User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-11

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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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

Closure - help needed

Hi, I created this template but it seems that I made a mistake with the code. The template can't be opened (V) from the pages about movies. Please, take a look. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Serbian_submissions_for_Academy_Awards

Fixed --T*U (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor - Thanks for resolving the issue! :-) Pinging Sadko so that he's aware... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

And one less imporant thing, which code should I add in order to paint the backroung of my TP like you did? :) Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Sadko - The code to add is here: <div style="background-color: #COLOR CODE GOES HERE;">. If you want the entire background of your user talk page shaded and at all times, add this code to the very top of the page and above all other tables and code (with the exception of topicon insertions). You also want to omit adding a closing </div> tag at the bottom of the page. You'd normally include this closing tag at the bottom of other pages as good coding practice, but in this case we want to omit it. Otherwise, new messages that are left will be automatically placed below the closing tag you add, and those messages won't be shaded to the background color automatically. Make sure that you preview your change, and that it works as intended before you save it. I also highly recommend that you choose a very light color shade. The point of shading the page is to enhance it and make it appear welcome and friendly - not something that's distracting or something that most users would notice, and certainly not something that makes any text, links, images, or other elements hard for others to read. ;-)

A few cool ideas you can implement instead, if you wish: Adding a closing </div> tag at the bottom of your user talk page will result in new messages not being shaded, meaning that they're new messages that you haven't read yet. When you've read and responded to them, you can manually move the closing </div> tag to the very bottom again to signal to others that they've been "read". You could also add the code that I provided to the bottom of your user talk page instead. This will result in your user talk page only shading the background of messages that are new and that were left beneath the code. After you've read and responded to those messages, just move the code to the very bottom again in order to "unshade them" and mark them as "read" to others. :-)

Anyways, let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

John "Hallan" wikipedia article

Hello:

I am belatedly responding to your message about the edit I made on the "John Hallan" page back in July. I changed his surname to "Hallam" because it is his actual name. I didn't put a source because the article itself uses this in the reference area: its Hallam. There are some other John Hallam people in Wikipedia so perhaps this is a greater editing issue.

Regards, 99.225.216.142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.216.142 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! The "article itself" cannot be used as a source. Your edit to the article here also changed a bunch of other information about this person without citing any references at all, which is going to draw attention and concerns from other editors. If you believe that your change is correct and that the information currently on the article is incorrect, please start a discussion on the article's talk page here. Include the exact evidence and reason supporting your thoughts, and someone will be happy to take a look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Please remove my "reviewer" flag

I don't perform pending changes reviews anymore; please remove the flag. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Chris troutman - If you want the permissions restored in the future, just let one of us know and we'll be happy to do that for you. Thank you for your service during the time that you were a reviewer. I'd also like to thank Nihonjoe for removing the permissions while I was offline. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:Duck (7 November 2019)

Same habitual behavior as this range regarding the same type of editing which happened again today before being reverted by another user. (i.e. changing to a false name on the same page for one edit.) Further down the contributions list, I see past vandalism on the occasional date which for a time has occurred one week after another with small clusters of edits for some dates. Who knows that this might be the same troll or not who disrupts Wikipedia with this type of editing. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 18:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iggy the Swan! Joy... Why am I not surprised by this? lol... Well, the IP ranges are both from the same ISP and have the same ISN. The ranges look to service different areas, but it's the same network provider and one can easily switch from one to the other. Keep an eye on the 87.74.55.0/23 range for me, and definitely let me know if IP users from it resume adding any disruption to the project. I'll be happy to take a look and do what's necessary to put a kibosh to it. ;-) Thanks for the message and for letting me know about this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Huggle

