resolve the matter in an efficient and optimal way. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to help you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This may be organised off-wiki, see the three recent edit requests at Talk:List of languages by first written accounts. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller - Will do; thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Chetniks

Hi Oshwah. Two IP editors have been trying to remove well-sourced content from the Chetniks article. The broader issue has already discussed on the talk page. Can you place a short semi-protection to prevent further warring by the IP editors? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 -  Done. The two IP users are definitely the same person. They're making the exact same changes, and both IP addresses belong to the same ISP and geolocate to the same location. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Oshwah! Much appreciated. Yes, those two IPs are the same person. Probably a blocked editor socking with IPs. I wonder why they kept removing content though they were aware they would get soon reverted. Thanks again Oshwah. Keep up the good work :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 - Thank you for the response and for the very kind words. :-) I'm glad that I was able to assist you and resolve the issue quickly. ;-) It's important to keep in mind that because you see a user edit from different IP addresses like this doesn't necessarily mean that they're doing so purposefully and in order to be deceptive, or because they're evading a block or engaging in sock puppetry. These IP address changes are often due to the network's setup and implementation, and occur completely outside the user's control - and usually without them knowing that it even happened.

There are many ISPs and networks that are designed and implemented to hand out different IP addresses to devices frequently. One example would be a cellular or mobile network, where its users and connected devices often get handed off from tower-to-tower as they move and travel. There are many IPv6 editors that you'll notice change IP addresses and as often as multiple times per hour. Again, this is due to the network's configuration, and is completely outside of the user's control. This is also why you'll occasionally see admins applying a /64 range block for an IPv6 user... it's in order to fully block the user from editing, because they're using a network where their IP address frequently changes.

I figured I'd take a few moments and share this information with you in order to give you some good knowledge about how some networks operate, as well as why we shouldn't automatically assume that editors are being deceptive or malicious because they switch between different IP addresses while editing. ;-) If issues or disruption continues on this article after the protection expires, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to take another look. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I am aware of that. My own IP address changes several times a day. I have been seeing and reporting similar IPs of the same geolocation for socking for years. Of course, we should not immediately assume that the person who used the two IPs was socking. Hence I said "probably" a blocked editor socking with IPs. It is possible but not certain. I invited one of the IPs to discuss on the talk page, and any input from them is welcome. Thank you for the info Oshwah, it is always nice to talk with you. I wish you a good day and happy editing. Cheers :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 - Yeahhhh, I was near certain that this was all stuff you knew plenty about already. ;-) I sometimes respond and explain things like this because of the number of users who actively watch my user talk page (many of them being new, novice, or somewhat-intermediate editors). It provides them with important knowledge and learning opportunities, and it helps them to grow and become more experienced with the project. Thanks again for your hard work and your dedication to this project. I'm available and more than happy to help if you run into any questions or issues in the future, or if you find yourself needing any input or advice... You know where to find me. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

:) Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fu'erdai sock at Han Chinese

Please repeat RD3 for username plus edit summary on the first sock edit today and edit summary on the subsequent reversion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo -  Done. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you see any more disruptive activity by this LTA, and I'll be happy to take care of it. Oh, and please email requests like these to me instead of messaging them to me here where it's publicly visible. My user talk page has just shy of 1000 editors who actively watch it, and we want to avoid the Streisand effect as much as possible as users who see these kinds of requests posted here will quickly run to view the diffs and revisions in question before they lose visibility to it. No worries, though; it's not a big deal - just something we want to avoid. ;-) Cheers, and thanks for the message! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

An admin removed my fat fetish pride flag?

I’d love help. Tieher (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tieher: The flag you added is a "proposed" one. We'd need to see reliable sources claim it is widely used and accepted as a pride flag before we consider adding it to the wikipedia article on fat fetish. (talk page stalker) EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sol Invcito

Hello Oshwah,

Hope all is well, our page Sol Invicto has been tampered with a few times, I'm not super savvy on Wikipedia and the page was perfect the last time you checked it, wondered if you could check it out and block that IP making the changes, mine was the last couple to tidy it up. Better to revert to your last edit.

Thanks a lot.

