User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-02

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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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

Feeling so special right now

I JUST REVERTED VANDALISM FOR THE FIRST TIME😁😁😁😁 rate my warning please just feeling so special to the community right now😀 GOLDIEM J (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi GOLDIEM J! I think it was a good revert of an edit that was disruptive and that your warning was well-done. Good job! The thing I did change was to remove your real name from the message and replace it with your username. Please also see the message I left on your user talk page - I had to remove information from your user page for your safety and protection. If you have questions about this, please feel free to email me privately by clicking here. You can also email me by clicking "email this user" on the left side of my user page or user talk page on Wikipedia. I have a responsibility to safeguard your personal information and the message will explain more. Thanks again, and great job with your first revert and warning for the edit! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Difficult warning/block help on incident noticeboard

Hello,

I believe that I have been hounded by an experienced editor and I have had an issue with other administrators the incident noticeboard before not taking issues that I raised seriously. Could you help me? I have already posted the complaint and notified the user.

Thank you, User:Jajhill (talk) 04:34 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a completely unjustified ANI posting, to the point where I suggested a boomerang. Meters (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! It looks like the consensus from the ANI discussion has shown that the user the you reported didn't do anything wrong, and you've since vanished. I'm sorry to see you go. I hope that you decide to return and let us help you so that you don't run into any more controversy like what you faced during the ANI discussion regarding your report... :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a question about plate armors

There were knights in plate armor in the Iberian Peninsula? (Spain and Portugal)

Thanks. JamesOredan (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

JamesOredan - Good question... I'm honestly not sure. You'll want to ask at the reference desk if you want more information. Are you questioning whether or not this is true? Is there content within an article that I need to look at? Let me know and I'll be happy to take a look if you believe that something is not correct. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:RhinoF1

Hi, Could you block my alternative account, User:RhinoF1, for accountability purposes? RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 14:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

And copy my rights to User:RhinosF1 (Public) - Thanks RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Don't know if you're busy so I'm going to request admin help at my talk. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi RhinosF1! I apologize for the delay responding to your request. I'm just now getting all caught up with the Wikipedia messages and emails I received while I was away (69 notifications about messages and emails in the span of a week and a half... lol). :-) It looks like you were able to have that account blocked - good to see! If you need my help with anything in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know (like you did above) and I'll usually be around and happy to help! Glad you got your request handled and sorry again for not being here to do it for you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologise, we all get busy. I created a Wikipedia account and and after a month went on on Wikibreak for a month. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed; we all get busy for sure. I had to take a Wikibreak for a number of years back in the day due to being in college and having little to no time to spend outside of class, homework, labs, and studying. Life happens... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a lot of trouble of spending too much time on Wikipedia instead of doing schoolwork.--Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for advice/assistance

Oshwah,

I'm hoping you can offer some advice or assistance regarding an editor, Carmaker1, who has recently returned from a block. I know you've interacted with him in the past, at least to an extent. There have been two discussions at AN/I in recent months regarding his behavior ([1], [2]), and it has returned anew, albeit less severely than before - uncivil edit summaries, including personal attacks against other editors, removing maintenance templates without resolving the problem, and defying project consensus regarding how automotive model years are handled. Example - one instance of the latter was removing the model years from the table listed in Ford Fox platform. I reverted it, and changed the relevant table heading to clearly state "model years", as that was indeed incorrect previously. It is troubling how Carmaker1 chose to put that much effort into defying consensus when changing a single column header was the proper solution. The fact that he smugly posted on the article talk page saying "glad someone corrected the page..." is even more troubling. That, combined with such things as, on more than one occasion, bragging about how he refuses to format references makes it appear that he relishes making other editors clean up after him (which another editor has been doing for these unformatted refs).

To be certain, Carmaker1 can make very helpful edits - he corrected a significant inaccuracy at Ford DN5 platform that had persisted here since 2006. Unfortunately, separating his productive edits from disruption is increasingly difficult (exacerbated by the tendency to make a dozen separate edits to an article in succession). He still seems to believe that his claims of insider knowledge from working in the industry supersede Wikipedia policies and guidelines (verifiability, no original research, consensus, etc.), and give him the right to turn this particular corner of it into his own personal fiefdom.

I don't want to take this straight to AN/I after only three days of editing post-block, and nothing that glaring has happened yet (at least in my view). But given the track record and the fact that he is clearly not getting it, I have no reason to doubt that this will escalate given his uncivil manner and his mission to purge Wikipedia of a nomenclature he objects to. I proposed a topic ban at the last AN/I discussion in hopes that he could learn to edit cooperatively in a different area and return once he developed that ability, but received no feedback for or against. I'd appreciate any input you may have on how to handle this. Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sable232. This user has been repeatedly blocked for these kinds of edits (even once by me), and it looks like the user is still continuing to edit disruptively despite all of this. I don't care so much about his edits adding references without formatting them, or if his edits are good and supported by a reliable source but just not formatted perfectly - those kinds of edits fit into being bold and ignoring the little things so long as they're completely helpful, of course. :-) Adding a reference to a reliable source to cite content but not formatting it to be a reference listed at the bottom of the article is an improvement. Annoying, sure... but still an improvement. However, your concerns regarding the user's addition of unreferenced content, original research, and disruptive edits (perhaps even edit warring) against consensus is a completely different matter. Those edits aren't acceptable, don't comply within the bounds and the spirit of bold editing or ignoring the rules, and I agree with you that those edits are problematic.

I understand your thoughts in that you don't want to file another ANI report so soon and after this user was just unblocked from the results of previous one. Unfortunately, it looks like we're at that point... I would revert the problematic edits that I described above, warn the user like you would anyone else (don't "reset" them back to lower edits simply because a new month started or because time passed by since the previous warning), and if it continues despite those warnings - file an ANI report and link the diffs to the problematic edits and your repeated warnings so that the case is clear. I know that it's not the most fun thing to do - especially given the fact that a previous ANI was just closed regarding this editor, but if it's needed then it's needed. Blocks will need to start to increase in duration; no more of those 31 - 72 blocks...

Let me know if I can be of assistance regarding anything else and I'll be happy to lend a hand. Let me know if you file that ANI and link me to it so I can keep an eye on things. I hope you're doing well and I wish you a great day. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep you posted if it escalates. --Sable232 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 - You bet, and please do :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Enthusiastic editor using PROD on redirects

While patrolling recent proposed deletions I noticed that someone had been adding PROD tags to redirects. I started removing them with an edit summary explaining that redirects are not eligible for PROD, then I realized that the editor had actually tagged around 100 soccer-related redirects [3]. I left a message on their talk page [4], but it also occurred to me that this was a possible scenario in which rollback criterion 5 might apply. So I thought I'd ask if you or one of your talk page watchers/stalkers might take a look. If not, no worries. It will all get sorted out at one end or the other, I'm sure. Bakazaka (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. PROD'ing redirects is inappropriate. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help! Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bakazaka, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your request for help. As Abelmoschus Esculentus said above, proposed deletion is not to be used for redirects as stated in the summary paragraph of the policy page. Do you need help with removing those edits by the user placing those PROD templates onto those pages? Let me know and I'll be happy to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Abelmoschus Esculentus already took care of those edits. You have some helpful talk page watchers! Bakazaka (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Bakazaka - That's awesome to hear and know! Feel free to message me here any time you need help, input, or assistance and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:00, 7 February 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 :) 🍁 03:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Responded; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

ANI history whacked

The history of WP:ANI from your last edit a few minutes ago back to 2019-02-01T04:37:46Z has seemingly been deleted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1 - Yes it has. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1 - The revisions were suppressed. I unfortunately cannot go into any further detail as to where or why, because it would be a violation of the Oversight policy, Wikimedia's privacy policy, the Access to nonpublic personal data policy and my formal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation stating that I would not violate the Access to nonpublic personal data policy. In order words, I'd be in deep shit. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm only concerned because it's a whole week of edits by many editors. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AlanM1 - Yeahhhh... Unfortunately, it's more than a week of edits that had to be suppressed... and trust me, I understand your concerns and the reason why you're messaging me and asking me about it. I would be asking about it too if I were in your position and saw that. :-( All I can say about it is that edit(s) were made to the page containing content that required redaction and suppression under the Oversight policy. Since the content that required suppression was added more than a week prior and not properly and fully redacted and removed until just earlier today, each revision of the page between the addition and the removal requires suppression from view. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You may see the content in the archives or the current page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I guess I shouldn't have posted that text and translation. Sorry, I won't do it again. I didn't realize we weren't supposed to do that sort of thing (it might help to update the relevant policy page to say something specifically about social media). So now that I know, you may want to review [[[REDACTED - Oshwah]|this]]; not sure if it requires any attention. ^Leviv_ich 07:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Levivich! No problem, and for the record: It's okay to post an external link to Twitter. It's just not okay to post a link to Twitter (and any relevant content from it) to Wikipedia if it exposes any private information about a Wikpipedia editor here and if that user hasn't posted a link to their Twitter account or whatever themselves (implying that the information is public since they added it). There's a distinct difference between looking on Oshwah's user page, seeing that he posted his Twitter account to it, and then using that link to see it and then locating a post that tries to canvass other editors and finding a Twitter post outside of Wikipedia somehow, seeing that the post or the Twitter account states, claims, implies, or otherwise gives you the belief that it belongs to Oshwah, then posting the link on Wikipedia for any reason and saying or even implying or linking it in-context in a matter that states, "look what I found! I think it's Oshwah!" The later would not be acceptable and is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on outing; the former is not. If you weren't aware about the policy and exactly what edits would violate it, then don't worry - it was a mistake and you've learned from it. Just don't do that again. ;-) I'll be reaching out to the Oversight team regarding this situation; those who were responsible and attempted to out the user and knowing that it would or might violate this policy will be discussed. Accidents and mistakes happen; if it was an honest example of such, then you'll be fine. :-)

Also, please take a few moments and read through the Oversight policy page so that you know what qualifies for suppression, how to properly report edits that need suppression to someone, and what to do when you see violations of policy that involves one's identity, personal information, or private details not disclosed on Wikipedia. It's extremely important to do now that you've been made aware of the policy on outing, Oversight, and suppression. I had to redact the link you provided to the page in your message so that others could not use it to try and view the information you were referring to. Next time, email this to me privately instead of providing it to Wikipedia in a public place so that this is avoided. Hence, this is another reason why I urge you to read through this policy page - it states this in big bold letters; "don't request Oversight publicly; here's how to do it properly". I'm just keeping an eye out for you and want to have your back so that you don't wind up stumbling into any pitfalls. :-)

If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Thanks for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation; I will read the policy and sorry also about the bad report. The part that surprised me (though it makes sense now that I think about it) is that, if the editor posts their social media account on their user page, then it's OK to make the link publicly; but if the editor posts their wikipedia username on their social media account, then that's not the same thing. I thought it was two-way street instead of one-way street, but I get why impersonation would be a concern. (I may not be the only editor who needs this explained to them, as you may have noticed.) Thanks for fixing it and for taking the time to explain it to me! ^Leviv_ich 08:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Leviv - You're welcome! :-) Haha I understand what you mean, and I'm happy to see that you've thought about this and that you realize and understand now. :-) Nope, it is a one way avenue and the traffic only flows from (for example) "Oshwah posts a link on Wikipedia to their off-wiki stuff" to "Another user, after viewing that link Oshwah posted about himself, posts a sub-link onto Wikipedia to express concerns about violations of policy due to what Oshwah posted off-wiki". It does not go the other way around.

Some situations can appear to make the "opposite direction" okay to post on-wiki or even appear to be extremely grey areas or tough/close calls (sure, some situations I've seen certainly have been), but in the end... if (for example) you happen to run into a reddit comment (or something similarly silly) made by a reddit user saying "Yeah, I'm Oshwah on Wikipedia and I'm going to vandalize the main page tonight", without a link from Oshwah posted onto Wikipedia publicly by his account earlier and saying that this is in fact him, we can't prove that the statement made by the reddit user off-wiki is, for 100% certain and without any doubt, true. This is another reason as to why the outing policy is a strict one-way street. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You wanted a notification....(Muhsin ibn Ali)

The edit war continued just 13 minutes after your message! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 12:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Lurking shadow - Lovely.... lol. I've reverted the edit and left the user a notice regarding their edit warring to Muhsin ibn Ali. If this continues, please let me know here and... well, the user will unfortunately have to be blocked from editing in order to get the message across. They've been talked to nicely, offered help, and warned enough times to stop and discuss things first. Thanks for the follow-up response and for letting me know. Keep an eye on things, and if it continues, give me heads up here and I'll take care of it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted my edit

You reverted my edit on Chris Baldicks page. I added more useful information as I am a family member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.242.94 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2019 February 7 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for messaging me here regarding your edit to Chris Baldick. Sorry, but you cannot add content and "cite yourself" simply because you have a close relationship to the article subject. Adding content citing one's relationship, experience, association, or even one's own website, work, or research constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is because it's impossible for other editors and readers to verify that content is accurate and true. It's as if I were to say, "I'm the President of the United States". Would you believe me? No! You'd want some kind of verification, source, or proof to show that what I'm saying is true. If you asked me for that information and I responded, "I'm citing myself as the proof" - you wouldn't just disbelieve my statement, you'd probably laugh and think that I'm crazy. I mean this with all due respect, but your edit and the "source" you provided in your message here is almost the same thing as the example I just talked about. There's no way for us to verify that the content is correct, and this is why original research is not allowed. According to Wikipeida's verifiability and No original research policies, all content on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source, and specific information such as direct or spoken quotes, dates, data, information that's instantaneous, or other content likely to be challenged or removed - must be directly attributed to a reliable source via a citation. Please let me know if you have any 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)} 21:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hello Oshwah, Thank you so much for helping out and giving me advice when I needed it. I started on Wiki today because as I was checking my old high schools wikipedia page, I saw a friends name on the "Notable Alumni" list. I have known Johnny (from the list) for a few years and he has helped me out in many ways and never expected a cent in return. I saw that someone was trying to take his page down. I had then reached out to him when I noticed that there are people paying other users to try to get Johnny's page deleted (I assume his competitors). After it had been resolved, I tried to close it which you helped me out on but currently, a user is going throughout the page and deleting his sources and then posting at the top calling to have his page deleted and saying it is not credible. Johnny has been featured on things like BuzzFeed, CNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, TIME, and many other big media sources. I have been to a few of Johnny's exhibits as well. All of his things had valid links but this person is clearly trying to sabotage Johhny. I am reaching out to you to see if you may have some advice for a situation like this. I did not look at this situation as a friend but as someone who knows that a credible and very talented person is being smeared for a reason that is unknown to me. Thank you Oshwah.