Even after re-installing huggle, it does not update the queue. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you manage to fix it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No, and sorry for the late reply, i just LOVE doing schoolwork and giving up Wikipedia, what else could go wrong? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries. What error messages do you receive? I'm wondering if this isn't the same issue as before - where you're missing key libraries that Huggle looks for in order to fully function... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The queue will get to 200 and then it won't update anymore, I also notice that the logging in process to huggle takes over 20 seconds for all the green check marks to appear, a lot longer than usual. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The queue size limit (200 is the default) you're observing isn't an issue or bug - it's a setting so that your queue doesn't sit there and grow indefinitely and eat all of your system RAM. It's generally seen as bad programming practice to have your software coded so that a list, object, or other data is able to grow without limit or bounds. There must be a maximum number of items that a list is programmed to be allowed to hold before it won't accept any more. Not doing so opens the door for a lot of issues... There's also a setting you can change where Huggle will replace the oldest edit in your queue with the newest if your queue is currently full. By default, it's set to stop examining edits and stop the feed if it's currently at its limit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Once I get the queue back down to say about, 150, it will go all the way down to 76 and down to it's empty and it won't update anymore even when it is on it's empty, once it gets to 200 that's it, it won't ever update again, i never had this problem before... it boots up a lot slower too. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kbrown (WMF)! I was not aware that there was an official consultation with the community about this. I might've participated had I known about it. This was a subject that I tried to act as a neutral party to so that I could take appropriate actions as an uninvolved administrator had this become necessary. There were many users and administrators that were deeply involved in the Fram discussion; there had to be at least one administrator who remained active and updated in this discussion and on this topic area, but not involved to the point where he/she couldn't strike comments that were uncivil or take other administrative actions if any comments (for example) added information that needed suppression or removal, those kinds of things... However, the main reason regarding my lack of participation in the consultation was my lack of knowledge about it... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

help needed

Hellow Osh, Good day. I would like to remove the TOC on my userpage so the "1" next to CASSIOPEIA on top and the "1.1" of the Useful pages for own reference and "1.2" of the Userboxes be removed, but I can seem to figure out how to do it. Kindly help. thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA! Are you asking for a way to keep the table of contents on your userpage, but in a way that it doesn't display "1", "1.1", "1.2", etc next to each section header that it indexes and displays? Let me know; I'll be happy to help you with that - I just want to confirm that I know exactly what you're asking for. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Osh, yes. However, I want to keep "CASSIOPEIA" text on the image. Can this be done? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - I'm sure it can be done, just not in a way that's easy. I'd consider starting a discussion at the technical section of the village pump and ask how this can be done there. Someone with a lot more experience and involvement with MediaWiki development and code would probably be able to answer it better than I can.

I took a look at some documentation, pages, help files, and code for the Table of Contents, and the closest I was able to get was this section of the MediaWiki manual on the TOC, and this module code page for "TOC" on Wikipedia. There's definitely a way to selectively set a TOC not to render or display the auto-numbering that's generated when the TOC code is executed, and you can clearly see that there's a function written on the module code page that loops, generates a number for each section found, and pipes the result to be display. Whether this code is for the default table of contents that are drawn when __TOC__ is added (or when the MediaWiki software draws it by default), I'm not sure... But as far as I can tell, there's no template, argument, or easy method that disables having the section numbering displayed on a specific table of contents that you specify on a specific page. It's possible to disable having all section numbering displayed on table of contents by modifying your preferences and adding some code to your .css style code page, but applying a style to a specific table of contents rendering isn't an easy thing yet.

Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or provide you with any input or assistance with anything else. I'll be more than happy to help any time you need it. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Osh, Thank you. I had a look and after I disable my numbering in the advances preferences, TOC numbering disappeared in all pages in Wikipedia and not only my user page or my talk page. Well, I didnt know it was a default setting. Thank you again Osh for taking the time to answer my question. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA! Yes, changing that setting within your preferences will result in having no auto-generated sections displayed within any table of contents on any pages while you're logged into your user account. If this is what you were actually looking to do, perfect! Mission accomplished! If you were looking to disable the section numbering from being displayed in the table of contents on just your user page, that setting you changed will of course do this... but only for you. It will not change what other users see when they visit your user page. If I'm correct, I believe that this is what you were trying to do - modify how the TOC appears on your user page and to all users who visit it. Please let me know if I'm incorrect... And no problem; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Osh, I just want to disable TOC on my user page and keep the rest (on all other pages). I placed the and tried to removed it and the TOC numbering still appear - see here. I guess I just leave it as how it is. You have help me enough. You are always kind and make time for those editors like me who are not technical. Thank you Osh and good night. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - If you open a different browser and navigate to your user page, does it appear significantly different? I'm wondering if it might be your browser's cache displaying an older version of your user page, and is causing you confusion... Also, your user page (as it's currently published) only has two section headers, which are named "Useful pages for own reference" and "Userboxes". By default, unless you add __FORCETOC__ to the top of a page, a table of contents will not render and display on pages with less than four sections. Placing __NOTOC__ at the top of your user page will disable the table of contents from ever being displayed at all (on that particular page), but you shouldn't have to do this in the first place... the way that your user page is currently written won't display a TOC due to not having enough sections. I'm wondering if we might be referring to completely different things, or if your preferences have been set to a weird or funky setting or a funky style has been added to your .css page that results in everything being displayed different for you... Can you take a screenshot of what you see when you visit your user page and email it to me so that I can see it? Can you also circle and point out exactly what you're seeing that you want changed? I'm happy to help if you're willing to allow me... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