Richie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.183.71 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your request and your concerns. As requested by you, I went ahead and restored the article back to the revision that I published back in 2018. I'm going to keep an eye on the users involved with the edits and changes that were made, and determine the best course of action to take (if any are needed at all). 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 hope you have a great weekend. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Zecca di Venezia

Hello, Thank you again for helping with the info box on the Biblioteca Marciana page. I was able to follow your simple instructions and do the same procedure on two other pages. I unfortunately need your help on another matter - my fault. I once again (second time) made an edit without being logged in. So the IP address now shows on the Zecca di Venezia page. The first time, you very kindly removed it. Could you please do this again? I promise to pay more attention in the future. Thank you and kind regards.Venicescapes (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes! No apologies are necessary at all. Accidentally editing while logged out is a common thing to have happen, and it's not a big deal; it literally takes me 10 seconds to suppress the information, and there's no need to feel bad or apologize. It happens... If you find yourself to have accidentally edited while logged out, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to fix it - just make sure that you email these kinds of requests to me instead of posting them on my user talk page here where it's completely public. I have just under 1000 editors who actively watch my user talk page, and these requests will absolutely trigger the Streisand effect as users quickly run to the diffs or revisions in question in order to read them before they become hidden. This is obviously something we want to avoid as much as possible, and emailing these requests to me will avoid the potential issue completely. ;-) I hope you have a great weekend, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU. I'll be more careful.Venicescapes (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Venicescapes - No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A question

Hi Oshwah, could you please help me with this matter: There is a redirect to Matica Srpska ---> Gallery of Matica Srpska which is preventing me from making my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sadko/sandbox). Could you help me remove it? All the best, Sadko (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko! Is the article you're trying to move the same as Matica srpska? Or are these two articles about two different things? Let me know; I'll be happy to help you once I verify a few things. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Those are two different matters. My article is about a big art gallery, while Matica Srpska deals with literature, some history and national culture in a broader sense. They are related because their roots are the same (Matica), but nowadays both institutions act independently. :) Sadko (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko! Thanks for confirming and for letting me know. I've deleted the Gallery of Matica Srpska redirect; please feel free to move the article you've written from your sandbox to that location. If I can help you with anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know - I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:KMCH Hospital

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cahk -  Done. Thanks for the heads up! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Take Two... And Action!

Greetings and a good mythical morning troubadour Oshwah,

I really HATE to bring up my medieval era lingo again and for you being on and off here, but this emergency is extremely super ultra hyper mega urgent it's not a COPYVIO or a couple of legal threats but here it goes: Thee must free and release an XD-themed Magna Carta, namely this one from a malevolent lancer answering the moniker of Bearcat! He has held it in his dungeon for nearly a decennium ago and has no plans escaping it from there forevermore.

I had taken that to the protector's chivalry not less than a month ago, unfortunately a squire nicknamed Favonian had closed the trial as a decline to free it from the dungeon. If I even ask him on his fief, he will still say never! You must overthrow the former for good! And if the vandalizing about a nonexistent third scroll comes back, please send it back there. I hope thee see this in a short wrinkle in time! This IP will NEVER be uncivil and be always respectful. 

Until we meet again,

47.16.146.238 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hast thou spoketh to thy knight Lord Bearcat about thine Magna Carta? Indeed, Lord Bearcat is a fair and just admin, and might unprotect thy page, shouldst thou respectfully ask him to. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC) After checking the contributions of 47.16 further, it’s clear that this is a blatant attempt to forum shop. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This was already discussed at WP:RFPP a few weeks ago. I clearly explained that the reason the page was originally protected was that it had been subject to a concerted campaign of vandalism by anonymous IP numbers to insert fake content about a nonexistent third season. That vandalism had to be stopped — but since it's impossible to permanently editblock an IP number, semi-protection is the only way to stop IP vandalism. Furthermore, this does not represent me holding the page in my "personal dungeon" — once I've acted as an administrator, I have no special responsibility to go out of my way to even look at that page again unless and until somebody brings it to my attention, so my failure to have personally reunlocked the page afterward is not a dereliction of my duties. But instead of asking politely for the page to be unprotected or providing a reason, 47 just went straight to this "prison/dungeon" theme right off the bat as if I had ever had any responsibility to act any differently than I did (which, again, I did not.) And again, in light of the fact that 47 provided no information about what they wanted to do to the article, and no edit requests have been made on the talk page in almost a full decade to indicate that anybody else had any desired changes either, not a single person who commented in the RFPP thread supported 47's position that unprotection was needed at all.