[http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mentor_High_School

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Johnny_Joo — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomEditor19 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi RandomEditor19! You're very welcome! I'm happy to see that my edits and my message to you was helpful. :-) So, there's a few issues with what you're trying to do. I'll explain:

• First, you obviously know the article subject personally. It's considered a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines if you make edits or participate in discussion regarding this person, and is highly discouraged by the community and will usually result in your changes being reverted, removed, and undone as a result of this. This is because editing article where you have a personal conflict of interest like this makes it nearly impossible for you to add and edit content to reflect a neutral point of view. I highly recommend that you avoid this article subject completely and focus your edits on other articles that interest you. If the person is without a doubt notable and if references such as the ones you describe exist, someone else will find them and someone else will add it to the article. You can certainly make edit requests on the user's talk page and suggest changes to be made by another editor, but don't edit the article yourself.
• Because another user is removing content from the article doesn't automatically mean that someone's out to attack it, try and take it down, or has a personal or malicious agenda. The recent edits to the article by Cantonrubbernecks is removing quite a lot of content, but they appear to be attempting to explain why in each edit summary and I don't see any red flags or issues at first glance. If you disagree with someone's edits, you should always apply Wikipeida's dispute resolution protocol; reach out to the user directly, start a discussion on the article's talk page to work things out, discuss and collaborate in order to come to a consensus or an agreement... just don't revert edits repeatedly and start any edit warring. That's disruptive and will get your account blocked if it's repeated and despite being warned to stop. However, I wouldn't do anything in this section regarding the Johnny Joo article... because you have a conflict of interest with this article and know that you need to avoid editing it or discussing it... :-)
• Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial and before making any more edits or major changes to the project. It'll provide you with interactive walkthroughs, scenarios, and information that are very useful and important for you to learn and know about regarding Wikipedia and how to be an editor or contributor. It's definitely worth the time and it will teach you a lot of important good things here.

Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Take my advice to heart, go through and complete that tutorial, and help us by becoming a part of the community and working with us to grow the project! It doesn't have to be with editing! You can fix grammar, patrol recent changes and remove vandalism, and many many more tasks that help us greatly! I hope you have a great day, and I hope you stick around with us long-term! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your follow-up on User talk:JackyWright! Have a cookie! Hdjensofjfnen (Can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 23:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hdjensofjfnen - Yay! Thanks man! I shall enjoy it with pure content and maybe a glass of milk, too. I appreciate the message and the cookie; always happy to lend a hand. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing Lowell, North Carolina Artice

Hello there!:

I am sending this message to talk about the Lowell North Carolina article. I will add a source as soon as I can! Have a good day! LowellNCFuntimes1234 (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

LowellNCFuntimes1234 - Okay sounds good to me. Just wait on adding the content until you've found and will also add a reliable source with it at the same time. This will keep things simple and keep you our of potential heat. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Telephone numbering plan

Oshwah, you semi-protected Telephone number indefinitely in December 2018 due to "repeated and consistent disruptive edits, as well as edits adding phone numbers and other personal information warrant adding indefinite semi-protection to this article." Telephone numbering plan has been experiencing the same kind of edits. Could you please look at applying indefinite semi-protection there too? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

BilCat -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

BilCat - You bet; always happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi, would you mind hiding [[[REDACTED - Oshwah]]] under RD3? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi ToThAc, and thanks for the message. This revision does not meet the criteria for being "purely disruptive", but would be looked at if it were to meet RD2 instead. However, this comes down to being typical childish vandalism and ordinary incivility, so I'm going to hold off and leave it be. In the future, you want to message any requests for revision deletion to me privately by emailing it to me instead - just click on the "email this user" link located on the left side when you're on my user or user talk pages. This keeps the request, the revision, and the information out of public view. Since there's over 900 Wikipedia users who watch my user talk page, emailing these requests to me will avoid the Streisand effect (where attempts to remove or hide something on the internet from public view only results in the information being published more widely) - other users will see your message and your request to hide something, and then will quickly click on the diff you provided so they can read it before it gets hidden. In fact, if you visit the page and click on the "page information" link located on the left side, then click the number representing the "page views in the past 30 days", it'll pull up a graph and you'll see a huge spike in the number of readers on 8th of February. That spike was due to the message you left here. :-) No big deal or anything; just remember to do that in the future, since it defeats the purpose of hiding revisions as you can clearly see from the graph. ;-) I appreciate the message nonetheless, and please don't hesitate to email me any more revisions that you believe may need rev del. I'll be happy to take a look and do what's needed. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Redaction

Hi Oswah, I'm wondering why you redacted my vote at the Clarice Phelps Afd? All I did was say it was a BLP1E and should be redirected. Did my vote get caught up in something else that was going on? ♟♙ (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you can disregard this. I see it there. I was looking at my contributions and saw a redaction, was confused for a bit. ♟♙ (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi EnPassant! Long time no chat! I hope you're doing well! :-) Nope, your vote wasn't redacted or removed; the revision was simply hidden from public view due to something completely unrelated. If you have any more questions or need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help. Until we speak again... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

RfAWB

Hey Oshwah, I've recently submitted a request at WP:RFP/AWB but nobody answered it yet. I've contacted different admins but all of them told me they're not experienced in giving permissions. I tried to open your edit counter to see if you have given a lot of user rights but it doesn't load because you made too many edits (lol). Can you please review my request? Thanks, GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 17:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

GN-z11 -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Permission to unredact? :-)

Hi Oshwah, I hope your weekend is going well! At this AfD, some links I had posted to tweets from Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (ORNL) official twitter account (@NSED_ORNL) discussing the article's subject were redacted. I'm guessing they got caught together with other links that were redacted. This is the relevant passage:

Oak Ridge has thousands of employees; they only highlight a select few, and she is one of them. ... Check out these tweets: [[REDACTED - Oshwah]] [[REDACTED - Oshwah]] [[REDACTED - Oshwah]] [[REDACTED - Oshwah]] [[REDACTED - Oshwah]] [[REDACTED - Oshwah]].

I don't want to post the twitter links here to be safe, but I can do so if that helps (or submit them by email)–they're all from ORNL about Clarice Phelps; nothing to do with WP or WP editors. If these were in fact inadvertently redacted, may I have your permission to put them back, by editing the page to replace the six "redacted" stamps with the six twitter links? (With a link to this thread in the edit summary so as not to alarm other editors.) Thanks either way! Levivich 17:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Levivich. Without going too far in-depth (because it involves information that I can't discuss), some links and Twitter handles were redacted from that AFD because it was originally thought that they met a criterion that required suppression. After reviewing the links and information in the AFD discussion, we determined that this was not the case and have restored the visibility settings and the links that were originally redacted. Just disregard the redaction; it had nothing to do with you or anything that you did specifically. :-) If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it–thank you! Levivich 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Levivich - You bet ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

IP frustration

I just vented my frustration at Talk:Laugharne regarding an IP whose over-enthusiastic, widespread and often muddled, improperly-formatted and unsourced editing is concerning. Can you offer any advice? Some edits are useful, but picking out the useful bits is almost impossible. The editor does not engage, and I don't know whether their talk page is even looked at. Thanks, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been resolved, for now (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#80.5.1.159) by a block, so don't concern yourself with the above. Thanks, anyway. Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony Holkham, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your request for help and advice. It looks like this situation has already been handled, so I'll just give you input for situations like this in the future. :-) Even if one appears to be trying to edit in good faith, their edits can still be disruptive. If the user isn't responding to any direct feedback or messages left on their user talk page explaining their edits, the problem, and asking them to stop so they can discuss it and understand, and if the user continues to repeat the disruptive behavior - they can be blocked for it and regardless of intent. We obviously will try much much harder to reach out to the user, offer them help, ask them nicely to stop, and cut them much more slack compared to users who are engaging in vandalism or are editing in bad faith and in order to be malicious and cause disruption on purpose, but in the end... if the attempts fail and the problem continues, you should report them to the proper noticeboard so that the situation can be handled appropriately. In this situation, you'd file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. In the report, you'll want to describe the issues with diffs, your (and other editors') attempts to reach out to the user (with diffs), and include that they're probably good faith edits but the user is failing to respond to feedback. This will result in the issue being handled in the quickest and most complete way. In this case, blocking was the necessary next step in order to stop it. If you have any questions or need my input, advice, or assistance with anything else, please don't hesitate to message me here and I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Glad to see that this was taken care of. Have a great weekend and I wish you happy editing. ;-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for this advice; the situation was much as you describe, where all attempts (by me and others) to engage with the editor failed. I took no pleasure in reporting the editor, and certainly not in the month-long block, but I hope it may mean they will come back and collaborate in the spirit of WP if this has not put them off for good. Many of their edits were interesting and useful, if somewhat excessive, so in that respect it's a shame. However, I suspect they will not consider the block to be justified or their editing to be disruptive. We'll see, I guess. But thank you again for your sound advice and reassurance. All the best, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tony Holkham - I understand exactly how you feel. It does not feel pleasurable nor does it feel good or make you happy to have to report someone, whose making what seem to be good faith attempts at improving the project, to a noticeboard for what will undoubtedly be administrative action. As an admin who sometimes has to actually impose those blocks, I can say that it definitely doesn't feel any better on my side of the table and the decisions only become much harder. ;-) Unfortunately, these situations occur - and as you indicated, there are definitely issues that the user needs to work out. The ability for one to edit seemingly legitimately but fail to even attempt to respond to messages and warnings and try to improve their editing shows that there's more issues beyond that of making disruptive edits that the user needs to work on. As with yourself and any others who want what's best for the project: I also hope that the user can return and work with us to make things better. My talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me any time if you need me for anything. I'll be more than happy to help you. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. The editor is appealing the block (User talk:80.5.1.159. They think it is just about the Laugharne article, when it is a whole stream of articles which have been edited unilaterally, sometimes helpfully, but without discussion, sometimes without sources, and sometimes with little relevance to the articles. There seems to be some difficulty in understanding that, despite earlier messages left, and if you could cast an eye on it all, I'd be very grateful. Maybe a comment from someone other than me might help them. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tony Holkham - Okay, I'll take a look right now. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your input. Perhaps the editor will realise it's not about me, or the one article, but about them. Let's hope. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Tony Holkham - Any time. :-) We'll find out when the user's block expires. The ball's in their court... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps

Hi. You took out some 51k of content including several !votes with - diff .Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz - Yeahhhh, I'm an idiot. I didn't mean to do that... sorry. The issue has been fixed. Thanks for letting me know about it and I hope you have a great rest of your weekend. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

AfD revert

Is this really what you wanted to do? It seems to delete several days of conversation, so I reverted. Maybe you'll need to revert the links by hand. —Kusma (t·c) 18:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Kusma - It was definitely not what I wanted to do. Thanks for reverting that edit; I've gone back and made the change that I originally intended to make. I appreciate your diligence and your message. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You deleted my edit

It's ok to provide the citation for the edit. Thanks for letting me know. It's past midnight here and I definitely give you a full proof of my edit. KimNana v (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi KimNana v! You'll want to read Wikipedia's policy and guidelines pages on identifying reliable sources and citing content in-line. You will need to locate a source that's reliable and cite it in-line with the content you're adding in order to avoid issues. If you have any questions after reading through both of these pages, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's ok that you deleted my edit. Thanks for letting me know that a citation is needed. I will give a proof of my edit. You can firstly search about Martin Luther King Jr quotes in Wikipedia and find the following edit there as his quotes. If you need another proof I will send you pictures via email. My email is [REDACTED - Oshwah]. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimNana v (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

KimNana v - I appreciate your understanding. All we need is a reference to something reliable and you'll be set to go. No need to send proof or any photos; just a link to a reliable source that verifies the content you're adding is what we need. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Get Better Records

Hey, I own Get Better Records and I'm wondering why the page was deleted? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlichtenauer (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Alexlichtenauer, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your request for an explanation regarding the deletion of the draft article you created. There were many reasons for the deletion:

• First, the draft page was worded to appear like an advertisement or promotion of the article subject. Wikipedia is not designed to be used as a means for advertising or promotion, and all content needs to be worded to reflect a neutral point of view.
• Second, the content in the draft page you created appeared to consist entirely of text that was copied straight from an external website. Adding content copied and pasted straight from external resources is not allowed and is considered a a violation of copyright - even if it's closely paraphrased. All content must be added to Wikipedia by being summarized from the source and worded in your own words.
• Your message here also brings forward another issue in that you identify yourself as the owner of the record label that you're attempting to create an article for. This shows that you have a personal conflict of interest with the article subject. It is a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines to engage in the editing, expansion, or even the discussion of article subjects or specific topic areas where a conflict of interest relationship exists. Doing so taints neutral discussions and degrades the quality of the article content because conflicts of interest make it nearly impossible for you to reflect a neutral point of view when engaging in activities that involve the particular subject. Instead, you should contribute to articles and topics that interest you, but where no conflict of interest exist. You can always add this record label to the list of requested articles. If it's a subject that's notable, someone else will undoubtedly create and expand an article on it.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the information I've given you here, and I'll be more than happy to answer them. The short summary I can give you is that you should focus on contributing elsewhere to Wikipedia, and not in particular subjects or topics that you have a conflict of interest with. Thanks again for the message and I wish you a great rest of your weekend. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, please keep in mind that nobody "owns" any article here on Wikipedia. Please read WP:OWN and don't hesitate to ask for further help if needed. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Wikaviani: I think Alexlichtenauer means that they own the actual record company/label, not the article about it. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct - that's what he meant in his message. He wasn't talking about owning any of the content he wrote here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, i misunderstood the question. Thanks for your insight. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani - No worries, and no problem. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Random Timeline

Does not look like a upage? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - It looks like the user is just using it to create, test, and improve graphs and charts. I don't see an issue with that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi Oshwah, I deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheUs3r12 because the sock who created it outed another user. Can you suppress? Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 -  Done. Email me suppression requests privately next time; don't post them publicly. ;-) I know that you deleted the page first (thank you for doing that), but we have to keep requests for suppression (especially those that engage in outing violations) private from all eyes, since administrators can still view the deleted or rev del'd content until the visibility settings are changed. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and will do.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 - You bet, and no big deal. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Thegooduser/alternateaccounts

Hi Oshwah, can you change the block settings on all my alternate accounts to : Indefinite Block, Cannot Edit Own Talk Page, Email Disabled. And set the reason as : Per user request. Thanks, this is because some of the alternate accounts block does not list cannot edit own talk page, thanks. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

IT is FOR the doppelgänger accounts ONLY. Thanks! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I also forgot to add to that list; account creation blocked. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

urgent

This Ip 2600:1015:B125:E4E2:304E:4630:CA36:B97C is evading their block on 2600:1015:B148:3251:A15E:FCA4:ECE9:37D0. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm looking into the ranges that these IP networks are from. It's not the first time that abuse has been going on to the same article and from the same parent IP range or subnet... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

IRC

Hi Osh, Morning. Advise needed. I have tried a few times using IRC. Ater I logged in and typed a brief message and yet no one replied. I am not sure I use it correctly. (I just sent you a message in IRC). Kindly advise. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - Welcome! I just responded and pinged you in the #wikipedia-en channel. What IRC client are you using? Try sending messages to me or the channel again - I was able to receive your first one. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Osh. We met at IRC - it is nice to be able to have a live chat. Appreciate the link and cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - You bet. Just let me know if you need help with it and I'll be happy to lend a hand. Yes, IRC is definitely nice for live chats and getting urgent attention with matters that need it. Definitely a nice tool to be signed into and using while you're active on Wikipedia. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Osh - You are always so helpful and friendly. Will pop back if I have further question. Cheers . CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA - Always happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestion - it worked!

Thank you for double bracket suggestion! I must be blind not to have figured it out myself :-) 174.116.84.40 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! No problem; always happy to help! If you run into any more questions, please don't hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be more than happy to answer them. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

How to unblock my friend?