screen shot sent. I noticed a "SKIP TO TOC" on the top right corner, but I have not idea how to locate the source page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - I noticed that too. The "Skip to TOC" link won't do anything because you don't have an actual Table of Contents displayed on your user page (see this image). This is what I believe that you were referring to at first. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

New email

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

Alex (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alexanderlee! I believe that I responded to your email just a bit ago - sorry for the delay in doing so. :-) Let me know if this is not the case, and I'll be happy to try again. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I’ve just read it now, and thanks for your help! Alex (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexanderlee - No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request

Can I have this edit to my talk page deleted under WP:CRD#2? Thank you. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi InvalidOS! This message (though quite uncivil and very much an example of absolutely unacceptable behavior) doesn't meet the criteria for redaction under RD2, nor does it meet RD3. In fact, in these situations and with messages such as these, I try to recommend users not request messages like these be rev del'd and hidden from public view (unless they contain blatant threats of harm or attempts at outing). Doing so hides the edit from being able to be reviewed and scrutinized by the community and used as evidence later in relevant reports or discussions. You should just let it be; if anything, it shows that you won't be intimidated nor let messages and insults like these get to you or "ruffle your feathers". :-) Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Thanks for the message, and remember that my talk page is always open to you and that you're welcome here any time... :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

InvalidOS - Oh, I forgot to mention this in my response above... In the future, you'll want to send any rev del or OS requests to me by emailing them instead of leaving them here for anyone to read. As of the time of this writing, my user talk page has 1001 user accounts that actively watch it, meaning that they receive a notification in their watchlist each time that my user talk page is edited (as you probably already know... lol). Messages with rev del or OS requests that are left here will almost always trigger the Streisand effect as users read the message and quickly rush over to view the revision and the content before they lose the ability to see it. This results in the content receiving the opposite level of attention, which can be really bad if the content being reported is something that's very serious. No harm done; just figured I'd let you know... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I should probably do that. This is also the second time I've done this  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Invalid^OS (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

InvalidOS - HA! It happens... no harm done. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

you had to...

make me lose the game. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I just lost too... thanks a lot. :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Q

Hi Oshwah, is a speedy-able via R2 if the page is from Wiki namespace to main namespace? If so, please delete Wikipedia:Selwyn Goldsmith. Thank you :) 大诺史 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi 大诺史! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your question and your request. The R2 criterion for speedy deletion applies to redirects that are located on the mainspace and hence point users from the mainspace and toward a page located on a different namespace (with the exception of the namespaces listed in the criterion). The redirect you requested me to speedily delete (Wikipedia:Selwyn Goldsmith) was pointing the other direction. ;-) The criterion you were most likely looking for was R3 (though deleting per this criterion is kind of a stretch here). This criterion was created to be used to delete implausible redirects that were created that contain typos or misnomers that aren't common and seen as useful. It does not mention that it applies to redirects created in inappropriate namespaces - it's just for typos and misnomers. In the future, if you see redirects created like these, it's perfectly fine to tag them for speedy deletion if they meet the criterion without question - your addition of the CSD tag under R2 certainly wasn't unreasonable or inappropriate. People confuse and misinterpret those criteria all the time. However, given what I've reviewed in the CSD guidelines, you might be better off adding a report at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. I don't think that the deletion that Xaosflux performed on Wikipedia:Selwyn Goldsmith citing R3 was a bad action at all (in fact, I would've been inclined to do the same thing). But since you're asking about the proper use of different CSD criteria, I want to give you the most accurate answer that I can provide, and the most accurate answer is that I don't believe that R2 or R3 was designed for use in this exact situation. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Thanks again for the message and the request; the redirect was eventually deleted by Xaosflux. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Scofflaw

