User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2023-04

You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from April 2023. 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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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.

Question from Amir Entezam (03:08, 4 April 2023)

Hello, I want to add a short article to Wikipedia. Is it possible? --Amir Entezam (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Amir! Anybody can create an article (or a draft, in this case), though there are a few basic ground rules to follow. Before beginning, I highly recommend reading Help:Your first article to get a sense of our policies. There is also a button near the bottom of that page that will allow you to start a draft. Let me know if you have any more questions! :) ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate - ...And again! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Question from SilverCatGold (02:10, 10 April 2023)

I'm interested in editing and improving pages related to Korean TV shows and movies. I noticed that some of the less famous actors don't have photos. When I search the wikimedia commons, there is no photo available. What is the next step -- just wait until someone who took a photo of that actor chooses to upload it to wikimedia commons? Is there another source of images to draw from? --SilverCatGold (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi SilverCatGold! I’m one of Oshwah’s talk page stalkers. If there’s no image currently on Commons, you can add one using the Upload Wizard, granted that the image has a licence compatible with Commons. I recommend checking Flickr for images because the Upload Wizard has the option for you to enter a URL from that site and it will do the rest of the work. If the image you chose can’t be used, it’ll let you know. Here’s some information on identifying usable images. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Helen. SilverCatGold (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate - Ditto with the sincere thank you! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Find a grave references

is find a grave a reliable source to references to add onto someone’s page or anything for that matter. Thanks, long time no see btw. A.R.M. 02:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi ARMcgrath! Thanks for leaving me a message with your question here! :-) If you take a look at this entry in the list of perennial websites that are often discussed, it has been determined to not be a reliable source and therefore should not be used as a reference to support any content on Wikipedia - especially if the particular page is a circular reference to Wikipedia (meaning that the information provided on the page cites Wikipedia as a source to support it). The reason that find-a-grave pages are not considered reliable is mainly due to the fact that the information provided is user-generated, and with little or no oversight that's in-place and guaranteed to patrol, review, or verify the validity or accuracy of what is submitted. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet TPA

Hello,

You may wish to revoke the TPA of that recent sockpuppet to mach other accounts and the previous block. I have requested a global lock. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Illusion Flame -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am assuming the most recent sock block is related to that other user above. If this is true, you may wish to revoke TPA on that account too. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Illusion Flame - Already  Done. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I have requested locks for all of the accounts. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Illusion Flame - Right on! Thanks for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw you blocked User:Nitrous Oxide is good. Alcohol (Bud Light) is bad. for sockpuppetry. I was wondering if the master is is User:Bud Light is Racism. If that is the master, I will request locks because the master is locked. If not, that’s fine too! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Illusion Flame - If that's the oldest account out of this group of socks, then I'd find the answer to your question to be 'likely'. Yeah, request away! Thanks for doing that! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated, but can you check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cfcytftyft7f as a checkuser. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! Given that level of sockpuppetry, do you think I should request locks or not? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Illusion Flame - No problem. That was an easy open-and-shut case. Whoever it is behind those socks is not a very good sock at all... ;-) If you think they're going to cause cross-wiki abuse, then sure - go for it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I would never want to be a checkuser. I think SPI is a very complex place that requires a lot of knowledge. If that was easy, I hate to see what hard looks like! Thanks for all that you do. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, I haven’t requested locks because I doubt the disruption will continue across wiki, given that you said their socking ability was bad. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Illusion Flame - It does help that I come from many years of networking experience; I'll admit that it made the barrier to entry about 70% easier compared to if I had none of that experience outside the project. Despite that, I would honestly say that, after some training and coaching, and after some time spent getting comfortable and proficient with everything, it really grows to become something that isn't that difficult. Just like with... well, really anything... it takes experience, practice, and time. You typically learn a lot as a new checkuser by training one-on-one with an experienced checkuser to help you with getting to know the ropes and with understanding the interface. They'll also help by performing a few checkuser tasks alongside you. Beyond that, the real learning comes by reviewing cases on your own, and then asking another CU for assistance with complex ones that you can't wrap your head around. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #72220

is open. Sounds plausible on surface. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Deepfriedokra! Thanks for the heads up. I'm headed there to review this now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		When all the admins were defeated not present for 16 minutes, one of them rose from the ashes to save the day... Snowmanonahoe (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Snowmanonahoe! Thank you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar! It means a lot to me and I appreciate it greatly. I apologize for such a delay with responding to you and thanking you. Things in life are just now slowing down enough to where I can spend some time on wiki and do some good work! :-) Thanks again, and I hope you're doing well! :-D Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is RevDel request from user "Wesoree".
Message added 15:40, 20 April 2023 (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.

-- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, someone already revdeled the edits. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wesoree - No worries; I think that was me... Either way, I appreciate the email. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you see any more edits that need revdel or (heaven forbid) OS. I'll be happy to take care of it. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Vivekdxtt (07:15, 21 April 2023)

Hello , Can i make my company's page on wikiepdia? --Vivekdxtt (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Vivekdxtt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Our policies and guidelines highly discourage editors from creating, editing, or even participating in discussions that involve articles in which they have a personal conflict of interest with. This is because of the fact that the conflict presents a scenario that makes it nearly impossible for you (or other such users in this situation) to comply with and adhere to a completely neutral point of view when participating in any kind of activity that involve these articles. In this case, since you refer to the article you'd like to create as being about your company, one would easily determine this to be a conflict of interest. Hence, I do not recommend that you spend any kind of time or effort toward building, constructing, or creating this article. Even if such a creation were to be completed and published as a draft for review, it would almost-certainly be declined as being able to be published to the article space, or mainspace, by a New Page Reviewer because of the apparent (and usually blatant) conflict of interest that shows, or due to other issues that users with a conflict of interest typically fail to sufficiently provide.

Instead, I highly recommend that you focus your time and energy toward other article subjects that interest you, but where you don't have a personal conflict of interest with. If this company you speak of is indeed notable, meets the appropriate guidelines, and should have its own article on Wikipedia, another editor will certainly take the time and create one. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay, that you take off your jacket and stick around for awhile, and that you become a proficient and experienced editor here. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

IP range block in Tunisia

Hi. I am using a dynamic IP address which resets by itself @ 6AM (UTC). Currently, it has been a year since the below users were blocking IP users by range, including me who is innocent and occasionally leaves its edit summaries when needed (including this edit), particularly pages related to windows 10 version history and windows 11 version history.

HJ Mitchell (Most wanted)
Favonian
Ohnoitsjamie
Tamzin
Ad Orientem
Callanecc
ScottishFinnishRadish
Ponyo
And the list continues…

Users, for goodness sake, what the actual heck in the world is going on???!!!197.14.74.27 (talk)

Hi. Sorry if you've been caught up in a range block. This is typically done in response to pervasive disruptive editing from within the given range and is almost always a last resort to protect the project. The good news is that these types of blocks are almost always "anon only," which means that they only effect anonymous editing. Registered users can still edit by signing in. If you would like to become a registered user please see WP:ACCOUNT. There are multiple benefits to having an account. I hope this helps and I apologize for any inconvenience. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PPRightPlace

Template:PPRightPlace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. SWinxy (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

What 10 websites (popular or not) should every internet user use? How about asking questions online?

Hi Oshwah, I'd be interested in knowing the 10 best websites (popular or not) that everyone should use. Given that there are millions of websites online, I think it would be a good idea to narrow it down to just 10 useful websites. I would also like to know of some places on the internet where I can ask questions online about different topics with sizable communities. What would be your recommendations? Interstellarity (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Interstellarity! I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. Are you still looking for my recommendations? Your question is quite broad - are you looking for 10 websites that every Wikipedia editor should use in regards to editing or other tasks on Wikipedia? Or are you simply asking for a list of websites that everyone should use? Have you looked at the Alexa rankings list by chance? This lists the most popular websites in use today (for reference, Wikipedia is currently #8), and should help you with coming up with such a list. Anyways, let me know exactly what you're looking for and I'll be happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually looking for your recommendations on the best websites for everyone to use. Interstellarity (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Interstellarity - Okay, fair enough. When I look through the top websites in the reference I linked you to above, some domains that instantly pop out as important for anyone to know about if they want to become proficient with internet browsing and data consumption. First would be Google or DuckDuckGo, since having a search engine at your fingertips is quite important. Obviously, Wikipedia would be on my list, since it's a great starting reference to obtain information. I could also see how people might argue that LinkedIn (or something similar) would be important, since it can be a great tool in regards to careers, networking, and job-related searches. Another random place? Amazon (or another similar online shopping website) - because of the convenience provided, and the fact that it provides you ability to purchase something that you might need in a pinch that some (if not many) local stores or shops at your location might not carry. From there, I think it will depend on the person, what their wants, needs, and interests are, and what their desired goal or outcome is in regards to internet use and data consumption. Hopefully this list will at least give you a good starting place. And, of course, please don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can be of assistance or do anything else for you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Caliban

Editing the article "Caliban" is part of my class assignment. I am in haste, so I apologies if any information added or the method it was added would disgraced the respect amongst you. I do understand that not all inclusions will be accepted. Thank you for your understanding of my haste and excuse my ill manner. Chicken-n-beans (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Chicken-n-beans - No worries; let me know if you have any questions or if there's anything I can help you with. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Oldest people articles

Hi Oshwah, I haven't talked to you in so long. I hope you don't mind me asking how old you are since I'm curious what generation you come from. My main question is about articles such the Oldest people and List of oldest living people. I would like to know what determines what people make it to the list. I understand that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to get its information so my question is more about the other sources that Wikipedia gets its information from. How do the other sources get their information? Is the reason that so few people are listed because birth records and census records were not as accurate as they are today? Is it hard to verify the ages of those people compared to now? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstellarity (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Interstellarity! As I stated above, I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. Life was keeping me busy, but it's finally had a chance to slow down a little bit. :-) According to this website (as well as this article), I am part of the Millennial Generation or Generation Y group of people. Indeed you are correct in that any information added to or included on the Oldest people and List of oldest living people articles (as well as any article, hopefully...) should reference secondary reliable sources that are independent of the article subject. What do you refer to exactly when you say, "other sources" that Wikipedia gets its information from? If you're referring to any kind of primary source, such as... say... birth records, birth listings, vitality records, or other such data, we should generally be avoiding those whenever possible - especially if any of the people listed in those articles are still alive.