My friend on vn~wiki needs to be evaluated on en~wiki whether eligible how to unblock. His account name is user:Boyconga278. Can you explain him for process in basic English? --Pidgin EngIish (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Pidgin EngIish - Have your friend read through this page for instructions on how to request their account be unblocked. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your archiving at WP:RPP

Hi! Regarding this edit, why did you archive this request instead of adding {{RFPP|ar}}? I think it will mislead other editors if you archive directly Hhkohh (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hhkohh! Good question, and thanks for messaging me about it if I dun goof'd and I didn't do it correctly. From what I see on other request / noticeboard pages (like AIV or UAA), requests that are formatted differently or have a different resolution than a templated one don't get automatically by a bot. I thought that this was the way to properly archive an entry. I'll just undo the move and put it back so that I don't mess any "system" up... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hhkohh -  Done. The manual archiving I did has been undone and the request put back as it was before. Thanks again. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So do you want to add {{RFPP|ar}} in the request? I saw your edit summary says handled.... Hhkohh (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mention

Had to mention you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Sitush, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush! I was notified and read your statement. No problem! That's what was needed and I'm happy that you were able to go there and speak out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Advice please

I have come across persistent editing with a strong suspicion of COI at Kingswood School. I'm pretty certain that I know who Sderrick82 is, and if I'm right they are [REDACTED - Oshwah]. I don't want to say more here (WP:OUTING). The person concerned is not responding to messages left on the talk page, not on their own talk page. I considered a rollback to get their attention, but that seemed to be at odds with the aims of the encyclopaedia. Can you advise how to proceed diplomatically here please? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Martin of Sheffield! Sure, I'll be happy to help you out. I'm glad that you're keeping Wikipedia's outing policy in-mind when handling this particular case; it shows a high amount of wisdom to do that. Just to make sure that we keep out of that realm entirely, I redacted part of your statement in your message. No big deal or anything; you didn't do anything wrong, but it's just better to be safe than sorry. ;-) When it comes to the actual edits this user has made: has this user violated any content or editing policies? Is the user citing reliable sources to support their changes? Does the addition of content appear to be original research? Since you've warned them already regarding COI, we should examine the user's changes and make sure that they comply with our policies and guidelines. If there are issues, go ahead and undo the edits and then talk to the user directly (just like you did with your COI message). Let them know exactly what the issue is with the user's edits, why, and then point them to the relevant policy or guideline so they can read it. Make sure to let the user know exactly how to contact you (I usually say, "click here to message me if you have questions", and with 'here' being a link to my user talk page); it makes it easy for the user to understand and know exactly where to click. Let me know what you find. I'll be available and active if you run into any more questions or concerns, or if you need my input or advice with anything else. :-) Good luck, and I hope you're having a good day so far. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The edits do not appear too problematic, apart from the instance of putting an advertising logo in in the image parameter. It is just the COI and the refusal to accept that the page is ours, not theirs. I'll reiterate the the messages if you think it will help, and if the logo was removed from the image area (I'll see if there is a free image online), then that might lead a response. Regards Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield - Be careful with your statement, "It is just the COI and the refusal to accept that the page is ours, not theirs" (emphasis on the italicized words). Remember Wikipedia's policy on the ownership of content... The page isn't theirs, the page isn't ours, the page isn't yours, and the page isn't mine... All articles and their content belong to nobody! ;-) The reason I'm bringing this up is to make you aware of your exact use of words in your messages and comments. I'm sure you meant no implication at all regarding who owns what here, but if you catch yourself in a dispute or conflict with someone and you use the wrong words in response to the other person involved, it could cause it to escalate and become battered with accusations that you're trying to claim ownership and other silly tomfooleries. It can give someone the opportunity to twist your words or interpret them in a bad faith way and fire them back at you, so make sure to watch how you describe policies and certain sensitive matters so you don't put yourself in a position of having to defend baseless angry accusations instead of working to resolve the matter at-hand. ;-)

Sure, that sounds like a plan. Keep me updated and let me know how things go. If you find yourself with any questions or needing any more input or advice, my talk page is always open to you. You are welcome to message me and post here any time you need or want to. Good luck with everything, and I'll see you on the project... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted. I emphatically meant "ours" to mean Wikipedia's, that is WMF and the community (which I try to be a good member of), in contradistinction to the school's. I'm well aware that I "irrevocably agree to release [your] contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License" as it says at the foot of the edit screen. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield - No worries, and I figured that's exactly what you meant. I wasn't mentioning this to you because your statement had me questioning your policy knowledge or anything; I mentioned it to you simply because of my experience here and to keep a friendly eye out for you. ;-) I've seen innocent statements like the one you made get mistranslated by heated and upset users in a dispute or heated discussion, when then blow it completely out of proportion. From there, they attempt to push their viewpoint or draw noise and distraction to the conversation and issue at-hand by attaching their (and everyone else's) full focus and attention to your "oh so horrible thoughts, and your uncivil attempts to claim ownership of everything". If you've been in an awkward conversation with someone where made an innocent remark or statement to them and had it misinterpreted and blown up in your face, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. ;-)

I'm not trying to scare you, say that this is how the community handles disputes, or even imply that you'll run into these kind of editors regularly or even occasionally. I've just seen and have had to step in, defuse, de-escalate, and reason with those kind of users many times. And if I can help you to avoid saying the wrong thing and keep you out of any potential toxic pitfalls like that in the future, then by God - I've done my job and it was well worth it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield - No problem. If you need anything else, you know where to find me. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI: sderrick82 has got back to me on my talk page and appears to be receptive and communicative. Thanks for your advice. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield - That's excellent news! Thanks for keeping me updated and for letting me know how things went. If you need my input, advice, or help with anything else, please don't hesitate to message me and I'll be happy to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How's tricks?

Hey, since you recently indef'd this user, I thought you should know about this account as well. I figured you'd know what to do, (if there is anything that needs doing). Cheers - wolf 16:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thewolfchild! Ohhhh yeah; there's no doubt that both accounts are of the same user. Good call, and thanks for messaging me here and for letting me know about it. I've updated the block duration on the other account and set it to be indefinite, and included a note in the log. Let me know if you see any more tomfooleries that I should know about or if I can assist with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. Cheers and thanks again :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Realization

Just realized that IP I reported to AIV that you blocked, 189.161.98.234, is probably a sockpuppet of Ghso ehwj (whose calling card is vandalizing Mexican TV articles with "BabyKids"). I think he may merit an LTA writeup. Raymie (t • c) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Raymie - Okay, no big deal; I'll take a look and go from there. Thanks for letting me know! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware of the SPI tree though I had definitely seen some of his vandalism before. I can do the LTA if you'd like; I already did one for the Laredo AM power vandal. Raymie (t • c) 19:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Raymie - Yes, please do! :-) You're probably much more familiar with this LTA and their patterns and past accounts and IP users than I am. It would be greatly helpful if you could do that. Thank you; I appreciate it very much, and it helps a lot! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again

Arkansas Highway System needs ip-protection. Cards84664 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Cards84664 -  Done. Semi-protected for three days, and pending changes protected for two weeks. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, I thought since your always helping fight vandalism you might have something to say about this discussion A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi A 10 fireplane! Thanks for the invite! I'm gonna finish up some urgent tasks on my current to-do list, then I'll take a look. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thank you A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane - No problem. See the response I left there, and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No questions at all, thank you for explaining. And also sorry for spamming you when I thank you for your edits. I thank you everytime you beat me to reporting a username violation. Which is always A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane - No, don't be silly. :-) You're not "spamming" or anything at all with your messages and responses here. I appreciate your gratitude and I'm happy to see that my input was meaningful and useful to the discussion. If you need my help with anything else, or if I can do anything else for you - please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! I definitely will. Happy editing A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane - And to you as well :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

SCCY CPX-1 again

Hi Oshwah, 2 IPs have made the same edits again to SCCY CPX-1. Could you look into semi-protecting the article? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi BilCat. I've extended the block on the IP user for two weeks. Lets leave the article unprotected for now (even if it's just a few hours) before we apply anything. This way, if the user attempts to IP hop and resume the disruption, we'll be able to not only catch it quickly, but also get the network information of their other IP ranges and block those as well. ;-) Let me know how things go on the page, and please ping me here if you notice tomfooleries continue to happen there despite my block. I'll make sure to look into applying protection today. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

BilCat - You bet. I'll be around for awhile, so just give me a shout if shenanigans begin and I'll step in and handle it. Hopefully you won't have to, but you never know at times... people do crazy things just to make a point... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:02, 11 February 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 :) 🍁 22:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Joe Schlesinger

CBC News is reporting that Joe Schlesinger has died. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/schlesinger-obit-cbc-new-1.5014534 This link was added as a source to the Wikipedia article. Why in the world would you revert that and make the encyclopedia inaccurate by incorrectly changing his status to living? 199.119.233.139 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I didn't see that any URL to a source was added to the article. I'll check again, but I was pretty certain that the changes I saw did not reference a reliable source. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right - a source was indeed added to the article. I've restored the content of the article to the previous revision. Thanks for the message and for letting me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I'm sure being an administrator is tough work. have some coffee! Jeb3Talk at me here 23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jebcubed! Ehh, I'd say that it has its easy and fun moments as well as its difficult and not-so-happy moments... lol. I appreciate the message and the coffee! Definitely what I needed to keep me going ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sameena Ali_Khan

Hi Oshwah

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the page for Sameena Ali-Khan. The page in question is under repeated attack from fans of James Charles for a slight they wrongly attributed to her and are attacking all her social media. The latest IP 76.5.133.160 has made 4 attempts at vandalism over the last couple of days. The page has already had a 24 hour protection put on it 2 weeks ago, but still they come.

Just wanted to make you aware of the situation. I was hoping these "fans", would have got bored by now, but they are keeping up their campaign of hate.

I am currently updating her page and it's quite annoying. Just wanted to update you on the situation and your prompt response with the revert.

Thank You.--SmillieKylie (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi SmillieKylie! Thanks for the update and I apologize for the delay getting back to you. Is this still an issue? Let me know. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Is a range block possible?

Hi, hope you can help me with an IP-hopping spammer. Someone's been using various IPs in India to spam what is presumably their name ("Lav Parmar") and I was wondering if a range block is possible. These are the recent IPs that I've found:

• (active on 12 Feb) 157.32.178.242, 2405:205:C865:50CE:E9CD:76DA:664C:8754
• (active on 11 Feb) 2405:204:858B:D201:E59E:B2EE:BBA2:32B2, 49.34.164.75
• (active on 10 Feb) 2405:205:C84E:C82C:5855:68C:7A51:4B98
• (active on 9 Feb) 49.34.151.82, 2405:205:C881:141B:A05C:EBCB:71F1:2D90, 2405:205:C881:141B:1975:E451:BEF:42B6, 2405:204:8207:1430:61F0:A24E:7268:1803, 157.32.131.32
• (active on 5 Feb) 2409:4041:604:B0:E56E:E98B:E15B:8AD0
• (active on 4 Feb) 157.32.145.230
• (active on 3 Feb) 2409:4041:691:48D7:51BD:3060:5865:54AB

Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bennv3771! Some of the IPs listed here are within the same range; others are not. This isn't going to be a simple matter of applying a range block and calling it good, unfortunately... The network ranges of many of these IPs are huge, and applying any kind of range block on them would cause major collateral damage and block innocent and uninvolved editors on these networks from being able to edit. How long has this been going on for? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I only discovered this spammer this month and they only make a few edits a day so it's definitely not worth major collateral damage. Hopefully they'll get bored and stop soon. Also, I'm pretty sure this account Apple.lavparmar (created in Feb 2019) is behind this based on this edit which added "Apple" along with the usual "Lav Parma". Anyway, thanks for the pages you protected. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bennv3771 - Thanks for the response and the information. I've gone through the contributions of each IP user you listed here, and have applied appropriate page protection to the articles that were the target of multiple instances of disruption. This should hopefully help put a stop to the issue, as the range of most of these IP users are just too wide to block. I'm still looking into options and possibilities, but from what I'm seeing so far... blocks are an unlikely option. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Bennv3771 - You bet; always happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by रोहित साव27 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

216.194.38.228

This IP user is a self-admitted sockpuppet User:TheManchoMan and has made several messages on my talkpage stating that he intends to vandalize transit articles, and that he would keep creating additional IP accounts to use to vandalize. He used User:24.39.129.50 to vandalize as well. Both should be given indefinite blocks. Thanks for reverting his edits.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks, but we don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the history from this IP in the last few years, I've extended the block to three months. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie - Thank you for handling this issue while I was busy and dealing with urgent matters on my plate. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding profile image

I'm just trying to set up a personal identification page, NOT trying to use this platform as a host. There's at least one other artist (in Europe) with the same 'alias' so I was attempting to set up a clear I.D. page here, that I can link to my website, etc. I'm also a scientist, and a student, and WILL be getting into posting, editing, etc., on here as well - I just need a hand getting going in a right way. Thanks! Blu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blu Axsom (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blu Axsom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your user page and your plans with its use. So long as you understand that Wikipedia is not a web host, or a place to add social media-like profiles or information about yourself, nor is it a place for advertising or promotion - I'm sure that you'll be fine. You'll also want to review Wikipedia's policy on user pages (specifically, the section that outlines what is not allowed on user pages) and make sure that you don't have any questions. Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before making any major edits or changes to articles or pages. 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. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything. I'll be more than happy to assist you with anything that's needed. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia, I appreciate your message and explanation, and I wish you happy editing. I also hope that you choose to stay awhile and help us by becoming a regular and experienced contributor and editor here! We can always use the extra eyes and hands. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hey, after you added protection to Iron Man, a bot removed it with the next edit and IPs have been disrupting it since. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks - wolf 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild On reading this, it seemed like the bots have started the revolution as prophesied. Until I looked the settings and found that the protection was set to expire in 30 minutes. so the bots are still doing their job diligently, but the same cannot be said about Oshwah, who in all probability had fucked this up. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, DBigXray - Well, darn... I had applied such a short semi protection duration because I thought that it would simply end after a few hours. In situations like these, where disruptive edits and vandalism suddenly appear on an article and an at a significantly high rate by many users - is usually due to attempts by a group of people a school or elsewhere to be trolls and cause a high amount of disruption. Applying semi protection for a very short duration in order to stop it - usually for only 3 or 6 hours, is plenty enough time for the users to quickly get bored, give up, and move on to doing something else. It appears that this didn't happen in this particular case and it's been continuing. I went ahead and applied semi protection back onto the article, this time for a week. If shenanigans and tomfooleries continue there after it expires, file a request at RFPP and ask for a longer-duration semi protection, or let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks for the messages, and I hope you both have a great rest of your day. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the details and PP. Well the 30 mins clearly didn't work. Good day to you too. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray - HA! Well, you could definitely say that I "fucked up" depending on how you look at it. The semi protection I applied didn't put a complete stop to the disruption, since it continued after it expired... but I did set a short length purposefully. ;-) Also, I'm not sure how you calculated that the semi protection I applied was for only 30 minutes (lol), as the time between when I set the block (19:47, 11 February 2019 UTC‎) and its expiration (01:47, 12 February 2019 UTC) is 6 hours. :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• In this this edit summary and its time stamp, the difference was 30 mins, so I said so. I may be wrong though. But whatever it may be, I still have faith in Oshwah which is why I said " in all probability", thus keeping an escape route open for me, in case that short duration was somehow intentional. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray - Well strategized; I like it. lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Page edits

Please contact me at [REDACTED - Oshwah], and I will explain why certain edits to a page have been carried out. I do not wish to discuss this in a public forum. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briggsywiki (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Briggsywiki - Your reasons for making certain edits and changes to Wikipedia articles and content need to be discussed here and on Wikipedia so that the community can review it and weigh in with comments if they feel the need to. As you would obviously know and understand, Wikipedia's founding principles are based on openness and verifiability. It doesn't make sense to have such discussions outside of Wikipedia and over a different medium... else, how would anyone be able to fully understand, review and, evaluate the edits of others on Wikipedia? If you're unable to fully and properly explain your reasons for making the edit to an article or page that you're about to publish, then you shouldn't publish it. If you're trying to move this discussion to a private channel or medium because the reasons involve information or matters that relate to personal information, personal relationship or connection to the article subject, or other similarly private reason - then you definitely should not make edits to the particular article subject. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, as this may be relevant to the issue here. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know by responding here - and I'll be happy to answer them, discuss them with you, and help you. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me on the vandal that was thebestfrom2005. TheWinRatHere! 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thewinrat! Thanks for taking the time to leave me this barnstar. I appreciate it a lot, and it always makes my day (as well as my user talk page) a lot brighter! No problem; always happy to lend a hand. If you need my input, advice, or help with anything, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help. Thanks again; I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sory sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Right 20000 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahmed Shameel

Sory Sir Right 20000 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hey, it's not a t-shirt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree - LOL, and thanks for the cookie! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congratulations on 400,000 edits, and not having a hobby (i guess). $5 dollars per edit please sir. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Zppix - HA! Thank you. :-) I don't know whether I should be proud of this accomplishment, or feel sorry for myself... but yeah.... it happened... and there it is...... LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

flindersia brayleyana edits

Flindersia brayleyana comment received, I have no idea how to use this response feature. You mentioned that the there should be a source related to the edit. The source is active logger who is harvesting the tree species in question and simply Wikipedia is wrong. Indeed the supported citation in fact contradicts Wikipedia's article sloppy or just ignorant?