Yukito220 has again created a U5 (and probably G12) userpage, which you've deleted twice. Is AIV the next stop? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drm310! Thanks for the message and for letting me know about the user re-creating that user page for a third time. I'd say that, in this situation, the user should be talked to and asked to explain the reason and purpose behind its creation. If no reasonable explanation is given that shows the user page is Wikipedia-related and is not copyrighted, the user should be asked not to create that user page again, and to review Wikipedia's policy on user pages before he creates another one. If, after the user is talked to and given a chance to explain and review the guidelines, the same issue continues, I'd say that filing a report at AIV or (even better) starting a discussion at ANI is the appropriate next step, yes. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions or if you need my input or assistance with anything else. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything you need. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - I just received your email and responded to it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - I received your response and your screenshots, and I responded with one as well. Can you take a look and let me know if what I circled in red is what you're trying to have removed? Thanks. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Osh, also the 1.1 (from 1.1 Useful pages for own reference) and 1.2 ( from 1.2 Userboxes) which I would like to remove - see email attached screen shots. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - I think I found what you need to change in order to fix this. Go to the preferences page on Wikipedia, and click on the "appearance" tab. Scroll down to the bottom of the page, and untick the "auto-number headings" checkbox and make sure that it is disabled. Then click on "save" in order to save those changes. Now go back to your user page and refresh the page in your browser. Does this resolve the issue? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Osh, I have tried that and it works; however, all other Wikipedia pages (my talk page, all other talk pages, articles pages and etc) TOC numbering would disappear as well. I just want my user page TOC numbering remove, can this be done? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - Okay, I understand what you're looking to do now. I figured out how to do it on the test Wikipedia. I created this page within my user space and added the following code to it that you'll see when you view it. Then, I added this code to the top of my user talk page in order to test it... And it worked. The numbers did not appear before the section headers on that page, but appeared on all other pages that I visited. However, there's a catch that may not allow this to work on this site: I had to change the content model of the .css page to be "sanitized CSS" before the MediaWiki software would allow it to work. Saving that code to my user talk page resulted in a red warning text being displayed telling me that the content model had to be "sanitized CSS" first... This is not something I can do here. Changing the content model on a page and certifying it as sanitized code opens up a potentially dangerous security hole that could be exploited. I've changed the content model on the .css page I created on the test wiki to be what it was before I modified it; you'll see the red warning text that I'm talking about if you visit my user talk page there. Unless there's some other way to implement this code, I think we might be out of luck as far as doing it in a way that's easy...

Just to make sure that we're on the same page: You do understand that changing your preferences to automatically number headings only changes this for you, correct? What you're seeing on your user page is only something you're seeing because you have that setting enabled. This is not visible by default and to other users unless they also change that setting. I just don't want you to be mistaken into believing that what you're trying to "fix" is something that is visible to everyone else... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I first have to apology to you that it took so many message to understand what I was asking for and secondly I would like to apology you have to spend so much time to find out what is the problem and how to fix it. However, I truely appreciate your help. And lastly, I would like to appology for asking you for help as I thought, as a non technical person thinking just a few click away to fix the problem and ended up you spending so much time. The thing is that I would like my user to be view from everyone without the numbering and since it is not possible, I would just leave it alone. I am so sorry Osh for wasting so much of your time and you have always been so helpful and attend to technical clueless editor like me. Thank you very much Osh. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA! No apologies are necessary at all! I was actually kind of curious as to how one would do such a thing, which is why I went through that process of adding the .css page and testing the template style reference on the test Wikipedia. It helped me to learn a bit more about how things work around here... ;-) What you just need to know is that other users will not see those numbers that you see on your user page. Only you see those numbers because you changed your preferences to have Wikipedia display them for you on all pages; this is turned off by default for everyone else (unless they turn it on in their preferences). In fact, if you log out of Wikipedia and then visit your user page afterwards, you wont see those numbers in front of those sections. However, if you log back into Wikipedia, they re-appear. ;-) Leaving your user page alone is actually the solution here... there's nothing you need to do because it's actually not a problem. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Now I understand why you need the screen shots, because what you see is diferrent from what I see so my description of the request made no sense to you. dear me.... it should be very late for you in Cal, well every morning actually - thanks again Osh and have a good night. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - I normally ask for screenshots if I believe that I'm not completely on the same level with the other user regarding exactly what he/she is seeing that is problematic, or if the other user is having difficulty with describing exactly what they're seeing with an issue. If you've ever heard the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words", this is an excellent example of exactly what it means. Screenshots and pictures can make the task of identifying the issue and finding the solution a thousand times easier and faster for everyone sometimes... And I appreciate you for being willing to provide them. :-) I'm glad we were able to solve the issue and that I was able to help you understand what you're seeing is not what everyone else sees. It probably saved you many hours of frustration and confusion! :-) That's why I'm happy to provide other users with this kind of assistance. It feels good to be able to give back, serve, and help other users here. If I never was willing to help others like this, I'd just be "that user with the admin powers who reverts edits and blocks people", and that's not something that gains true respect and builds positive experienced users around here. Helping others is what does. :-) Cheers, remember that I'm here if you need help like this in the future, and have a great night! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I started editing Wikipedia because I wanted to give back to Wikipedia what it has given me for more tan 10 years of reading the article and gaining knowledge from it. Well-said Osh and thank you - props to you!. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And major props to you as well, CASSIOPEIA! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Iraqi protests protection