I think that, yes, birth records and similar information in that aspect has improved in regards to accuracy and record-keeping as time has gone by and new technologies have been developed. The invention, development, and world-wide implementation of digital computing and the Information Age have especially aided with improving the integrity, longevity, and accuracy of such data. A big reason, however, that there may be a big gap, hole, or missing data in these articles is due to the fact that the topic of longevity has been very contentious and (at times) resulted in heated discussion, edit warring, and other disruption to the project. The topic of longevity even currently stands as a contentious topic (or what used to be known as a discretionary sanction) on Wikipedia - you can refer to this page for more information on the longevity contentious topic. This obviously goes without saying: You should exercise a high amount of care, caution, common sense, awareness, diligence, and judgment if you decide to make any edits or changes to these two articles, or any articles that - broadly construed - are under the topic of longevity. Don't do anything that will put you in a position of being placed "in hot water" or put "under the microscope" by either ArbCom, Administrators, or the community. If you're ever not 100% sure if a certain edit or action you're considering is deemed to be appropriate or acceptable, it's always best to not proceed, and ask the community for input or thoughts first. Better safe than sorry. :-)

I hope my response was at least somewhat helpful to you! Of course, if you have any more questions, or if you need my input or thoughts about anything else, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, I was wondering when you were going to respond to my query and I'm glad you finally had the time to do so. Yes, I am aware that longevity is a contentious topic. Is it possible that there are people that are beyond the age of 110 are still alive and not on the list because they prefer to keep their lives private? I would also like to know why post-1992 US politics is considered a contentious topic. Why not other countries like the UK, France, Germany, or China? I appreciate your time. Interstellarity (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Interstellarity - I would say, sure... I bet there are many people out there who are older than 110 years of age who aren't on the list for various reasons. One reason may certainly be that they wish to keep their lives private, or perhaps maybe it could be simply due to them not believing or being aware that their longevity is, in itself, a notable achievement (especially if they're in a culture where reaching a longer-than-average age is normal to them).

Why is Post-1992 politics considered contentious? If you read through the ArbCom case page here where the motion to add this as a contentious topic passed, as well as read through this revision of the ARCA page, you'll see that American Politics have long been the subject of unnecessary political discussions, personal attacks and battleground conduct, heated debates and arguments, edit warring, and other disruption. ArbCom originally defined the contentious topic as post-1932 politics of the United States, but after some discussion and observation, they felt that it was more beneficial to modify the cutoff date to instead be post-1992 politics of the United States. To me, the main point of the contentious topic is to allow for appropriate sanctions to be placed on articles and other locations where political discussions occur somewhat-frequently, and where heated discussions and other disruption have been consistently prevalent.

Why just US politics and not politics in other countries as well? Simple. It's because the topic of politics in "other countries like the UK, France, Germany, or China" have not been the subject of contentious debate, disruption, and other problems. Rest assured, if they become the forefront of such disruption and battleground conduct, they will almost certainly be added as contentious topics as well. We just don't have a need to do that right now. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That helps a lot. I would like to know if I have any future questions and you're not around to answer them, which administrators would you recommend asking my questions to. I think having a few administrators that I can count on would be helpful just in case something happens when you are busy. Interstellarity (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from DgZt73 (22:35, 26 April 2023)

Hey! I’ve recently discovered several incredibly obscured Wikipedia pages about Vietnam, the pages have been more or less inactive for over 10 years, and many of the sources are incredibly outdated or are particularly opinionative. My question is: how should I go about finding new sources? Is there some sort of process to find sources for Wikipedia? What metric is used to determine a reliable or unreliable source (if there is one)? Anyways, I’d appreciate it if you could help me out with this.

-DgZt73 --DgZt73 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DgZt73! Oshwah has been away for the past few days, but I’m one of his friendly stalkers.

Help:Find sources provides a brief but highly informative overview on digging up sources, so I encourage you to check it out.

For the second part of your question, about reliability: I like to consult this list when I find a potential source and want to gauge its reliability. Don’t worry if the source you’re looking at isn’t listed there— that doesn’t mean you can’t use it. There is also a search box on the same page that lets you check if we’ve discussed the source’s reliability before. If you still can’t find a discussion on the source, or if it’s a significantly older discussion, you’re more than welcome to begin a new thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard.

Let me know if you have any more questions, either here or on my talk page! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 01:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi DgZt73! Welcome to Wikipedia! I apologize for the extreme delay with responding to your message and your request for help. HelenDegenerate provided good information above that should help you. However, if you're still finding yourself stuck, confused, or needing additional assistance, please don't hesitate to reach out and let me know. I'll be more than happy to assist you with anything that you need. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)