This is a direct quote from the citation :

https://web.archive.org/web/20090624160410/http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/hardwoodsqld/8247.html

" Local name: maple

Tree description and natural occurrence A medium sized tree attaining a height of 40 m and 2.5 m in stem diameter. The trunk is usually well formed, circular in cross-section and not buttressed. The bark, which is approximately 12 mm thick, is grey to brown in colour. It has fairly distinct longitudinal fissures. In older trees these fissures are not so marked owing to a tendency to scaliness.

Restricted in its distribution to northern Queensland rainforests between Townsville and the Windsor Tableland."

Sorry I don't know how to respond properly here. I'm forester myself (dual degrees) and have edited a few tropical agroforestry books. Very glad to help clean up the tropical forestry stuff where I can but my time is a bit limited as I run a small business and have family duties and some volunteer work.

NativeVAspecies (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi NativeVAspecies, and welcome to Wikipedia! No problem! We were all new here once, and mistakes are certainly to be expected as you're learning the ropes and understanding the different policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has. The reference you provided seems to be good - it's from a government domain and it's an archive link, which will prevent issues from happening with the link to the source, such as it becoming dead or the information becoming degraded or changed. You just need to cite the source in-line and you'll be good to go! :-)

Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before making any more major edits or changes to any articles. 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 it led to them being saved hours (if not days' worth) of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. If you have any questions or need help with anything, please let me know and I'll be happy to help with anything that you need. Thanks again for the message; again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and hope you enjoy your stay and become a regular and experienced editor who stays with us long-term. We can always use more members of the community! :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry..wasn't clear. The current citation in the page presents the correct information. The wikipedia page is wrong and presents incorrect information though citation has correct info. I simply was quoting the original citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeVAspecies (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

NativeVAspecies - No worries, and thanks for following-up here and clarifying. If the information you changed is cited but not correct in the article, go ahead and fix it and indicate this in your edit summary. If my revert was a result of undoing your attempt to fix this originally, please accept my apologies and feel free to do what's needed to assure that the information is correct in the article and matches what is referenced. :-) Thanks again - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Am I too late to the party? Congrats on 400,000. You know how much of a help you've been. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 19:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi RhinosF1! No way, not late at all! Thanks for the barnstar and the kind words. I'm happy to be of help to anyone that needs it, and I'm glad to have the trust and confidence of the number of editors who come to me for input, advice, and assistance with difficult situations and issues. Thanks again for the barnstar and for your message, and I'm sure we'll talk again soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You're a credit to the community and an editor to be looked up to. We'll definitely talk again, your advice is always appreciated. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

RhinosF1 - I appreciate that, and I'm happy to be of assistance to the community. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:WikiFortress

Hi Oshwah. I noticed at UAA that you declined the report ref WikiFortress, which I agree was not the correct venue, however, they appear to be presenting themselves as a place to report a "very dangerous vandal or hacker". See their userpage User:WikiFortress. I am unsure which venue would be suitable to report this. Do you know if this is actually something official, or someone pretending? Ta. Agent00x (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Agent00x! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns regarding this account. No worries about the report at UAA; it happens, and it sounds like you understand why. At that particular noticeboard, the only thing that is looked into is the username of the account. I'll take a glance at some other things with the reported user as well, but mainly so that I can help direct you to the proper noticeboard to report the user. UAA reports that are filed are many times a reflection of other concerns regarding the account, but where the reporting user is just not feeling confident that their thoughts are correct. Regardless, If it's not a blatant violation of Wikipedia's username policy, the UAA report will get stamped with the appropriate decline response stating that the username is not a violation, and I'll usually always try to follow up with either some questions, or my thoughts and findings and exactly what noticeboard they need to take their concerns to. ;-)

Let me take another look at the user page of the account, their contributions, and a few other things - and I'll follow up with you here with my thoughts about what may be going on. Stand by.... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Agent00x - Just following up with you as promised. :-) I agree that their user page and the Wikipedia page they created about themselves contains statements that are not appropriate, as they state things that are false and attempt to misrepresent him as a bot that's operating under the foundation and their direction. I left this message on the user's talk page. Give it a read when you have a moment; it explains exactly what I think this user is trying to do and for innocent reasons like just trying to "look official and look good", and that he doesn't understand the gravity and severity of what he's done and the impact it could have. I simply asked him to remove those statements, and explained exactly how it would be received by the community and interpreted. Hopefully this is all that we need to do, and the user complies and we have no further problems. But... having been here 12+ years, I know that this won't likely be what happens... but hey you never know! I've seen miracles and rare events before around here! ;-) Thanks again for the message and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

no problem. By the way, it wasn't me who reported him to UAA, just came across him on my recent changes patrolling. Agent00x (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Agent00x - Ahh, okay I got'cha. Still not sure about exactly what he's trying to do... I'll keep an eye on the user's contributions and see what happens. I'll definitely put this user's page creations and user pages as quite a bizarre one... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks very much :), and as above, huge congrats on the 400k and hope you have a great day :). Agent00x (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Agent00x - Thank you! And I wish you the same as well. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Update: As the user was not cooperating I tagged the userpage for CFD under G3 and it was deleted A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 17:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane - Sounds like a happy ending, then! Thanks for letting me know and I apologize for the delay acknowledging your response. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all, happy editing A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 04:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane - You as well! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

Hi Oshwah. You blocked Macedonia, our name is our right. It seems that the account is a sock. Someone is creating accounts to make unhelpful comments on the talk page of North Macedonia. The following accounts have made the same comment as that made by Macedonia, our name is our right:

MACEDONIA United Independent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MACEDONIA (Republic) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MACEDONIA (Country) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The older account is Macedonia United Independent. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ktrimi991, and thanks for the message and for providing this information to me. I've applied indefinite blocks to each of the accounts you listed here, as they all made the exact same edit to Talk:North Macedonia as the account that I blocked originally. If you spot any more accounts like these or if you see someone adding the same disruption to the page as these users, please don't hesitate let me know and I'll be happy to take care of it. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Oshwah! The article is attracting much attention because of the name change the country is undergoing. It seems that not all people touching that talk page are interested in contributing positively. If the disruption persists, I will notify you. Thanks again. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 - No problem; always happy to help. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, you are very kind :-) Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Daniel_Brandt

As you are uninvolved would you care to close this discussion? Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - Sure. Give me a few minutes to wrap up what's on my plate and I'll head over there next. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - The deed has been done. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Gates

Exuse me look up Jennifer gates horse riding, she is well known for horse riding not sliding a ball across the table. Please get your facts rights thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judestev123 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Judestev123. I'm not Oshwah, but perhaps I might be able to help. Is it possible that the Jennifer Gates who is known for horse riding is a different person from Jennifer Gates the curler? Often different people share the same name and all of the sources and information in the Wikipedia article is about a Canadian curler named Jennifer Gates. Wikipedia often has articles about different people who share the same name; for example, see Bill Gates (disambiguation) for a list of Wikipedia articles about men named or referred to as "Bill Gates".

Now, if there are two Jennifer Gates (one who has a Wikipedia article and one who doesn't), then we don't add information about the one who doesn't to the article about the other one. It might be possible, however, to create a new article about the one who doesn't if it can be established that she is Wikipedia notable enough for one to be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Judestev123! See what was suggested in the response above and let me know if you have any questions. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Change in subjects

I changed it to nepal , which is his birth place . I dont think there is any reason to remove it. Please kindly consider it . It can be Koholpur nepal. Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.6.176.114 (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah! Please block this IP. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ruyaba -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How much time do you sleep? 2 to 3 hours only? I have no words to describe your dedication. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ruyaba - People have mistaken me for a bot many times.... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Declining unblock requests

I agree 100% with this unblock decline except for one thing: you should not have been the person to do it. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests says "Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson! Oh yeah, I know all about that policy. I will respond and handle the unblock requests of user's I've blocked once in a great while, and usually in cases where the user is making them in order to be disruptive and troll. In those cases, I'll revert its creation and revoke talk page access from the user. This case obviously didn't fall into that exact situation, but I do admit that I'll decline them one in a while and when the case is extremely painfully obvious and it's clear that it would only waste the time of the reviewing administrator. I do understand and acknowledge the rule, though... it does exist for a good reason - so that objectivity and neutrality is inherently enforced by making us to defer to a different administrator to evaluate the block request... but my momma didn't raise no dummy, and I make no apologies for my decisions to revert and delete unblock requests by users that I've blocked because they were disruptive, blatant attempts to troll, and sometimes... just out-right horrible things to say..... or for declining them in situations where the request would only waste the time of the evaluating admin when I could've just declined it right then and there. Like I said, these are rare situations when I do this, but always for a reason I feel is legitimate. :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand everything that you say, but personally I think this is one case where IAR should be used only in cases where there is content in the unblock request which really must not be allowed to remain, such as serious libel. Even in a case which is "extremely painfully obvious" I think we should make sure that it is visible that a separate, independent, administrator has agreed, on the principle of justice being not only done but seen to be done. Despite what you say, I don't see any reason why this one couldn't have been left for another administrator. "Waste the time of the evaluating admin"? Yes, maybe about 5 seconds' worth of time. "Out-right horrible things to say"? No, not really: just the usual run-of the mill silliness that we get all the time in unblock requests. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

JamesBWatson - I do agree that you're right in your statements; it's policy and it's there for a good reason. There's no reason that it couldn't have just been left to someone else. I will stand behind my decisions (again, in cases that aren't very common) to revert and remove unblock requests that were made with the sole purpose of being a troll, and yanking talk page access on that user. It only takes me a moment to do it while I'm already close to it, and it's usually abusive unblock requests made by LTA sock accounts... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan Page

Hi, what was not neutral? The info was from the IMDB page. Pls explain. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yashkkaryan and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions. Your edits here and again here did not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy because these statements spoke overly positive about the actor about non-encyclopedic information. This is why I reverted your edits. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

cancelled my edit on Paolo Cherici

Hi, i've recieved a message that you cancelled my edit on Paolo Cherici's page because I did not add any reliable sources. I did not add any sources beacuse I personally know Paolo Cherici as I was a student of his, and the things that I added on the page were all based on my experience (I added that he is now retired but still active as an external teacher at the Conservatory in Milan. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.80.92 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for messaging me here regarding your edit to Paolo Cherici. Sorry, but you cannot add content and "cite yourself" simply because you have a close relationship to the article subject. Adding content citing one's relationship, experience, association, or even one's own website, work, or research constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is because it's impossible for other editors and readers to verify that content is accurate and true. It's as if I were to say, "I'm the President of the United States". Would you believe me? No! You'd want some kind of verification, source, or proof to show that what I'm saying is true. If you asked me for that information and I responded, "I'm citing myself as the proof" - you wouldn't just disbelieve my statement, you'd probably laugh and think that I'm crazy. I mean this with all due respect, but your edit and the "source" you provided in your message here is almost the same thing as the example I just talked about. There's no way for us to verify that the content is correct, and this is why original research is not allowed. According to Wikipedia's verifiability and No original research policies, all content on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source, and specific information such as direct or spoken quotes, dates, data, information that's instantaneous, or other content likely to be challenged or removed - must be directly attributed to a reliable source via a citation. Please let me know if you have any 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)} 00:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8

As what I can see, is that it should be actually "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 9", but ignoring WP:CONCISE, Korean Rail Fan procedured not only a disruptive page move to "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8", but also a disruptive change on the sources (see the page history and the second source of the article). As "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8" doesn't exist, I've just corrected his disruptive edits, and please help revert his page move without redirect created, many thanks. Relevant discussion in Chinese Wikipedia (there is English). Σανμοσα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 15:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. (though I assmued bad faith earlier since his username is reminiscent of editing tendencies of a long time abuser back in zhwp.) I thought that when the Line 8 designation can be retained (I am open to this, but "MRT-8" as a combined term is not used to refer to the project. I have little interest to interfere with English community's decision. Once the deletion case back zhwp is resolved I'll revert part of my edits accordingly), the page itself should move to more frequently used title, like East West Rail (Project). But anyway, to usurp sources is not a correct practise. --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 15:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually dont mind to move the article in a name such as East-West Railway (Philippines) but again the move to Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8 is not done without at least a single yet official resource available online as reported by DOTr itself in the Arangkada Philippines International Chamber of Commerce forums on Road and Rail Transport [5] with the specific DOTr presentation at this link [6] as a measure of goodfaith given that it would be PNR and not LRTA who is the government partner in this, thus it would not be a part of the Manila Light Rail Transit System. Also being a Philippine transportation department employee myself, I can vouch for the legitimacy on my own with Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 9, MRT-9, Line 9 or whatever 9 you might call it as the Metro Manila Subway. The reason the department has not been keen on releasing this info initially to the media is in order to prevent land valuation speculations in alignments to skyrocket and private developers to buy in before government does. Otherwise the data in at hand now and don't worry, we are also in the process of asking this to foi.gov.ph to have more sources later on.Korean Rail Fan 03:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sanmosa. I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. Can you point me to exactly what discussion or edit you're referring to regarding this article? I took a look at both articles you provided, but I don't see where I made an edit or revert... Thanks. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean would you help process the revert? (Ofc you haven't done it) Dukawana (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And actually a move (that 春卷柯南 suggested) may be even better. Dukawana (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for unclear statement, and actually I am Sanmosa. Dukawana (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Dukawana - I would create a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves and make sure that there wasn't a reason why the article was moved to its current title. If there isn't and nobody objects, someone will move the article for you. I unfortunately don't have enough information to just revert the move without a discussion unless it was done as blatant vandalism or disruption, and it doesn't look like this is the case. File a request by following the instructions on the page that I linked you to, and let me know if you have any questions. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it. The request is made, thanks. Dukawana (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Dukawana - No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you check a user ?