Hi. I see that you turned on protection of 2019 Iraqi protests article because of "Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content". But looking into edits history I am a little confused which ones were bad. Recently there were mostly additions by KasimMejia, which got once deleted but he has brought them back. If his edits were wrong then why are they still in the currently featured article version? Well I personally find his edits dubious as the fact Israel is hostile towards Iraq's government does not mean it is allied with the protesters. 83.21.120.33 (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions. The reason that I protected this article was due to recent IP edits being made such as these ones, which remove referenced and add unreferenced content to the article. These kinds of edits aren't frequent (as of the time of this writing), but I also had to take the fact that this is a highly contentious current event into consideration as well. While I don't believe that this article directly relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict (a topic where discretionary sanctions are authorized by the Arbitration Committee), it's definitely still within an area that's contentious. In fact, if you look at the article's edit history right now, there are edits that were just added and reverted by two different users citing different information. Also, I should mention that the protection level I applied to the article does not affect KasimMejia's ability to edit it. It only restricts anonymous users and accounts that are less than 4 days old and have less than 10 edits. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yea yea. The best regards of course! Thank you enormously for writing me a replay. But in fact I know he is not restricted. This is why your action was strange. Restricted is the IP which once deleted his edits. But it is he that is adding strange content. And now you agree IPs were removing it, not adding. So the reason you stated imposing protection was false. 83.21.120.33 (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The protection I applied to the article was about putting a stop to the random removal and disruption that I found, nothing more. I did not apply the protection in order to favor any sides or give an advantage to anybody regarding the possible content issues that you indicate were added by KasimMejia. If this is an issue and if you feel like KasimMejia's edits should be looked into further, I highly recommend that you follow these guidelines in order to resolve it properly with the user directly. If this doesn't result in a solution and if issues continue, you can file an appropriate request on either this noticeboard or this one so that it can be looked into and (if applicable) the appropriate actions can be taken. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help you further. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are such a big authority I just found it strange you have stated a reason opposite to the actions you have done. Quite confusing... 83.21.120.33 (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

SPI case should be reopened

Hi Oshwah, I saw that you archived this SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Generic515/Archive#16 November 2019, which had been closed by another admin because the sock had been blocked. But the block was only a 24-hour edit-warring block, the sockpuppetry hasn't been addressed. I think the case should be reopened, the sockpuppetry seems very obvious... thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi IamNotU! Thanks for leaving me a message and for letting me know about this. I've restored the SPI case from out of the "archive bin" and re-opened it. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Thanks again! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection of TFA

Hi Oswah,

I see you already realized your mistake, but I think that even 3 hours is wrong. The amount of vandalism the Curacao uprising got wasn't that bad by main page appearance standards. It shouldn't be semi-protected at all, IMO - can you just remove this? Or at least raise a discussion on the Main Page? (TFAs CAN be semi-protected, but it takes 10x the usual amount of vandalism to do so.) SnowFire (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi SnowFire! To be honest, I didn't think it was a huge deal either... ;-) I'll just remove the protection. It's not worth having a big ole' discussion over... ;-) Thanks for the message and for sharing your input and thoughts. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

SnowFire -  Done. Thanks again, and please know that thoughts, concerns, and disagreements are always welcome here. I'd much rather have concerns and thoughts brought to me directly rather than having them go unspoken. It helps me by assuring that each and every administrative action I take reflects the right thing to do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks again for your quick response! SnowFire (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

SnowFire - You bet; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up on SPI

