User talk:Oshwah

Let's chat

Click here to message me. I will reply as soon as I can. All replies will be made directly underneath your message on this page.

Please create your message with a subject/headline and sign your message using four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Experienced editors have my permission to talk page stalk and respond to any message or contribute to any thread here.

Archives
Older Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2015 (Jan - Jun) July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 Year 2016 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 Year 2017 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 Year 2018 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 Year 2019 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 Year 2020 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 Year 2021 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 Year 2022 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 Year 2023 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 Year 2024 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August 2024 September 2024 October 2024 November 2024 December 2024

Table of contents

Jaxon Boothby (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Escape the Night

I see that you have locked the page. I approve, but I would like to request that you restore the Season 2 progress chart, which has mysteriously disappeared. 71.206.172.121 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Make an edit request on the article's talk page here and I'll take a look at it :-). I just need an official request in order to make sure that my edits are not viewed as favoring a certain side or viewpoint over the situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Edit request has been sent. 71.206.172.121 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! Someone will review your request and respond to it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Need your opinion on layout of Infobox for article, The Lego Movie

There's a bit of discussion going on in regards to the layout of certain information in this article, mainly within it's infobox. Wikipedians have constantly changed from one version to another and back again, and its getting ridiculous. The two version are as follows:

1.
Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

2.

• Phil Lord
• Christopher Miller

I am more in favour of the second version, because it separates these two names; I'm wondering if this is what infoboxs on films is meant to be set out like, and not the format in the first version. In any case, there is a user I found who seems not to be willing to discuss this on the article's talk page. Joeymiskulin has reverted this to the first version three times without going to the debate on this matter in the talk page. His edit summaries raise questions on his behaviour. His first puzzles me:

"GUtt01 told me that no one must revert this again but I'm reverting this unacceptable thing for good and no disastrous train wrecks! I warned him!!!!!"

I have never told him personally about not reverting this, not even on his talk page, nor have I been warned by him, not even on my talk page. He also seem rather aggressive with this; disastrous train wrecks is quite strong a word, when in reality, the constant changing between the two versions is getting ridiculous. His other two edit summaries were:

"Stop reverting the thing, I am serious!"

"This is not to be reverted so that is not under discussion, but it will to be reverted!"

Quite frankly, I'm concerned that the user might begin an editing dispute. Therefore I need you to look into this and provide input on the matter. It's necessary to determine this; if the user won't listen to the reason of viewing the talk page and provide their opinion on the matter, then a third party has got to be involved before it starts an edit war.GUtt01 (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The user has reverted the infobox to first version again. I've reverted back, but I need you to intervene ASAP, before this becomes an editing dispute. The user needs to discuss this over on Talk Page; he isn't and simply is reverting back now. I think it's a joke that he Thanked me for a previous edit on that article in regards to a different section, if he is reverting the infobox layout without discussing it. There is a need for discussion on the matter, no matter what he thinks. Please step in, before he starts an edit war.GUtt01 (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