Can you check a user deepsighs. That person made edits on the page of Suki Waterhouse. It could be the same person who had multiple accounts before as saskia lou etc. greetings! Vdh m (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Vdh m - What solid evidence do you have that these accounts are the same person? Have you filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Jesus

I would have to sadly say that you are misleading people because if you were going to put his name in English his name would be Joshua and you have to realize the letter J is over 500 years old that's it never know where is the letter j in the Hebrew or Greek language so would almost be like lying to people Ellijay you have I even seen it spelled with an i which mean is Zeus and if you say Jesus it would mean that hail Zeus so please fix your mistake this is not King James 1611 where the guy actually in there book is Cesar Borgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:1044:240:F964:466:50C2:9CD1 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see the page on J, in particular where it says "The first English language book to make a clear distinction between ⟨i⟩ and ⟨j⟩ was published in 1633." There is a distinction between the use of the glyph "J" and the sound which it now represents. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

See above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Sockpuppet Investigation

They closed my case and haven't even checked the IPs for EurovisionNim despite the mounds of evidence I gave them. Instead they end up finding out a sockpuppet account on a completely different person, this isn't the reason why I made the page in the first place. I'm not 100% know how this whole sockpuppet investigation system work but what else can I do? --Vauxford (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vauxford. If a Checkuser ran a check on the information you gave them and this is what they found, that's the best way that information and users can be confirmed to one another. If the check found that the users were related to somebody else, then based off their tools, no connection was able to be made. I know that the evidence you provided was well put together; I commend you on your report, as many users fail to explain and detail the evidence with diffs and do so properly. It's also important to note that, just because a Checkuser wasn't able to confirm or connect users to the accused sock master with their tools, doe not mean that the users are innocent.

To summarize: Checkuser inconclusiveness does not mean that the accused are innocent. Checkuser is simply an extra tool that can be used in order to confirm or connect users using technical data that other users do not have access to. For example: I opened an SPI awhile back where I was sure that two users were the same person. They were making the same edits at the same time. A Checkuser came back and could not confirm the IP information as being the same, but that the users were technically related, meaning that they both had the same user agent information as each other (browser and version, screen resolution, operating system, version, architecture, and other information). Based off the behavioral evidence and the fact that the two accounts had the same agent information (which, from what I remember, was not common - it was like a Blackberry device or something), the users were blocked. Either the users are not related, or the user is just very good about using different machines and networks.

The best thing you can do is to follow-up with additional SPI reports when you see more of these similar edits going on from IP users. Create a report, detail the evidence and with diffs from both accounts (so that patrolling admins and clerks can easily click and see what you're talking about side-by-side), and detail what is similar with each piece of evidence you bring to the table. Behavioral evidence alone can be sufficient for blocking accounts; I do it all the time. The evidence just needs to be detailed and specific, and show that nobody else but this sock master is who does this kind of behavior - which may be easy or difficult depending on the behavior.

Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you and I'll be happy to do so. My talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me here any time you need or want to. I apologize for the delay responding to your message - real life has been busy for me and I was sick over the weekend. Feeling better now, though. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I describe the behaviour as you described on your third paragraph though. Why did you made it into a redirect? Does that mean those IPs are all Wilzz99? I find this frustrating that after searching for all these evidences that Nim is evading his TBAN only to have the outcome to be a completely different user! --Vauxford (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - Sorry, what redirects are we talking about exactly? Can you link me to them? I apologize for the delay responding to your follow-up questions here - I'm just coming back from being busy with real life stuff and I'm just now getting myself caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, emails, pings, requests for my input, etc that others have left for me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

2A02:C7D:38C:1F00:3CC1:486E:F050:20DA (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the message! Is there something specific I can answer or assist you with? Let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan Biography

I like to apologize for adding commentary as its violate neutral point of view. I request you to please accept the minor changes. It was the part of the earlier Biography before editing.

Career: Nehru often invited Kalpana, a trained Kathak dancer, to dance at the Rashtrapati Bhavan whenever dignitaries visited. Actor Balraj Sahani and Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai spotted the beautiful dancer and encouraged her to come to Mumbai and try her luck in films.

Filmography

1. Pyar Ki Jeet (1962), as Chitralekha | Romance | 1 January 1962 (India) Director Vasant Painter | Stars: Mahipal, Kalpana, Indira

2. Naughty Boy (1962), as Meena Sharma / Edna Wong | Comedy Movie Director Shakti Samanta, Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Om Prakash

3. Professor (1962), as Neena Verma | Comedy, Drama, Musical | 11 May 1962 (India) Director Lekh Tandon, Stars: Shammi Kapoor, Kalpana, Lalita Pawar

4. Saheli (1965), as Reshma | Romance | 1965 (India) Director Arjun Hingorani, Stars: Pradeep Kumar, Kalpana, Vijaya Choudhury

5. Teesra Kaun (1965), as Shobha | Action, Crime, Drama Director: Mohammed Hussain (as Mohd. Husain) | Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana & Shashikala

6. Teen Devian (1965) as Kalpana | Musical, Romance | 10 December 1965 (India) Director: Amarjeet (as Amar Jeet) | Stars: Dev Anand, Nanda, Kalpana, Simi & IS Johar

7. Biwi Aur Makan (1966), as Geeta Director: Hrishikesh Mukherjee | Stars: Biswajit Chatterjee, Kalpana, Mehmood

8. Tasveer (1966), as Piloo | Director: J.B.H. Wadia Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana , Helen & Rajendra Nath

9. Pyar Kiye Jaa (1966), as Malti | Director: C.V. Sridhar (as Sridhar) Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Shashi Kapoor, Mehmood

10. Nawab Sirazuddaula (1967) Drama | Director: Ramchandra Thakur Stars: Bharat Bhushan, Kalpana, Naseem Banu, Murad & Johnny Walker

11. Ek Bechara (1972), as Radha | Drama, Family | Director: S.M. Abbas Stars: Jeetendra, Rekha, Vinod Khanna, Kalpana, Pran, Bindu & Anwar Hussain

She has 11 films to her credits, all films are not mentioned in the Biography. I request you to please restore the info in a tabular format as original version with the hyperlink leading to the movie. The list is genuine.

I assured you this is not personal comment or commentary & does not violate neutral point of view. The info is available in the public domain. I can provide you with a link to verify the facts.

References Please add the link, as it was part of the earlier Biography. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0436200/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

I rest my case. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yashkkaryan, and thanks for the message. If you wish for this edit to be accepted, I suggest making an edit request on the article's talk page so that other editors can take a look and provide input and feedback if any problems are found. I'll let someone else approve the edit so that you get a fair review. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to message me and I'll be happy to answer them. Good luck to you, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi protection

Hi, I'm Jaxon and I was wondering why you protected "Splitting"? Thank you in advance! JAZHAZHANDZWIKI (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi JAZHAZHANDZWIKI! The article you mentioned, Splitting, has not been placed under any kind of protection before. Can you verify that I'm looking at the right article? Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted page Draft:UltraPlay

Hello, Oshwah.

I would like to create a Wikipedia article about my company UltraPlay and already disclosed COI. Upon creation this message showed up:

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 12:14, 18 October 2017 Oshwah (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:UltraPlay (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank)

I would like to create a wikipedia article for my company without any advertising or promotion. Would you please provide me with some info on the case?

Ultraplay (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC) UltraPlay

Hi Ultraplay, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your question and your request for assistance. In short, it's against Wikipedia's community behavioral guidelines to start or create an article about your company (or anything else that you have a conflict of interest with), or even participate in discussions regarding them. This is due to the fact that having someone closely associated or related to the article subject taints the content and makes it nearly impossible for it to be written in a neutral point of view and without original research being added to it. This naturally degrades the quality of the content, and it lowers the confidence that any readers have with the content (and Wikipedia in general) if this were allowed. We can't have that. The best thing you can do is add the company to the list of requested articles. If the company is notable enough to warrant its own article, another editor will undoubtedly create one. I also noticed that your username represents the company you are trying to write an article for. I hate to be "that admin", but I had to place a soft block on your account due to this reason. Your username, per Wikipedia's username policy cannot represent an organization, group, company, internet channel or team, or anything other than an individual person. Simply follow the directions provided to you on your user talk page in order to request your username be changed to something that's appropriate and in compliance with the username policy. Once this is done, your account will be unblocked without issue. Thanks again for the message, I wish you good luck with the company, and I hope that my response was helpful, answered your questions, and set appropriate expectations. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:X1

May I ask why you protected Template:X1? It's a sandbox, and sandboxes aren't generally supposed to be protected. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pppery! OOPS! I thought that I was reverting and protecting the sandbox header; I didn't realize that this page was also a sandbox. I see now that this is clearly not the case and that I dun goof'd. I've removed the protection from the page. Thank you for reaching out to me and for letting me know, and I apologize if my protection of the page caused any inconvenience upon you. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving documentation for the PageCuration script

Hi! Would you mind if Wikipedia:PageCuration script were moved to User:Lourdes/PageCuration? The current location is slightly nonstandard for user scripts. See also the bottom of this discussion. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 04:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Enterprisey! Congratulations on your recent RFA! I'm not sure if I left a message on your talk page to say this, so I'm doing so now. :-) I would wait for the discussion to play out and come to a close before deciding whether or not to move this page. Aside from potentially angering some editors and going against what consensus may be established there, it would also result in the script no longer functioning for most editors if we were to simply move it first and without planning ahead of time and giving everyone a chance to modify any function calls, links, or references to the script first. This has happened before many times; someone decides to move a highly used template, module, or script - and with absolutely no word or announcement given out ahead of time so that everyone could update their scripts and internal links first. It created a disaster as the template disappeared from many articles and user interfaces and people didn't understand why, and I've had to run in and move it back so that it would work again, and talk to the user and educate them on why we plan these kinds of moves first. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Congrats again on your adminship. The best advice I can give is to comment and behave in a "humble servant" mentality and never an "authoritative" or "scolding" mentality unless the user really isn't getting it, and use the powers you now have to benefit the community. Show everyone that admins can be good, reasonable, fun people to interact and work with and not only will the community (as well as other admins) look up to you, but they'll respect you when you "walk into the room" and add to a discussion. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was more about changing the name of the script, not where the documentation lives. That's something you did, as far as I know, without prior discussion? Moving the Wikipedia:PageCuration script back to it's customary place at User:Lourdes/PageCuration won't break anything :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply above. Best, — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

MusikAnimal - My apologies for the delay acknowledging your response here. I was busy with real life things and I'm just now getting myself all caught back up with all of the Wikipedia messages, emails, pings, etc I received. Fun stuff! Thanks for the response - I'll take another look, though I'm sure you're correct and I either said the wrong thing or was just derping completely. Either of those scenarios are very possible things that I'm capable of doing..... as you already know. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ticketcity Article Question

Hi Oshwah, I noticed you had previously showed an interest on editing a page I have a question about ( Ticketcity ). I have left an edit request on that page if you're available to help? Thank you NathanPeters406 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi NathanPeters406! I most likely edited the page to fix obvious issues or to remove vandalism or disruption there. I'm by no means an expert on this article subject (TicketCity). :-) However, if you'd like me to take a look at your edit request regardless, let me know and I'll be happy to do so. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this account yours on the Simple English Wikipedia? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser. No, it is not. The only accounts that I control are listed here, and at this time are just this account (Oshwah) and Oshwah-TEST (which I occasionally use on the test Wikipedia and maybe here to perform tests). Any other accounts that claim to be me and aren't listed on that user page I linked you to are almost certainly not me. I also create alternative accounts using this account, so the user creation log on the English Wikipedia would specifically state that "User account XXXXXXXXX (talk | contribs) was created by Oshwah (talk | contribs) (REASON)" and with an explanation and reason added to the log. If this isn't present, then don't assume it to be legitimate. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you like me to ask an Simple English Admin to block it for impersonation? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - If it's currently being used to cause harassment, disruption, or impersonation - sure! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Whelp, It's was created in 2016 with no edits to the account, I think I should ask for it to be blocked so it won't cause any further disruption. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It may or may not be blocked, since it's definitely a stale account - but I have nothing against you filing a report. Thanks! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Gracias! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

IP range block request

Hello Oshwah. I notice that you blocked this range for a week on February 13 for making unsourced edits. As soon as the block expired, they have gone back to making the same sort of edits. Please could you block the range again. Silverfish (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Silverfish -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The block expired today, and they are back making the same sort of edits under a different IP in the range: [7]. Please could you impose a new range block. Thank you. Silverfish (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Silverfish - An admin has applied a new block on this range. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Editor's privilege and favoritism

Hello Oshwah,

I want your honest judgement of the following issue. Please have a look at this (I commented because I was involved in a way, to begin with) and then read this. I would like to know your opinion. I believe this is problematic and really downgrades Wikipeidia's editing environment, the fact that it is a norm these days. This is a general problem and should be treated seriously. The editing hierarchy should be stopped. Sorry for bothering you. But I think it was much needed. It is not ANI or ArbCom worthy though.

Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi ImmortalWizard! Thanks for messaging me here with your request for my input and thoughts regarding the recent... drama stemming from a block placed on Beyond My Ken for edit warring on the Ben Shapiro article. I'll be happy to take a look at everything and provide my honest input and thoughts regarding the situation.

First, lets start from the beginning: Looking at the article's recent history, we can gather based on the edits made that a caption under an image in the article was under dispute. It looks like it started when the caption was modified by Shaddai Wright on February 14. Beyond My Ken ("BMK") reverted the modification about four days later. Sullay then stepped in and modified the caption shortly after, which was reverted again by BMK on the same day. ImmortalWizard (which is you) then modified the caption shortly afterwards, and was reverted yet again by BMK within the span of only about 15 minutes. Sullay then returned and modified the caption again for the second time, which was reverted yet again by BMK. BMK then went on to make two additional edits (here and here) immediately after that last revert. I have absolutely nothing against Beyond My Ken at all. In fact, he's always responded in a positive and appreciative manner when I've come to him and had to talk to him about some difficult issues - quite commendable. Unfortunately, though, based off the edit history, Beyond My Ken was engaging in edit warring and against multiple editors, and while I would've left a warning on his talk page first and gave him a chance to stop making edits to the article before blocking (I usually always do this to give the person a chance to realize that they've hit the gas a bit too far and to stop), the block certainly wasn't unwarranted. Since Sullay only made two edits to the same page during the dispute, I wouldn't consider that user to be edit warring until more actions were performed by him that directly affected the situation.