Hi Oshwah and thanks for your help and patience with my first attempted SPI. I did look at the guidance page and although it says that clear evidence is required, it doesn't give any examples so I wasn't sure what exactly was expected. I was hoping that with your magic behind-the-scenes tools you could distinguish whether the person(s) was/were using the range of IPs provided. Any guidance is appreciated, but I'll just briefly see if I can better explain why my suspicions were aroused, before going through all of the diffs again. I don't want to mention or link to the user on your page here - rather keep that part of it on the SPI page - but I became aware of the main user doing a lot of POV-pushing on a number of pages relating to Indigenous people, especially one. Almost everything they added had to be reverted or else modified in some way by another editor or me. (I have now got that main page temporarily semi-protected for a week.) Then noticed that various IPs seemed to be making very similar kinds of changes, also over a few articles, as well as one or two briefly created usernames. Oh and did notice a strange comment on that main user's talk page asking why s/he had been blocked - but the admin's answer was that they weren't blocked, so not sure what that is about. Anyway I will go back to look at the detail and see if I can give a few specific examples... (Having spent many hours side-tracked along yet another side-track today!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laterthanyouthink! Thanks for leaving me a follow-up message regarding the SPI report you filed. As I said before: We were all new to SPI and we all had to file our first SPI report at one point in time - it would be unreasonable for us to expect you to know everything and to be absolutely perfect when filing your first SPI report. In fact, I'd expect that you'd make some mistakes with the first handful of reports that you file... SPI has a learning curve and it takes some understanding and getting used to. Don't feel overly pressured to be absolutely perfect; just do your best, learn from your mistakes and from the feedback you receive, ask questions if you're unsure about anything, and (most importantly) do what you feel is the right thing to do. :-)

An essay page I highly recommend that you review and understand, "Signs of sock puppetry", will be greatly helpful to you when identifying and looking for different signs and evidence of sock puppetry. There are many individual timelines, events, and similarities that can be looked for and found that show possible signs of sock puppetry. It's when you take all of the individual timelines and evidence, put them together, and review them as a whole and in "the big picture", that will establish a level of certainty that two or more accounts or users are connected to one another. When I look for classic cases of sock puppetry, I look at many different things. Here's a list of some of the things that I typically look for:

• When were each of the suspected accounts created? Were the accounts created within only a few minutes of one another, or was one account created shortly after the older account was blocked, had sanctions imposed, or had editing restrictions placed upon them?
• Are there any similarities with the usernames of each suspected account? Do the usernames refer or relate to the same thing? Do the usernames have any kind of connection? (An example of similar usernames would be "JohnathanDSmith", "JohnDSmith", and "JDSmith". Another example would be "ExampleCompanyLLC", "JakeExampleLLC", "JohnWorksAtExample", and "DavidExample".)
• How soon after their creation did each account start editing? Where at? Did they both immediately jump to editing the same article or page and within just a minute or so after the accounts were created? What did they immediately edit, modify, or add?
• What same articles, pages, or topic areas have the accounts or users edited? What content is each user adding to the same article or page? Is it the same content? Is it similar content? Is it similar disruption? Is it the same non-neutral point of view that each user seems to be on an agenda about, or is repeatedly injecting or inserting into article content?
• What's the timeline or series of events that can be found between the accounts or users? When one user adds content, does the other user always seem to immediately edit the same page after the first user and without any on-wiki discussion or communication between them? When someone reverts the content or changes that one user adds with an edit, does the other user seem to always revert the content back or add it back later? Are they adding the same vote to the same discussion and with similar arguments in support or opposition?
• What subtle similarities do each user appear to show within their edits or edit summaries? Does each user add or conform to a unique kind of grammar style, word or phrase use (or misuse), table formatting, code spacing, capitalization of certain words, improper word spelling, lengthy edit summary use or lack of edit summary use, or other unique subtle styles that aren't common or are frequently used between each user?
• What's the overall daily activity timeline of each user? Do the users seem to be active during the exact same time period or time of the day? Do they both start becoming active and then become inactive closely together and at the same time? Do the users seem to be active during adjacent time periods? Where one user is active, and the other user becomes active as soon as the first user stops editing for the day and goes inactive?