He's not going to revert this no more, but his attitude when he stated this is not quite... desirable. I don't like to make someone mad, just because they wouldn't see reason to discuss this.GUtt01 (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GUtt01! Sorry for the delay responding to your request for assistance. Do you still need my input and help on this article? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's fine now. If you look to my last response, the user stopped reverting the layout, although their response is not really... something I wanted them to feel like. Yet, in any case, I wouldn't mind you investigating the layout matter above, if you could please. GUtt01 (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - Ah, I understand your previous response now. Sure, I can take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - The only question I have with the infobox involves this edit for example. The directors, etc that are being added back... are there references supporting this information? Other than that, I don't see any problems that stick out at first glance :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I suspect that some Wikipedians should have done so in the first place. Other than that, you see no issue at all between the two layouts?GUtt01 (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - The layouts themselves? No, I see no issue. However, I'm not an "infobox professional"... lol. The infobox as it is now seems formatted okay; it renders and displays just fine - unless you were referring to other concerns with the content that's inside of it maybe? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I just couldn't understand why some Wikipedians switched it back and forth between the layouts, which is why I stepped in and put a stop to it by stating how it needed to be debated, because of how ridiculous it was. Besides, I prefer the second version because it separates these two people; I don't believe that any other infobox on films puts two people together in this style, as I believe that the respective individuals for each role need to be kept separate in film infoboxs. Did you know that the two directors have a shared article page that has some slight issues in it?GUtt01 (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The possible reason may be that the content added to the infobox wasn't referenced. I did notice the article Phil Lord and Christopher Miller and I also thought that an article about two different people was strange; I don't think I've ever seen that before. Usually people who aren't notable for their own article are merged with a different article title (like a company, event, etc) - but definitely not combined or merged with an article another person... I'll take a look at that. I definitely believe you; I'm sure it has numerous issues :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Indeed. I mean, the only time I would suspect an article should talk about two people together is when they have worked together on the same thing, such as a comedy duo (like Stanley and Hardy, for example). In such an article, their should be separate pages for each person, where their personal life and background are discussed, and the page on both detailing the work they did together on various projects. Happy to see you wish to look into this.GUtt01 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I added a comment to the article's talk page here. Someone has already asked about why there's one article about two different people and suggested splitting them into separate ones. I agree that this should be done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

NealeFamily's request at WP:ANI

Just a quick note — the reason NealeFamily couldn't create Sir Charles Forbes was this. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Yup, that would do it! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Javi Manquillo and Nathan Tyson

Sorry I left my computer logged on and these edits were not me?!

Battle of the Hydaspes - Just checked this

Hey, did you know the reversion you did of an IP's edit on Battle of the Hydaspes, was reverted by them? Apparently they stated this in their edit summary: "I have restored my edits and spoken in the Talk and I am open to instructions to improve the language further to create a more neutral tone".

You think they were right to do that, when you reverted their edits for not maintaining a neutral tone?GUtt01 (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I'll let it stand. If no one else has an objection then I'll leave it be for now :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Check out the tone in the main article itself. There is no degradation or over-patronizing of either the Indian Side or Greek Side. Only extra parts have been added and improved. The original article is the one that has no neutral tone, with almost overwhelming representation of Greeks slaughtering Indians back to back with zero mention of important casualities on Greek Side or the proper results of the war or the atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.97.45.62 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Article on Ted Kaczynski

There was a minor semantic change and a large content removal made as per this diff. The semantic change is not in line with the citation and sounds like original research to me. The content removal is unwarranted. The editor claimed in the edit summary that a "normal" article wouldn't include citations by others about the subject. I don't believe there is any policy supporting that contention. I've start a discussion at the article's talk page. I'm not sure how to follow up with this one. I doubt he's gonna roll over on my say-so. How can we preserve the article's content?  — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 21:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Huggle keeps crashing

Hi,

I've noticed that Huggle is occasionally for some reason unable to display the history of a page, and sometimes Huggle crashes when this happens (it's happened to me several times). I've only noticed this after upgrading to 3.20. I think it might have something to do with the Editbar (what's that used for anyway?), as I think it's only been happening since I enabled it. Has this ever happened to you? Could this be a bug, or is there something wrong with my computer? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

query wrt changes to xim page

Hi,

There were some changes i made to the XIM page as i thought it removed the misleading details. However, the same are getting restored everytime. May I ask you if there is a reason behind this ? I am associated with the institute and would not like misleading details to be present on the page.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.32.213 (talk • contribs)

Hi there, and thank you for leaving a message here with your questions and concerns. Sorry, but editing a page where you have a conflict of interest is a behavior that's not encouraged by the community. This is due to the inability for those users to maintain a neutral point of view with their edits. Any content added can also be cited as original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia articles. Original research is content that's referenced off an editors personal experience, relationships, findings, and references (even if its published). You can also call it "citing yourself". This is not allowed because such content cannot be verified for authenticity or accuracy. If the article contains content that is unreferenced and controversial or negative, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks again for the message, and I hope I've answered your questions :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

CSD of impersonation pages

Hey Oshwah,

Just a heads-up: some of the impersonation accounts which serve no useful redirect purpose were missed out in the MfD nomination re the SGK socks so I've speedied them. I don't envisage any protest but I thought I'd let you know.