I typically leave edit warring notices on the user talk page and advise them to stop after they've published the third edit or revert to the page (which includes the original change if it's the user who made it). This to me is an appropriate time to do this, because in most cases, you're now venturing into "edit warring territory" after making that third revert. In my mind, it goes like this: I make an edit, someone reverts it, I revert it thinking maybe the revert was a mistake, unreasonable, or the person doesn't know what he/she is talking about and say so in the edit summary. The other person (or someone else) then reverts it again. At this point, it's not an isolated "revert" that might be a mistake, a situation where the person was just performing "drive by reverting", or anything that can be played off as a mistake, somebody doesn't understand, or whatever - it's now the other person defending their thoughts regarding how the content should or should not be published. At this point, you should know this and go through the lengths of starting a discussion and contacting the editor to discuss the matter (like what's stated here). If you make a third revert and override the other editor again and after he/she has potentially expressed an issue with your changes twice, you know that with this third revert - you should have either discussed it and have come to a consensus that your edit should proceed, or you're edit warring. I warn the user, and if it continues despite the warning I left, I feel that it's appropriate to proceed with action. While BMK wasn't warned first like I typically do, he's experienced enough to know about Wikipedia's policy on edit warring and an admin proceeding straight to a block justifiable. It's just not something I would personally do. I try to at least give warning first so that other means can be attempted before having to resort to blocking. It doesn't always happen, but given the circumstances - it's not always needed and certainly not required. In the end, it doesn't matter who is right as far as the content dispute goes, it matters that edit warring is avoided and the proper discussions and communication occur (per Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol).

The warning given to you about "grave dancing" is something you'll need to talk to TonyBallioni about directly. I think you were correct in your original response here with your main point that BMK was edit warring and over a content-related dispute, but I also think that your comment here could be interpreted as "grave dancing" by other editors upon their interpretation - especially given that you made an edit to the article that was reverted by BMK. It wasn't necessary, and after seeing that a user's editing or behavior has already been dealt with, it's always best to move on and to avoid piling onto the fact that BMK was blocked - which, in itself, never feels good to have happen in the first place. Responses in agreement or disagreement are usually appropriate, but make sure that you're not adding fuel to the fire. I definitely try never to use someone's edit count as a measure for disagreeing with someone or arguing a point about something unrelated to it. While edit counts are a rough measure as to someone's tenure and involvement with the project (which from there can be associated to overall experience, sure), it's not a reliable measure to use when gauging one's knowledge of policy, the quality of edits performed, and the user's ability to take on or complete a task properly on Wikipedia. A basic example: User A (with 10,000 edits) does not have the exact same experience, knowledge level, behavior, tenure, or aptitude as User B (who also has 10,000 edits) simply because their edit counts are exactly the same.

I hope that my response here was informative and helpful to you, and gave you a fair and rational explanation with my thoughts, exactly what was correct and correctly handled and why, and how I would've handled things if it were up to me. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Just move on, learn the lessons that you should take away from what happened, and don't hold any grudges. A term I often use to explain what I mean is to "take the meat and leave the bones". :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Oshwah. Just to clarify on the edit count thing: I wholeheartedly agree that at some point it doesn’t matter. My point was that someone with ~4k edits and a few months of active editing in the last 2 years telling someone with ~200k edits and over a decade of experience how to edit is going to leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. That’s not favouritism or privilege, that’s just having social awareness of what is likely to look really bad. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. I don’t have much else to add beyond what I already said on my talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni! I think that this clarification is exactly what ImmortalWizard was looking for. I appreciate you for taking the time to respond here and state your thoughts and input. My response above was not in any way an attempt to say or imply that your thoughts were wrong and that what you said in response was inappropriate. It was simply meant to give my input on the matter in general. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both you to take your time and thoroughly assess this situation. As Oshwah has stated, my comments were a bit too much and I should have just stopped and carry on my own business. However, I believe all of us have learned a valuable lesson here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard - No problem; always happy to help! If you run into any more questions or if you need any more input or advice, please don't hesitate to message me again and I'll be glad to assist. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You wanted a notification....(Muhsin ibn Ali) - again.

I had hoped they understood...They did it again!.And here too!.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Lurking shadow! I've just left the user this escalated warning regarding his/her edits to that article. If this message and the urgency used in the wording doesn't correct the behavior, and if these edits continue on the article from this user - please let me know and I'll be happy to proceed to taking the appropriate next steps in order to stop the disruption. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Extreme Extreme Wikipediholic

I spend way too much time here... Hey, Maybe If I get a snow day the next day I can edit more! But I really need to get off, Any Advice? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Advice? Umm... like with anything else we find to be fun and hard to peel away from, just make sure that your time spent volunteering and contributing to Wikipedia comes with an appropriate balance to everything else in life. Make sure that it doesn't negatively impact your school work, grades, social life with others, or other aspects of your life outside of Wikipedia that are important and should be first priority. If you find that you're spending too much time on any activity in general (not just Wikipedia), I'd say that the best thing to do is set appropriate limits and hold yourself to them. Set a timer and log off when the time runs out, set a reminder that it's time to log off the computer when the time of day occurs (like 5:00 PM or something)... there are many ways to force yourself to limits that are hard to keep. Another important tip: Make sure that all of your obligations (whether it be chores, homework, or other projects and work) are done first before you decide that it's appropriate to get on the computer or the internet. A good quote to stick by in life and with managing your time is "you gotta eat your greens before you can have desert". This way, you won't allow yourself the opportunity to put off important things that must get done, and it makes sure that you spend the time necessary in order to complete those obligations instead of procrastinating and estimating how long it will take you to finish them later. Hope my response helps. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I spend all my homework time on Wikipedia- 4:15 pm-8:00 Pm and beyond, I end up having to rush my homework the next morning when I wake up, and sometimes I'll dream about Wikipedia. lol. I need to get off... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, it's me again. I'd just like to thank you for responding to my email and unblocking me. Having spent the past couple of weeks in a dispute was starting to give Wikipedia a bit of a bad taste for me since it's the first time I've ever really been engaged with the site and its users. You've really made me realize that it's not all stressful and stagnant. Again, thank you for the quick and kind responses, I really appreciate that and am hoping if there's something I can do for you. Are editors allowed to give medals or likes or something to increase rep on here? Cheers.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

Hi HueyXocoatzin! No problem! It's part of what I do on Wikipedia, I'm happy to do it, and I'm especially glad that it gave you some renewed faith in the project and the community. Trust me, not everyone here is hard to work with or uncivil toward others. Users will (typically) invest more time, emotions, responses, and arguments in discussions where there's disagreements than you do with discussions where there aren't. It's obviously much easier to remember the bad and frustrating disputes and editors than the others because of this. ;-)

It appeared to me that the edit warring was over a content-related dispute and not a case of blatant misinformation or vandalism being added by the other account. However, If you still feel that the other user is causing blatant disruption and adding bad faith edits in order to purposefully damage the article or the project, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if it's vandalism or spam, or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if it involves other things that need community and admin review, investigation, and action. You're of course not obligated to leave me any awards or barnstars; your kind thank you message was plenty good enough. :-) However, if you want to know this information for future reference - you can give someone "wikilove" by navigating to their user talk page, and clicking on the heart tab located at the top and next to the Edit, History, Read, and other tabs. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to do so. Keep outta trouble, participate and respond in the discussions regarding the disputes you're involved with, and report any blatant bad faith issues to the relevant noticeboard if you feel that it's needed. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think I now see the distinction. What qualifies for vandalism needs to be blatant and easier to follow than a content-related dispute(?). I guess I'd need to have external input from other admins or users to determine whether the information put in by the disruptive editor is being misrepresented. Now that I think I understand the first part of my complaint, what'll happen to the mass editing and monitoring of related wiki articles that said disruptive editor did? Will that need to be resolved seperately? Is that a blatant form of vandalism or...?HueyXocoatzin (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

Hi again, HueyXocoatzin! I'll explain the different terms so that they're clear for you: Disruptive editing is the general term to describe any kind of editing behavior by a Wikipedia user that's interrupting or disrupting progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. It doesn't take into account the intent of the user or the exact changes being made. Even if one appears to be trying to edit in good faith, their edits can still be considered disruptive if its repeated, and the user can be blocked if they continue to repeat the disruptive behavior and despite being repeatedly talked to and asked to stop. Vandalism, edit warring, adding unsourced content, editing against consensus, and violating Wikipedia's civility policy - are all different forms of editing behaviors that are defined by our policies and guidelines as being disruptive if done repeatedly.

Vandalism is where an editor purposefully and maliciously edits Wikipedia in order to be disruptive, destructive, or to cause damage or harm to the article, page, or the encyclopedia. Reverting blatant vandalism is an action that isn't counted as edit warring if performed, along with removing blatant copyright violations, blatant libel or violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or illegal content like child porn. Other reverts that are starting to become a back-and-fourth behavior between involved editors are considered "content-related disputes", and need to be resolved properly and through discussion and consensus, and by following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol. In a nutshell, if it's over content and not a violation of policy, it'll most likely be considered "content-related" - meaning that you (and others involved) can be held accountable for any edit warring that occurs. If you're not sure, don't revert it repeatedly. Start a discussion on the article's talk page and get help. This way, you won't find yourself in the "edit warring" pit again.

It's perfectly normal and understandable to be blocked for something like edit warring, so long as it doesn't become a repeated issue. The first block? It's generally seen as understandable by the community. Nobody is perfect. A second block over the same thing? It becomes seen by the community as more than just "one mistake" and something you didn't learn from last time. But, if it doesn't happen again - forgivable. No big deal if they were long ago. A third or subsequent block for the same thing? Now it becomes a repeated issue that's long-term. Definitely something you don't want to have happen. ;-)

Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Happy editing and best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I now know that the back and forth him and I were having in the talk page and edit summaries were content-related disputes. We should be focusing on building consensus, but that's clearly not happening any time soon between the two of us--no matter how much I repeat and recite information that relates to “new” arguments he makes. But this springs another question into my mind. Would it be against consensus to make large, new edits that are contradictory to a previous narrative in a given article without explaining it in the talk page or even the edit summary? For example: The article first states that X group of people in a country are a minority (and of course the sources behind this figure are reliable), but then they decide to edit-in a wall of text that states the exact opposite and is accompanied by reliable sources that have been misrepresented, i.e. their source supposedly uses “ambiguous” wording which somehow validates their point. Because before I came along to edit the article, the only reason there was a consensus is because the new editor--who initially went against the consensus--began to hold other editors accountable for what he never did, and has been doing so for almost two years on several (9) related articles. Because if this is against consensus, then those edits would go against policy along with them being a tendentious editor. Of course, the community would need to decide if his claims don't satisfy verifiability, which is why I'm planning on filing a dispute resolution request. Well, I'm still not very familiar with all the rules and protocols I should take because I've mostly been spending my time researching the content being disputed. Do you have any suggestions on what I should do? Cheers.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

(talk page stalker) Why so impatient about it? Well If you want to how to make helpful and constructive contributions to Wikipedia, then please read all of of the policies and rules which I left on your talk page.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 02:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've responded to these questions by HueyXocoatzin in a follow-up discussion below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Very fair and responds quickly and kindly HueyXocoatzin (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again HueyXocoatzin! I appreciate you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar and for expressing your gratitude. As I said in my response in the discussion above, I'm happy that I was able to help you and that my responses and assistance gave you a renewed feeling of Wikipedia, the community, and being an editor and part of it all. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Archived report at e/w noticeboard without "result"

Hey Oshwah, hope anything is going well for you. Just to let you know, i made a report about av 3RR violation some days ago : [8], but it was archived while the "result" section was still empty. This is the first time i see something like that. Thoughts ? Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani! I'm doing well, thank you! I hope life is happy for you as well. :-) That's certainly interesting... I took a look and found the AN3 report in the archives and saw that it was moved there by Lowercase sigmabot III. I'd have to double-check and take a look in order to be sure of which is correct, but I thought that the bot only archived discussions either if they were marked as resolved and with a note inside the "result" portion of the section header (clearly this is not the case since it wasn't "resolved"), or if three days pass without any comments or edits being added to the discussion. Seeing that the last comment added to the discussion was on February 19 and the bot didn't archive it until February 22, this must be what Lowercase sigmabot III looks for before moving a report to the archives. The discussion must've just gone stale.

If the reported user (Sword313) is still currently engaging in edit warring and at this moment in time, and the report is still relevant given the information provided - I'd just create a new AN3 report, copy the original details and diffs you submitted with the original report, add any additional diffs, details, and evidence that occurred since the first report so that it's up-to-date, briefly explain that the first report you filed went stale without a resolution (add a diff to the original report in the archives) and that the user is still currently edit warring as reported, and submit it that way. If the user has stopped engaging in edit warring or the issues that caused you to file your original report, then I'd let it go and move on to discussing the dispute or the matter on the articles' talk pages. You can always file another AN3 report later if the edit warring picks back up again in the near future. ;-)

Please let me know if you have any more questions or if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) I hope my response here was helpful and that you have a great rest of your day. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yes, as usual, your response is very helpful. Hopefully, it seems that the editor is not edit-warring now, so, as you said, let's drop it. I'll follow your advices if edit-warring resumes. I also wish you a great rest of your day. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani - No problem. Sounds good to me; if it continues, let me know. Take care as well, and have a great rest of your day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to undelete a deleted article

Just now I saw that you deleted this draft https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:DJ_Debayan_Official without any reason. As I found, it was an incomplete article which was still under construction. Immediately give a proper reason for it's deletion or undelete the article, otherwise I have to ask other administrators to take action. Wikieditor147369 (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor147369: The reason has been given in the deletion description, namely it is G5. For more explanation please see WP:G5.
And please do not try to frighten anyone with asking another admin to take action. Those who shout louder usually have less reasons. --(talk page stalker) CiaPan (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well said. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan page

Hi, Thanks for your response. I am glad you understood my point. I am just a fan & not an expert in editing. I trust your vision in editing. I request you to add these edit in her post.

Career: Nehru often invited Kalpana, a trained Kathak dancer, to dance at the Rashtrapati Bhavan whenever dignitaries visited. Actor Balraj Sahani and Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai spotted the beautiful dancer and encouraged her to come to Mumbai and try her luck in films.

Filmography

1. Pyar Ki Jeet (1962), as Chitralekha | Romance | 1 January 1962 | Director Vasant Painter | Stars: Mahipal, Kalpana, Indira

2. Naughty Boy (1962), as Meena Sharma / Edna Wong | Comedy Movie Director Shakti Samanta, Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Om Prakash

3. Professor (1962), as Neena Verma | Comedy| 11 May 1962 (India) Director Lekh Tandon, Stars: Shammi Kapoor, Kalpana, Lalita Pawar

4. Saheli (1965), as Reshma | Romance | 1965 | Director Arjun Hingorani, Stars: Pradeep Kumar, Kalpana, Vijaya Choudhury

5. Teesra Kaun (1965), as Shobha | Action, Crime Director: Mohammed Hussain (as Mohd. Husain) | Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana & Shashikala

6. Teen Devian (1965) as Kalpana | Musical, Romance | 10 December 1965|Director: Amarjeet | Stars: Dev Anand, Nanda, Kalpana, Simi & IS Johar

7. Biwi Aur Makan (1966), as Geeta |Director: Hrishikesh Mukherjee | Stars: Biswajit Chatterjee, Kalpana, Mehmood

8. Tasveer (1966), as Piloo | Director: J.B.H. Wadia Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana , Helen & Rajendra Nath

9. Pyar Kiye Jaa (1966), as Malti | Director: C.V. Sridhar (as Sridhar) Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Shashi Kapoor, Mumtaz. Mehmood. Pm Prakash.