Again, one apparent similarity (or sometimes even a couple of apparent similarities) found may not always mean that sock puppetry is occurring. However, multiple similarities, connections, and pieces of evidence that are found and put together can establish very solid evidence of sock puppetry, and the probability that everything found is just due to mere unlucky coincidence is extremely minute. You need to supply diffs with each individual piece of evidence you present in your report that involves edits or the use of edit summaries that clearly show a connection, and you need to present each piece of evidence with a clear explanation of what's similar and where you found the connection or similarity (unless it involves an edit, diffs will obviously explain where you found it). The more evidence you can present, the more clear you are with your explanations, and the more diffs of examples you can provide to prove similarities between edits (when applicable), the better your overall presentation of evidence and your overall SPI report will be.

Take some time and review that essay I linked you to. If you have any questions or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. I hope that this response was helpful and provided you with the information and guidance that you were looking for. I'm available and more than happy to help if you need it - all you need to do is ask. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to pass on all of that info, Oshwah - much appreciated. I'll bookmark that page and also come back to look for this page in your archives if/when I encounter a suspected SPI again. (Mostly I prefer to just add content, although do revert vandalism and try to follow up to protect Wikipedia if it's getting repetitive and tediously annoying... such as that other "history man" where I think you may have been involved too, with IamNotU?) I still have my suspicions about that group of users, but after going through it bit by bit the other day, and especially reviewing the kind of evidence that is looked for, I agree that it's not convincing enough for that one. There's definitely POV-pushing, mostly with very lazy editing, copying and pasting, using citations that are obviously not original, etc. - but anyway, I'll keep my eye on it. Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink - No problem! I'm always happy to help and with anything you need. :-) Reverting vandalism is what inevitably got me started with SPI and identifying sock puppetry and other account abuse. In fact, you can take a look at a classic case of sock puppetry that I just resolved less than an hour ago (if you wish). Just take a look at this edit history of Popular Front of India, and you should see the signs almost right away. Multiple accounts removing a bunch of stuff. Once one stops, another begins... Look through the edits and logs of those accounts, and you'll see easy connections between each one (not including the blocks I made to all of them). This easy level of sock puppetry is where I started from: Where you can see it just looking at the history page of an article. From there, you'll gain more and more experience and you'll naturally pick up on other signs and evidence as you patrol recent changes and revert vandalism. Either way, I'm glad that I was of assistance to you, I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hair and SPI

Hey Oshwah, we saw an episode of Vera the other night, and one of the characters' hair reminded us of yours. Don't worry, though, your hair is far more interesting and you're better looking, so your entertainment career is safe! While you're waiting for your big break, here's some feedback about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KaderMir2002‎. As a clerk, you should put your endorsement in the clerk section. The first part of that long paragraph is fine in the filer's section. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23! That's hilarious! I'm glad that my hair hasn't been outdone by someone else. :-P Thank you for the feedback regarding that SPI report. That thought actually did cross my mind after I had created it, but I just decided to leave things be. I'll make sure to do this in the future. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

YorkshireLad has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for your help earlier today, it was really appreciated.

Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{subst:Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi YorkshireLad! Thanks for the Toblerone bars! You're welcome; always happy to be of assistance to others. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Page deleted

Hello I just created a talk and I just found out that you’ve deleted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Wisdom King Adukpo (talk • contribs) 13:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Wisdom King Adukpo, and welcome to Wikipedia! I apologize for the delayed response to your message here - life has been keeping me busy lately. ;-)

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

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

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on user pages, and I'll be happy to answer them. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Unprotect the article Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian general election

I swear that I no more will edit war with Panam2014 in that article. 189.46.161.42 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Sorry! 189.46.161.42 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The sole desagreement was about clear anachronism. Bolsonaro was PSL candidate until 11/19. And he left PSL on 12/11 and formed APB on 21/11. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Panam2014, 189.46.161.42 - If you two agree to discuss and resolve the matter on the article's talk page and promise that the back-and-forth reverts won't continue, I'll remove the full protection applied to the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I agree (I'm out of home now, so my IP changed). And you? 187.26.150.85 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Same. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove the protection from the article. :-) Thank you for choosing to work together and resolve the dispute peacefully and civilly. It's unfortunately becoming more rare to see this... users who are willing to shake hands and work things out. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this makes me happy to see. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for reviewing my page! LeanyMeltz (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

LeanyMeltz - No problem! Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Green Jellÿ

Hey Osh, can you please consider actioning this request I understand if you're not willing, but this is getting quite disruptive. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime - I apologize for such a delay responding to your request here. I actioned your request as soon as I saw it; I just didn't follow up and let you know that it was done. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Abdoulty nothing to apologise for, that's why they call it team work. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 12:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime - I appreciate that. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Worth a log?