Thanks :) - DrStrauss talk 20:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh joy. Thanks for the heads up. Will keep an eye out :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion

This latest IP edit and summary should probably be removed from public view due to potentially exposing personal information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

=

= = = 172.56.13.9 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 172.56.13.9 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC) Can you help me with Wikipedia 172.56.13.9 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I removed this mess and the one below it? It's jarring in the midst of the rest of the nuttiness here.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 02:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I AM A SAND CASTLE

 /\   /\   /\
|  |-|  |-|  |
|            |
|____________|

172.56.13.9 (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

New user page mess :-(

Hi there, Oshwah. You were recommended to me by another editor who said you were of great help to them. I'm hoping you can help me get something straightened out. The story - I was working on adding some content to a page for Neil Gross. I copied the existing page into a sandbox page but, being new, failed to include the correct information at the top to let others know what I was doing. To be honest, I never expected anyone to even LOOK at my sandbox. A well meaning and more experienced user (Comatmebro) decided to take my sandbox page and make an article page from it, adding the subject's middle name. The new page is Neil Luis Gross. When I saw this I let Comatmebro know that there were now two pages for the same person with the same content (seems they would have realized this). They then made the original page into a draft page (Draft:Neil Gross). the Draft page has all of the old history since creation on 1/24/14 and the new one only has history since that page was created on 7/10/17. Since this happened another editor added a new section to the Neil Luis Gross page. So, what I think needs to happen is that the Draft page needs to be restored to being an article page with the new section from the Neil Luis Gross page included and the Neil Luis Gross page needs to eventually be deleted. I really have no idea how to do any of these things. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide! 1stCoastal (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

U can just redirect the one page 2 the other 172.56.13.9 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 1stCoastal! Sure, I'll be happy to lend you a hand and help you out. I see that Neil Gross exists, but I don't see that Neil Luis Gross exists, nor are there any logs of its deletion. I'm looking through Comatmebro's contributions, but I don't see the edit for the page creation. Can you point me to the location of the duplicate page? I'll be happy to take a look and help you from there :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

1stCoastal - Ah, I see now. The Neil Gross page now redirects to Neil Louis Gross. You should be able to add the content from your sandbox now that it's merged and in one place. Let me know if you need any more help, and I'll be happy to do so :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah. The Draft:Neil Gross page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3ANeil_Gross), created in 2014 by Brainy J, is actually the original page as it existed before I touched it and has all of the history from before that time. The Neil Luis Gross page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Louis_Gross) started out in my sandbox as a copy of the original page and was mistakenly (but with good intentions) moved to article space by Comatmebro on 7/10/17 (with the addition of the middle name "Luis") and does not have all of the history. I don't know how to "undraftify" the draft page and, since the newer NLG page has a number of edits since it came into being, I don't know how to combine the two pages to preserve 1) the history from what is now the draft page and 2) the history from the new edits on the NLG page. Hope this is more clear and thanks again for your willingness to help!1stCoastal (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: So I'm hoping you will still be able to help me with this :-) as it is a dilemma. If I add my new content to the NLG page, it won't have the early history from the original page. If I add the content to the Draft:Neil Gross page it will have the history but not the other new content that other people have added to the NLG page. My understanding is that they somehow need to be merged. I know I can't do that and at this point I don't even know what to ask for. Thanks again (I hope). 1stCoastal (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: OK, sorry if I'm being a pest (and please let me know if that is the case). I really don't see what is supposed to happen at this point (maybe you don't, either?). Should I add my additional content to the draft page (Draft: Neil Gross) and then request a merge with the Neil Luis Gross page? :-) 1stCoastal (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