10. Nawab Sirazuddaula (1967) Drama | Director: Ramchandra Thakur Stars: Bharat Bhushan, Kalpana, Naseem Banu, Murad & Johnny Walker

11. Ek Bechara (1972), as Radha | Drama, Family | Director: S.M. Abbas Stars: Jeetendra, Rekha, Vinod Khanna, Kalpana, Pran, Bindu & Anwar Hussain

She has 11 films to her credits, all films are not mentioned in the Biography. I request you to please restore the info in a tabular format as original version with the hyperlink leading to the movie. The list is genuine.

References Please add the link, as it was part of the earlier Biography. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0436200/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

I have edited it to make as brief as possible, you can make the relevant changes & publish it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yashkkaryan! You're welcome and I'm glad I could help. If you create an edit request on the article's talk page here, myself or someone else will add it to the article assuming no issues are found. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help. Thanks again, and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I have made changes in the edit page. please review it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Billy Preston edit war

Hi. You recently semi-protected Billy Preston's article for "vandalism". However, edit warring over {{fact}} tags isn't vandalism - if it was, it means I should be in trouble for vandalising Wikipedia. Can you review this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333. I meant to choose "persistent disruptive editing" but the selection must not have stuck or it didn't change. I updated the semi-protection, amended the reason, and added an explanation. Thanks for messaging me about this and for letting me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. I agree semi-protection is the way to go here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - Yeah, sorry about that, and thanks again for the heads up. Some IP ranges were blocked, but others that were used were simply too wide and with too much collateral damage at stake to block... and this doesn't equate for any other ranges this user has access to. Semi-protection was the only sure way to stop the disruption. Hopefully it does... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For this. MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN! Thank you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar! it means a lot to me and I appreciate it greatly. I'm happy to see that my in-depth analysis and input regarding the situation has made a positive impact on more than just the user who it was in response to. I'm always happy and willing to provide my neutral analysis and input with a situation or event on Wikipedia any time it's needed. ;-) Thanks again, and I wish you a great rest of your day and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Purple Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		For always being cool and helpful even with all the vandalism on your talkpage. (Also welcome back from your short wikibreak) A 10 fireplane Imform me 18:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi A 10 fireplane! It's good to talk to again! I hope things are going well and that life is happy and free of stress. :-) Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate you for taking the time to leave one. Vandalism on my user talk page is something that happens daily when I'm on Wikipedia. Instead of giving them exactly what they want by reacting to it, I just ignore them completely. Then they'll get bored of it and do something else. Usually works for me! :-) Thanks again for the barnstar; it really means a lot to me and I hope you have a great rest of your day! :-D Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you same to you, its one of the negatives fighting vandalism. But the people you get to work with is awesome. Happy editing A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane - You bet; glad I could be of assistance! A happy editing to you as well, good sir. Until our paths cross again... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully soon A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 19:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

But of course! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking a vandal Brainiac245 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brainiac245! I appreciate the message, the barnstar, and your gratitude! You're welcome; always happy to help. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I think you deserve something greater than this. In addition to constantly fighting vandalism, you have kept your cool and have shown excellent mediation skills. Keep it up pal, and I hope you don't push yourself too much here! I know this is unnecessary, but I hope you cherish in real life. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi ImmortalWizard! We meet again! :-) Thank you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar and for the very kind words. This is definitely an above-average amount of barnstars that I've received in one day (lol), but I seriously and sincerely appreciate it. Like I said above, they mean a lot to me. They put a smile on my face and they remind me that the things I do on this project make a positive impact to others. Thanks again, ImmortalWizard. I really appreciate it... very much. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition

This template has no uses within article mainspace.[9]

It was deprecated and replaced by a combination of Template:Infobox medical condition (new) and Template:Medical resources.

Thus redirecting to "new" was perfectly fine. We do not want to drop the "new" as it brakes all the inter language links and stops the translation tool from working. The change you made[10] does not really cause any issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Doc James. Okay... that makes much more sense compared to what I translated from the discussion. I've rolled back the edit I made and struck out the portion of my response detailing that I've modified the template. If it's deprecated and not being used, it should be redirected; you're absolutely right. Thanks for the message and the explanation. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Perfect, appreciate it. This was the completion of a massive 3 year effort by Wikiproject Medicine to update our infoboxes to human understandable information. Glad to finally be finished :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Doc James - No problem; like I said, I appreciate the message and the explanation. I bet! A project requiring three years of planning and proper execution in order to update and move things over like this would definitely feel satisfying to finally be able to declare it as done... well done and congratulations! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

ReQuest Dance Crew

Hello yes, it was a simple accident my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbridges97 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Gbridges97 - No worries; accidents happen and it's not a big deal. If you need help, let me know and I'll be happy to lend you a hand. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Point of Rocks

Hi! You left a message on my page about an edit I made to Point of Rocks. This was intentional, not an experiment. Did something go wrong on the page? Thanks. --Rivkid007 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Rivkid007 - One sec; let me take another look. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Rivkid007 - Nope, it was a mistake on my part. I thought that your edit removed more than just that parameter but part of the next one randomly, and thought maybe you were testing something? Anyways, I obviously misread your edit; you did it correctly and I've reverted it back to the article and removed the notice I left. Please accept my apologies for the mistake on my part. If you have questions or concerns, let me know and I'll be happy to discuss them and help you. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Raining barnstars

Yo Oshwah, What's up with all these barnstars raining from the sky. It seems you are fast turning from "Oshwah" to "Osho". Mediation is still ok, but please stay away from meditation. We still want you here as an admin. Good job --DBigXrayᗙ 06:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

But, DBigXray... what if meditation helps me to mediate? :-P Thanks, man! Don't worry, I don't plan on disappearing anywhere. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Lulz, whatever makes you happy and keeps the pedia ticking ! --DBigXrayᗙ 08:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray - Thanks man, and same to you! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerned about potential conflict of interest/undisclosed paid editing

Hello,

I originally made a similar post to the talk page of another admin, but after not receiving a response for several days, I discovered that the admin whose talk page I had posted on has apparently taken a break from Wikipedia and is no longer an active user, which explains the lack of response, so I am asking you about this instead. I hope that is okay. I don't know if this is exactly the right place to bring this up, but I am (relatively) new to having an account on Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly sure where to raise this issue. Sorry if this is the wrong place to bring this up.

I have ran across an editor who I strongly suspect is involved in undisclosed paid editing or some other form of conflict of interest. All their edits appear to have been made, either directly or indirectly, to very subtly improve the image of drugs marketed by a drug company called Vanda Pharmaceuticals, or to harm the image of competitors. I first noticed some odd edits on the article Non-24-hour sleep–wake disorder, and I looked at the person's other edits, and found a rather clear pattern. They have made edits that appear to be designed to improve the image of the Vanda Pharmaceuticals drug Tasimelteon, and to delete information about Melatonin, which is used to treat the same disorder.

I then looked at their contribution history and saw that this user had made edits to similarly improve the image of the anti-psychotic drug Iloperidone. I was curious if this drug was also made by Vanda Pharmaceuticals, so I looked it up, and in fact it is. And actually, those two medications are the only two drugs that Vanda Pharmaceuticals currently even markets/produces.

This person also made edits which appear to be worded so as to subtly harm the image of Rozerum, which is another drug that competes with Tasimelteon. This person has not made any edits at all which are not related to either a drug made by Vanda Pharmaceuticals or to a disorder which one of their drugs are used to treat. I found this highly suspicious, and can't really think of a reason someone would have this pattern of editing unless there is an undisclosed conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Any of their edits taken in isolation seem relatively innocent, but the pattern of editing taken as a whole definitely seems suspicious.

I did my best to manually revert the most offensive of this person's edits, while trying to make the relevant parts of the articles more reflective of the facts that are stated in the given references so as to give accurate and unbiased information about all the drugs, both the ones made by Vanda and the competitors. I also left a message on the user's talk page about this, immediately before I messaged the other admin. The editor I am talking about is user:Courtney828. They apparently haven't made a user page, but their edits can be found here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Courtney828 and their talk page where I left the message can be found here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Courtney828

Have I followed proper procedure for something like this? Is there more (or less) that I should do/should have done? It appears that the person has not made any additional edits, roughly coinciding with when I posted asking them to explain their edits on their talk page, but I would like to know if I handled this correctly in case I ever encounter a similar situation in the future, or in case they do eventually start making similar edits again. In my view, this sort of thing is more harmful than blatant vandalism, because vandalism is usually easy to detect and even easier to reverse, but this sort of subtle abuse of Wikipedia is harder to detect and more likely to remain part of an article for a long period of time. Thanks. Vontheri (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vontheri, and thanks for messaging me here with your request for input, advice, and help with this situation. No apologies are needed at all; if you need help with something, please don't be afraid or hesitate to reach out to me and ask for it. My talk page is always open to you and you're welcome to message me here any time you need or want to.

I definitely understand your suspicions regarding the users edits, and given that they're subtly making improvements to articles regarding medications and drugs provided by one company, while removing and making other subtle changes that are negatively impacting drugs in competition. These are surely not unreasonable, and I would definitely file a report at this noticeboard so that it can be looked into by other pairs of eyes. Make sure to describe each edit in detail, and include diffs with each edit so that other editors sand patrolling users there can easily follow your thoughts and statements. If you see or feel that edits made by the user are not appropriate, or violate a policy such as Wikipedia's neutral point of view (even indirectly) - I don't see a problem with reverting those changes at all. Just make sure that you include an explanation in the edit summary, avoid ][WP:EW|edit warring]], remain civil at all times, and I wouldn't imagine you getting yourself into any trouble. :-)

I hope this response had all of the information you were looking for and that it helped point you in the right direction. If you have any more questions, or if you need more input or advice - please let me know and I'll be happy to help. Thanks for your diligence and dedication to spotting these potential problems and taking the effort to do the right thing and help put a stop to COI and undisclosed paid editing violations. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I will file a report at the noticeboard that you mentioned. I don't get the feeling that the editor I was talking about is likely to make any more edits though, at least not with the same account, as they have been inactive for quite some time now. It's good to know that you welcome any questions. Now I know who to turn to if I have any more questions in the future. Vontheri (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Vontheri - No problem; always happy to help. Good luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Who doesn't love berries. It is better than a barnstar. Would you mind if I stalk you? Sincerely, Masum Rezatalk 08:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100! I never say no to a bowl of strawberries! Thanks, man - I appreciate it a lot! Sure, you're of course welcome to talk my user talk page. Just be helpful and kind, and keep the environment open, positive, friendly, and collaborative. That's all I ask :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Oshwah, you must have been very hungry when you were replying to Masum Reza above? You ate one ‘s’... Those strawberries arrived just on time! --CiaPan (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's true then it must be a coincidence.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 13:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your close of "Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict"

You wrote "Many users agreed that this article can be reasonably attributed as being under the WP:ARBIPA topic" [11], but the thread is about any article that is related to the India-Pakistan conflict; also, some editors are calling for specific criteria to determine which articles that refers to and how narrowly or how broadly to cast the net. Can you clarify what you meant by rewording your close to encompass and address these points/issues? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender! I've gone back and clarified the closing statement I made. Looking at it again, I agree that I definitely butchered what I was trying to say and probably caused some confusion. Thanks for letting me know about this, and I apologize for any confusion or frustration that my closing statement may have caused upon you or anyone else. Please let me know if the closing comment still has issues, or if I can do anything else for you. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender - Okay, I clarified it even further after letting it bother me over and over again... lol... hopefully it's a lot better and much more clear now! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It still doesn't really specify who is going to place the ECP or when or on which specific articles or under what circumstances. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender - Administrators would obviously place the protection to the articles. ;-) I'm just messing with you, but the discussion and the proposal that is now in effect is that:

• All anonymous users, and all accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any articles if they are determined to be under the WP:ARBIPA topic (any conflict between India and Pakistan), and:
• Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict.

Closing a discussion and determining consensus does not give me the power to invoke or add changes to anything being discussed; my responsibility is to make the appropriate determination if consensus was reached in the discussion regarding the proposals and hence whether or not they now apply as a community-enacted restriction. Obviously, when we say "enforce", it means that protection will be applied following violations to the restriction and in order to stop further violations. Admins aren't going to run around and pre-emptively protect every single article just because it falls under the topic. If anything, it would be too much work and time to do that. :-) The specific articles it applies to would be determined following the process used before - a discussion and a determination made by the community if it's deemed to be necessary.

The spirit of the matter is that the editing restriction is solid and defined, while the authorization of protection may be less as solid. In the end, this discussion just formalizes an editing restriction and that administrators have appropriate freedom and leeway to apply page protection when necessary to enforce the restriction. There of course are examples of good and terrible interpretation and application of this, but I believe that most admins who have the appropriate judgment and knowledge in this area will follow it well, and those who don't won't cause major issues. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"All anonymous users, and all accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any articles if they are determined to be under the WP:ARBIPA topic (any conflict between India and Pakistan)." That's not actually true, nor was there any actual consensus for that short of applying ECP to an article; nor did you give any way of "determining" or state who "determines" whether an article is directly or remotely or tangentially "under the WP:ARBIPA topic (any conflict between India and Pakistan)". "Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict." Your close does not state that, and that was precisely what your close needs to state. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender - I've shortened the statement to quote precisely what was approved by consensus, and it includes the statement that was missing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

About the dispute in the article Demographics of Mexico

Hello, I see you are an administrator and have now participated in the dispute, however, the description of me and the conflict given by editor Hueyxocoatzin is unfair and far from reality thus I'd like to explain myself and the situation better: Since Feb 3 Hueyxocoatzin has been doing large scale edits under questionable claims [12] and in consecuence, I've been restoring to the version previous to said dispute (this one [13]) as the dispute resolution protocols assert, has to be done (since some days ago I‘ve been restoring to a version to which I have made some modifications in an attempt to discourage the other editor from edit warring, but it didn‘t work [14]). The core of the problem is that Huayxocoatzin holds to a source published a while ago whereas I hold onto newer ones (one directly cites and reworks/corrects the source he is holding to), this point seems, would need extensive discussion and even participation of volunteers. However that’s not the only thing he edits, what is the most problematic is that he keeps removing material that has nothing to do with his claims regarding historic data and is also supported by multiple reliable sources: As can be seen in all of his reverts [15][16][17] he keeps removing phenotypical traits in Mexicans such as the frequencies of light hair and light eyes under the argument that "dark blond/light brown hair isn't a white trait" [18] I think that argument, alongside other assumptions he has made on the basis of racial purity [19][20] to remove figures that were published by Mexico’s government itself about skin color are the kind of arguments that have no place on Wikipedia. What I am supposed to do here? I can’t stay with arms crossed while he defaces the article with that kind of arguments, specially when he stopped replying to the talk page days ago [21]. What do you think? Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Pob3qu3 - Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to your message and your request for input here. I've been busy with real life things and I'm just now getting all caught up with my Wikipedia messages and emails. :-) Have you filed this at WP:ANI? I'm just trying to catch up and refresh my memory here with this issue and dispute, and I want to make sure that I cover all my bases. Is this still an ongoing issue? Has this been handled? Let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ohi Day

You have suggested that I add a source to my edit on the article "Ohi Day". I hadn't done so because there is no source. My edit was adding something that is common knowledge in Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristinaK1756 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You still need a Reliable Source. What if I don't live in Greece? How do I know that this is true. Please cite a Reliable Source. Thank You. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It is kinda feel like original research and just so you know no original research on Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 03:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@CristinaK1756: I have edited your entry a bit – there's no need to use an external link format when you need to point at the Wikipedia's own article, the ordinary wikilink works just fine (please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style). --CiaPan (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@CristinaK1756, Thegooduser, and Masumrezarock100:, who took parts in this discussion, also Materialscientist, who did another revert: I've found & added some sources. Hopefully they're reliable enough...? Please see Special:Diff/885014715 --CiaPan (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi CristinaK1756. As someone stated in a response to your message above, the content you added does not fall into the realm or threshold of being "common knowledge" to all who read the article. Even if what you stated is correct and the content you added is common knowledge to some people in Greece, you still need to cite and reference a reliable source with the content you added. Please review and understand the policies and guidelines I've linked in my response here, and let me know if you have any questions about them. I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit to article Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi, I believe my edit came from a neutral viewpoint as I simply copied what is in the preamble of Alcoholics Anonymous. This is the first cited reference in the article. I did not change the cited reference. I just used its own language. The preamble is the document in which Alcoholics Anonymous defines itself. Lwoodyiii (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lwoodyiii! I'll take a look and respond to you here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Lwoodyiii - Take a look at this edit you made here to Alcoholics Anonymous. The wording doesn't sound neutral and isn't in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. You said that this is a cited reference - did you copy this text word-for-word? If so, this would constitute a copyright violation. On Wikipedia, you of course need to cite your references - but you also need to write what you're referencing using your words. Copying text word-for-word and even close paraphrasing (where you copy the text and then make very small changes to a few words and phrases to be different) is not okay. Please review the Wikipedia policies that I've provided for you here and let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New IP sock?