Falun Gong is under discretionary sanctions, so is it worth logging your protection settings change at WP:AEL? I genuinely have no clue to these things. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi MJL! Good call! I wasn't aware of the discretionary sanctions that were authorized on pages relating to Falun Gong - thank you for pointing this out to me. To answer your question (bearing this new knowledge in mind): Yes, I probably should log my actions. ;-) Thanks again for the message and for letting me know! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content

Hi Oshwah,

Thank you for your message about the edit on the article about "Jasna Popovic". I appreciate your patience. I am not an experienced user. I come from a time when encyclopedias were big books of paper that filled shelves. This was the first time that I had deleted anything on Wikipedia. All my previous contribuitions have been by adding material. I run into the page for this pianist and all the links are dead and would refer to her own personal website.

I think I described that in the edit summary as: (Removed unsourced material and dead links. Recommend deletion of article. Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia.)

Please let me know what is the appropriate procedure in these situations.

Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasna%20Popovic&diff=927863532

Thank you!

~humbertoego~

> Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Jasna Popovic, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Humbertoego (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Humbertoego! I apologize for such a delay responding to your message and your questions. You are absolutely correct in that you added a detailed and sufficient edit summary to describe the changes you made here to the Jasna Popovic article. I apologize for the confusion that I caused when I reverted your edit and followed-up with a note on your user talk page regarding edit summary use. I should've been more specific with my concerns, and I am sorry that I wasn't. The concerns I had regarding your removal of content was the fact that you removed so much of it, that the resulting article text that was left afterwards was completely bare and make no sense to the reader. If you feel that an article subject fails to meet the level of notability required in order for it to have its own Wikipedia article, you should nominate it for deletion instead. This way, we're cleaning up the encyclopedia, resolving this concern and situation, and doing so with the proper solution. If this person isn't notable, no reliable sources exist that are independent of the article subject (meaning that the person isn't directly involved with the source or its development, hosting, or publishing) that demonstrate notability, and if the sole source supporting this article's content is no longer available (remember to search for archives using search engines and web archive projects) - I'd say that this article would be a very easy candidate to nominate and justify for deletion using AFD. If you have any questions regarding this article, or any questions regarding notability or Wikipedia's deletion policy (namely, AFD) - please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Thanks again for the message and for following up with me. Again, I apologize for taking so long to respond to you - life has been keeping me busy. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

CU Barnstar

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		For your good work at WP:SPI, I had supported you for the CU tools, glad to see your good work in reducing the SPI backlog DBigXrayᗙ 12:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray - I appreciate your kind words... very much. They mean a lot to me and I thank you so very much for taking the time to express them to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

92.6.6.131

Hi Oshwah, there is an AIV report but they are rapid fire. Can you please block? S0091 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

S0091 -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! S0091 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

S0091 - No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 09:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor - Received and replied. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

New account (Originally User:Mike Matthews17)

A week ago I created the above account but lost my password unfortunately. Is there a way to recover the password to the original account or transfer the autoconfirmed access to this one as these two are operated by myself? Mike2Matthews17 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As the original one is 4+ days old and 10+ edits. Mike2Matthews17 (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) unless you had an email linked to the account, there is no way to recover the password. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mike2Matthews17! If you confirmed an email address to the old account, you can recover the password by visiting this page. If you did not confirm an email address to your old account, then unfortunately there is no way to recover the password unless you figure it out yourself using means from your computer to do so. :-( Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

^{Note: User:Mike Matthews17 and User:Mike2Matthews17 have now been blocked, the one with a "2" inserted had vandalised my talk page, moved a page to this name and the same type of vandalism on another article had come from a number of IP addresses (i.e. this edit). The original has been blocked because of the user page evidence. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 07:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)}

^{And this section, lol. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 07:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)}

Iggy the Swan - Yeahhhh, I suspected something was up... ;-) Thanks for letting me know. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A side issue - it was a disaster to find out the user who blocked "Mike2Matthews17" has now been blocked for the usage of multiple accounts by the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard in case you've missed the whole thing. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan - Oh, wow... I did miss this... That's super disappointing... Thanks for letting me know about this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thought that may be the case as you were not here for 13 days since I'd put the small text note up. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)