1stCoastal, don't ever think that you're being a pest by asking me questions or doing what you feel is right for the project. I won't ever bring you down in that way and make you think that :-). Since the Neil Gross page is already published, you can just add the additional content to that page. Just make extra sure that any content you're adding is referenced by a reliable source since this article is a biography of a living person. Drafts are simply meant for those who need help creating a new article on a subject that doesn't yet exist. Since the article exists already, you don't need to go through that extra step ;-). Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Please accept my apologies for the late response, by the way. Life kept me busy recently and I'm just now catching up on my emails and messages. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As it turned poorly last time

User:SethAdam99 has been told before about moving pages without consensus. As you recall it turned out poorly and resulted in their 4th block. Due to this I have moved the page back but issued no warning or comments to their talk due to the last interaction. Suggestions?? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - Has that user moved additional pages without consensus since their last block? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes the page here I just moved back yesterday that I mentioned above. It was the first edit they had done since coming back from their block for personal attacks. I believe they were blocked for moving pages before our last interaction and warnings I issued the last time they did this. It's not the first article they have done it to, no talk, no concensus, no nothing. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

After looking at their block log its all been behavior issues not moving, but after the last run in I had when I warned them about moving pages without consensus, then the first edit they make after being blocked previously for threats and harrassment, is to move another page when they have been told it's against policies, I see a clear pattern with them. Which is why I chose not to warn again and ask for guidance. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - I've warned the user and asked him to discuss any future article moves in that topic before actually moving them. Hopefully this will be all it takes to resolve this matter, but let me know if it does not and page moves continue without discussion. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I think this user may need to be watched by you carefully. It seems they made a personal attack towards you, following your warning against them. WarMachineWildThing warned them of this, as soon as they spotted it.GUtt01 (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - Yeah, I saw. WarMachineWildThing and I were talking about this on IRC earlier today when this was going on. If their conduct continues, he'll be indefinitely blocked. He was indef'd in the past and unblocked with the condition that the conduct not occur again. It has obviously continued; an ANI discussion might be the solution here. I don't want to block the user in response to what he said on his talk page to me, since this could be viewed as retaliation for his personal attack towards me (and hence, WP:INVOLVED could be asserted). I obviously don't want to step in and take administrative action in situations where this even might be raised ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate your keen eye and I'm sure Oshwah does as well you shouldn't revert some one on their own talk, dont want to seem ungrateful but Per WP:REMOVED users can remove warnings from their own talk page, nothing to say they can't. I also see There'sNoTime has told you about this before a few days ago. Not worth getting yourself in trouble over and I don't want to see someone doing something in good faith get the wrong end of the stick so to speak. If they want to blank the page then so be it, warnings are still in the history. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 11:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Magnus Bocker, Former Singapore Exchange CEO, Dies at 55

Hi

I was trying to update the information based on the article below and I am trying to figure out how to place references.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-28/magnus-bocker-former-singapore-exchange-ceo-dies-at-55

Please kindly resumed what I have added so I don't have to re-edit it again.

Thanks Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.142.142 (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I've added the reference and content you requested to Magnus Böcker. Thanks for letting me know, and please don't hesitate to message me here if there's more that needs fixing on that article. Happy editing, and thanks again :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Revdel favor

If possible, could this diff be deleted from my talk page history. I'd just rather not have it at all. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat - You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

and one more sock on Onogurs ‎

[1] Meters (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Meters -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Diango Hernández

Hi Oshwah, why [2], oh why? After dealing with a team of related COI accounts that have for years maintained an unsourced resume filled with cruft, why restore the problematic version? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If the current revision is problematic, make an edit request with the preferred revision and what's wrong with the current one. I (or someone else) will take a look at it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like JJMC89 has restored a more preferable version. Let me know if there are still issues on the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

See FIM's edit summary for more details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

JJMC89 - Seems perfectly reasonable to me :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