Howdy. I'm little curious about 114.246.233.6 being a possible sock, of those IPs you recently blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You should link to this IP like this as you know he/she is not a registered user. Anyway you should ask this question to a checkuser not to an oversighter.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: Actually, Oshwah is a good person to ask, not because he's an OS, but because he's an administrator apparently familiar with a related IP. What would a CheckUser do? That said, thank you for indirectly bringing to my attention Mohammedbhaq (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A checkuser has the right to look into the IP address.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 05:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A checkuser has the ability to look into the IP address, but they don't necessarily have the right to do so. They need a justifiable reason, and unfounded suspicion is not one of them. Every time that a checkuser performs a check on an IP address, that action is logged; and the checkuser may be called into account at a later time if they cannot give a satisfactory explanation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I know. But in case of sock puppet investigation, it is totally legal.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 16:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not actually what I was thinking of. I rarely check an IP at the request of a user because there's always a risk that doing so may result in disclosure of a named account, which is prohibited by policy. It's better for non-CU admins to check IPs. There's nothing wrong, for example, with a non-CU administrator saying it's obvious that x IP belongs to so-and-so. I can say that too but not if it's the result of a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. I was wondering why even administrators stalk themselves.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 16:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay! I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. I've been busy with real life things and I'm just now getting all caught up with my Wikipedia messages, pings, emails, all that fun stuff (lol). ;-) It looks like this IP hasn't edited since, which is good to see. However, if you see any more issues from this IP or range, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to do some digging and see what's going on. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Cindy Roberson Tigress69

We have a newly-registered user, Cindy Roberson Tigress69, who has zero contributions but early today thanked a bunch of people including you and me. Since they thanked me three times (01:36, 24 February 2019; 02:12, 24 February 2019; 02:14, 24 February 2019), each for a revert of edits by three different IP users, it's got me wondering. Any ideas? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Suggest CU? I'd be interested to know how a new editor with zero contributions even knows about the "Thanks" feature: it's a completely arcane thing for the WP:READER to come across by accident, and IP editors don't see it, so they couldn't have already known about it.

Or perhaps they just saw it on their screen and it fascinated them to such an extent it drove all thoughts of editing from their head. ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Judging by the logs, hisher main targets are newbies to experienced editors even administrators. I guess heshe is not a sockpuppeteer. HeShe may be here only to thank people. I think we should guide himher properly. Please don't take hisher thanks as offence.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 15:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You use gendered personal pronouns five times (three different ones): I don't know many males that are named Cindy, or who use the appellation "Tigress", so he or she is not necessarily a "he". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't look at the name properly. Well as long she is not impersonating a girl and cross dressing, she is a girl. 😁
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 16:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64! I apologize for the delay responding to your message and request for input here... I've been busy with real life things and I'm just now getting all caught up with my Wikipedia messages, pings, emails, all that stuff. ;-) It looks like this user hasn't edited or done anything since, which is good to see. In these cases, users simply "thanking" others may be cause for leaving them a message and asking about it while welcoming them to the site, and perhaps asking if they need help or anything. It's usually not a cause for alarm unless the "thanks" become blatantly disruptive and to the point where it's obvious that the user is doing it to annoy others - and after sufficient messages, notes, warnings, and offers to help the user have been left and without responses and to no avail. However, if you see any more issues like this from this user, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to take a look and see what's going on. ;-) Hope you're doing well and that we speak again soon! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Oshwah, I would like to inform you that I am an editor with autism and OCD. Hope you can give some advice. Regarding my current situation, everything is fine and I am trying hard to connect with the community. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: Why March 1 is special to you?
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: That's just a reminder for myself to do something. I tend to forget things. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel sorry for your situation. 1st March is also special to me as it is my birthday.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 15:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: great to hear that! Wish you an advanced happy birthday in case I forget or get busy! Just today I found out that User:Titodutta (another Bengali user) and I share the same birthday. Funny isn't it? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well unlike him I don't want to become a vegan. I am totally a non-vegetarian.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 17:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi ImmortalWizard! Unfortunately, there isn't much input and advice that I can give to you other than to follow the input and advice that's offered on the two Wikipedia pages you provided in your message above. I was unaware of the existence of these two Wikipedia pages; I'll definitely give them a read! Thanks for linking me to them! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

creating new sandbox

Hello,

I have completed the training for creating a new sandbox and editing other people's articles. When I click on my username, I can't change the URL to create a new sandbox.

Thanks,

Kmr104 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Kmr104

Kmr104 - There should be a link at the top of any page to take you to your sandbox. To create another sandbox, just add a 2 at the end of the URL, then just go to that URL when you want to access it. If you have any questions, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits on WP:Service awards/Table

I wonder somebody could check this. An editor called User:SportsFan007 recently added a new award in this page. As the templates and file links is red, I reverted all of his edits on that page. But some hours ago, he reverted all of my edits. As I don't want to engage in any war, I am here to seek help and advice.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 01:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100 and Oshwah: For the record, I am more than willing to remove my edits until the award is created (and this award is due to be created). Thank you in advance!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

@Masumrezarock100 and Oshwah: I have hidden my edits until the award is created. SportsFan007 (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

@SportsFan007: Is there any plans or discussion to create this award? If not why bother adding and hiding it? Someone will add the award if it is created.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^☎ 13:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: There’s a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Service awards#The 18th founding anniversary is coming up—time for a new level of award? SportsFan007 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

Masumrezarock100, SportsFan007 - Interesting! I hope the discussion goes well and that (if necessary) a new award is created! Masumrezarock100, I wouldn't call this something that an admin would need to look into or be alarmed with. SportsFan007 just wanted to make a new award and decided to give it a try... remember that we encourage this behavior and for anyone who legitimately feels that their edits, additions, or changes will improve the project. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you still available?

Good evening, Oshwah. I asked you a question on the "Thank You" thread I started some days ago[22]. I'd really appreciate it if you'd respond soon. Thank you and I hope you've been having a good day. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

Hi HueyXocoatzin! My apologies for such a late response. I've been busy lately and am just becoming active again now. Do you still need help with this? Let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would still like a response for my previous question even though the person I was having a content dispute with has stopped trying to edit the Demographics of Mexico article since then. Thanks for responding; always better late than never. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

HueyXocoatzin - Sure, not a problem. To answer your question regarding whether it's "against consensus to make large, new edits that are contradictory to a previous narrative in a given article without explaining it in the talk page or even the edit summary": Technically, it would be, yes... however, the majority of editors that do this are usually unaware that such discussions took place or that consensus already exists from them. It's just up to other editors to be respectful and let the editor know about this and make them aware of these discussions and consensus when they make those kinds of changes, and help them to understand these policies and guidelines and answer their questions if they ask any. In my experience, assuming good faith on part of the editor and just messaging with that thought and assumption in mind is what typically resolves the issue. I've seen plenty of disputes blow up simply because other editors jumped to conclusions, assumed that he was editing in order to be disruptive and push their point of view, left nasty messages on the editor's user talk page with that assumption, and upset him/her and sent the dispute into heated chaos. I diffused most of these situations by simply informing the editors who jumped to conclusions that this editor wasn't involved with the discussion and didn't know about it, and by explaining to the editor in a respectful, positive, and good faith-based manner that what he/she was changing had already been discussed and was decided to be published this way due to consensus. Easy peasy. :-)

In cases where the editor is already aware of such discussions and starting to edit disruptively despite the consensus, if repeated messages asking the user to stop are made to no avail, and the reverts start turning into edit warring, the user should be warned about edit warring and asked to stop this and to discuss the dispute properly. If the user doesn't do this, or if the edit warring continues (even concurrent to the user participating on the article's talk page), a report should be filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so that the issue is looked into, discussed, and resolved. These really are the situations that this kind of editing typically falls into, and hopefully I've provided you with a clear explanation and information regarding what to do in these situations. If you have any more questions or need additional input or help, let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

re: Special:Block/Best_astrologer_9587271222

Did you see a better way to manage some of this? Getting some global-level noise about this rubbish, though it seems to be restricted to enWP and hiWP from first level of investigation. I am not wanting to reinvent what defences are taking place, though if it helps we can look to some global title blacklist measures if thought appropriate. Ping me if you think that there should be additional resources be thrown at this. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Billinghurst, and thanks for leaving me this message with your question. I apologize for the delay responding to you; I've been busy with real life things and I'm just now getting all caught up with my Wikipedia messages, pings, emails, all that stuff. ;-) The block you saw on the account's block log was because I initially thought the username to be promotional and that the username contained a phone number... and DANG IT! I was correct the entire time... lol. I unblocked the account because I wanted to be 100% sure first and I thought that I might have jumped too soon. I wasn't aware that abuse was ongoing until I looked into things a bit further - thanks for linking me to the spambot global lock discussion. Due to the fact that there were the same digits in many of the usernames listed, this would've been easy to add to an edit filter (such as 51 (mine), 579, and 874). I hope the issue was taken care of quickly, but let me know if it's still going on and I'll be happy to look at these edit filters and other defenses and make sure that the necessary conditions are added to them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Filter 425 is still going ;) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Zzuuzz - Aha! There we go, then - already taken care of. Thanks for the heads up, Zzuuzz! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

ActuallyLiamNeeson

Just thought you should know I think you blocked the real Liam Neeson [23] (1:55) when he went undercover for GQ on youtube. JamesSenpai (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Or not [24], but perhaps at least someone who briefly was in the same room. WP-policy-wise, it runs into username and maybe MEATing. AFAICT from the video, they never actually edited the article though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

JamesSenpai, Gråbergs Gråa Sång - This wouldn't be considered meat puppetry to me, given the spirit of the policy. It's just a YouTube channel where the producers have famous people create accounts and edit Wikipedia about themselves for entertainment in the videos. Meat puppetry would be the act of me (for example) going out on the internet and recruiting individuals and groups of people to join or edit Wikipedia for the sole purpose of making the same edits to articles or pages, or comments to discussions (usually votes in an articles for deletion discussion) in order to publish the changes and/or sway the results.

The issue here is with each account username that the producers are having each famous person create, which is discussed on Wikipedia's username policy page. We block these accounts and leave instructions for the famous person (if it's indeed them) to contact the volunteer response team and confirm their identity. There have been times where I've blocked these accounts by others (it's all from the same YouTube channel) and they actually did follow the directions and we unblocked them - so they're definitely aware of this policy, why it exists, and how to resolve the issue or completely avoid it in the first place. However, it's clear that they choose not to - so the only solution moving forward is for us to continue doing what we're doing... block accounts with these kinds of usernames and leave it to them (if it's actually them) to follow the directions provided. However, if you look carefully at the YouTube video and then go through the user, page, and edit logs... you'll see that Liam Neeson only pretended to make those edits and never actually published them as the video wants to make you believe..... they just assume that your average person watching the video won't actually attempt or even know how to dig up the logs on Wikipedia and call them out on it.... LOL. Who wants to be the first to go and leave this in a comment on the video? :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to User surevey 1

Hello! There is an ongoing survey going on at User:ImmortalWizard/User survey 1. As a fellow Wikipedian ImmortalWizard would like you to answer some questions. It wouldn't take too long, and your participation will be appreciated. Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi ImmortalWizard! Do you still need me to take that survey? Let me know! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hi Mr.Saqib Ghafoor 19:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit to article Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi Oshwah, Was wondering if you had the chance to look at my edit yet? Thanks! Lwoodyiii (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lwoodyiii! Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to your questions regarding your edit to Alcoholics Anonymous. I reviewed your edit; please see my response in the original thread you started above, and let me know if you have any questions. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Oshwah, can you pls nominate Robert McClenon for adminship as he is a very experienced editor and will be one of our best admins.42.110.132.255 (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You are one of the socks. Aren't you? Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As I have said, I don't know who this editor is, and they have no reason to think that I will unblock them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100, Don't feed the trolls... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - Interesting... request from an IP... lol. Do you know who this user is? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah - I have no idea who this user is. This IP shows up from time to time and asks to have me run for admin. I certainly don't intend to unblock them. (I also don't plan to become a different editor than I am in order to satisfy the checklist that some RFA !voters have, but that isn't the issue.) They haven't said who they are. I don't know whether they like me or dislike me. They may be trying to reward me or to harass me. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Henry helper, again

Hi Oshwah, it seems Henry helper (talk · contribs) wants to be unblocked; he claims he doesn't know how to use Template:Unblock. Could you sort it out? I dunno how to deal with this stuff. --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 15:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Biscuit-in-Chief! I went ahead and added a comment to the user's talk page with instructions on how to use the unblock template. Please let me know if I can help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Farewell

Dear Oshwah, I've leaving Wikipedia and making 4 requests:

• Block my main account and this alt account indefinitely
• Delete all pages in my userspace excluding ones related to user scripts and user (talk) page
• Protect all my script description pages (can be found at User:Abelmoschus Esculentus/Scripts)
• Remove all my flags

Hope you will honor my request.

Sincerely, ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk to me) 15:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:FlightTime/Tpw @Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt): Sorry to see you go. Thank you for all you've done. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I'm to blame for this - basically AE filed a report on WP:AIV which was actually a content dispute, and from which I concluded I had (emphasis mine) to give him a short 3RR block. Serial Number 54129 complained that AE had used rollback on numerous good-faith edits, and had the privilege revoked in the past, so I concluded a condition of unblocking was to remove rollback. I didn't ask or want him to quit Wikipedia. I assume that is kinda obvious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No-one's to blame. The loss of any editor is a shame. Situations such as those are an opportunity to learn and adapt to community norms. When one doesn't, they recur. And eventually something gives. ——SerialNumber54129 16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) - I'm going to leave things alone for now in case you decide to return after letting your emotions settle and any frustrations subside. I find that the bulk of people who ask for this usually return and regret it, and I don't want that to happen to you. Return when you're ready and hopefully we can learn and move on from things :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus - See the message I left on your user talk page here. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)