So, to summarize:

(1) The original page protection was necessary because the article was under a barrage of vandalism.

(2) Once I had acted to stop the vandalism, it was not my responsibility to have gone back to remove the protection myself unless and until somebody came to me to request that.

(3) Instead of approaching me to politely and respectfully request unprotection, 47 bypassed that step and just went straight to RFPP with unfounded allegations of malfeasance communicated in a completely inappropriate and tendentious tone.

(4) They also did not give any information about what they want to change in the article, in order to demonstrate that unprotection was actually needed.

(5) Semi-protection is not even a difficult bar to clear — any user can get past it by registering a username and making just 10 mainspace edits, or by making an edit request on the talk page. So an IP number complaining about semi, instead of undertaking the incredibly easy steps to get around it, is automatically a red flag to probable ulterior motives. It's the way people act if they want to do something they know would get them editblocked if they did it under a real username, not the way people act if they actually have constructive edits to make in good faith.

(6) Because of that, nobody in the RFPP thread supported 47's position at all — every single person who participated in the thread at all said to leave it alone, and told 47 to go away.

In other words, this is not about me. I will not be dragged into it, and 47 is going to get a temporary editblock for making personal attacks if they so much as whisper my name again. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually took a closer look at the original request myself, and the amount of WP:Forum shopping that I found since that original decline was disconcerting, to put it mildly. 47.16, to be clear, you have not at any point offered a reason to unprotect the page other than “it’s been protected for a long time.” If you were to respectfully give a policy-based rationale on why the page should be unprotected to Bearcat from the start, this mess could have been avoided. Like I said before, Bearcat is a reasonable and fair admin, and would’ve taken it under consideration. Additionally, there was a clear consensus that unprotecting the page was unnecessary, so the forum shopping to different admins immediately after was completely disruptive. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like OhKayeSierra has pointed out that forum shopping has been occurring. In this case, I must recommend that the IP user take their concerns and disputes to the original user involved and work things out according to the dispute resolution protocol with that user involved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism alert!

@Oshwah: A vandal keeps constantly attacking the article Rozonda Thomas, can you protect her for me.Catfurball (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Catfurball: (talk page stalker) Looks like the vandalism has since stopped. Also, you’d typically get a faster response by posting the request to WP:RFPP. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Catfurball - Sorry for the late reply. This looks to be a dispute between yourself and another user. What exactly is going on? Can you give me more information so that I can help you? Thanks :-) - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The vandal kept saying the information was wrong and would remove the information, this happened more then once. It doesn't help that some websites say that Rozonda Thomas had stopped going to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Seventh-day Adventist websites that talk about Rozonda Thomas doesn't say this at all. Maybe the websites that aren't Seventh-day Adventist were wrong, who knows only Rozonda Thomas does. Anyway the website that the vandal kept attacking was later comepletly removed by other editors. Which is ok, it forced me to rewrite part of the article and use a different reference. The vandal has since left the article alone. So I don't need your help with the article.Catfurball (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Catfurball - Perfect! I'm glad that the user has stopped their shenanigans... the article is not only no longer being disrupted by the user, but it sounds like it has since been improved - a win/win for sure! If you need my assistance with anything else, please let me know and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete

Hola porfavor podría borrar esta pagina, es muy antigua y no puedo acceder para eliminarla yo mismo. https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Diego_Hellal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.174.52.72 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ¡Hola! Usar esta plantilla en su página para que un bibliotecario pueda destruir la página por usted. {{destruir|U1}} (Por favor disculpeme por mi pobre español.) OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize; I do not speak Spanish... can you have someone translate or ask me this in English please? Thank you! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: He asked for help deleting the userpage he linked on eswiki, and that he didn't know how to delete pages. My response was to ask him to place the CSD template on the page so that a sysop can delete it for him, and then I apologized for my poor Spanish. :-) OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

OhKayeSierra - Aha! Thank you for responding and for letting him know. Yeauppp... the Spanish Wikipedia isn't within my "jurisdiction" (obviously... lol). Thank you for letting this user know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)