John from Idegon (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon - Just replied to your email. Thanks again :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to your removal of my Tupelo, Mississippi edit

The two members of Rae Sremmurd are Swae Lee and Slim Jxmmi, not Slim Jimmy. This is viewable on the main Rae Sremmurd page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Sremmurd#Early_life) or by references to him by XXL Magazine (http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2017/07/slim-jxmmi-loses-100000-chain-crowdsurfing/) or Complex (http://www.complex.com/music/2017/07/slim-jxmmi-rae-sremmurd-loses-100-thousand-dollar-chain-crowd-surf-paris) for example.

71.224.69.199 (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, got'cha. The edit looked like a mistake or a test to me, which is why I reverted it. Feel free to restore the change back. Thanks for leaving me a message and for letting me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Check Evansville Indiana Wikipedia if you think I vandalized Night at the mueseum

Read Title Troll A Robinson (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Janitorial duties can be stressful and thirsty work. Cheers for helping! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir! Thanks for the tea! It comes with the job. I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't enjoy the responsibility. Thanks for being so diligent and for reverting the disruption. Message me any time you need something :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You'll regret that offer! Lol, just kidding, but thanks. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir - HA! You bet. Keep in touch :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrongfully reverted information

I am the WIFE of the player this page is on. We have 2 children and I am attempting to add to as well as monitor this page for my husband. This is a legacy for our boys and you had no right to delete that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basarond (talk • contribs)

Hi Basarond, and thank you for leaving a message here with your questions and concerns. Sorry, but editing a page where you have a conflict of interest is a behavior that's not encouraged by the community. This is due to the inability for those users to maintain a neutral point of view with their edits. Any content added can also be cited as original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia articles. Original research is content that's referenced off an editors personal experience, relationships, findings, and references (even if its published). You can also call it "citing yourself". This is not allowed because such content cannot be verified for authenticity or accuracy. If the article contains content that is unreferenced and controversial or negative, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks again for the message, and I appreciate your understanding :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We request that you take down the entire Wikipedia page. You keep removing our family from the page and telling us that's strangers can add info but we can't. If you can't verify that he has a wife and two small kids, there's something wrong with your process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basarond (talk • contribs) 07:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Basarond - You need to contact the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team by following the instructions here. They have the tools and training to verify your identity, and assist you with your particular concerns. This is what you must do in order to receive the assistance you're looking for; continuing to revert the page is disruptive and will only make getting assistance more difficult, not less. Thank you for understanding, I wish you well, and I wish you good luck. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Check the disputed page's history log, as soon as you can. The user who contacted you, tried to falsely claim they were restoring two archived external links to the article, but a review of what they did showed they just added in the information that is in dispute; a Citation Needed template was added by Wiki-Bots, but I removed the content for being put in under false pretenses. I think you were right about them needing to maintain a neutral point of view, but I don't think someone should be sneaky by claiming something in their edit summary, that does not match their edit.GUtt01 (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - I see it; thanks for fixing that. I would have done so myself, but I had reverted this user's content removal five times, and I didn't want this to be seen as edit warring (in fact, it probably was since it was content-related). Either way, it's fixed now :-) - thanks again! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: To be quite honest, I probably should have put forward an Edit Warring notice with them upon seeing the page's log; you were reverting their edits because of their behaviour and unjustified reasons, so you would not be in danger of this yourself, simply because you were stopping them acting in a behaviour not condoned by Wikipedia. I suspect that if they do this again, it might be prudent to consider that they aren't listening to reason, may not be who they say they are, and probably are being disruptive, and thus it may be justified to block them from editing for a small period of time. But that's my view. :-)GUtt01 (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - I appreciate the input :-). I'm hoping that the user followed my directions and contacted the response team using the link I gave her. Otherwise, she's only going to make things harder on herself as well as getting her concerns addressed. We shall see, I guess ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I'll keep a close watch on this. GUtt01 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool deal; thank you. Let me know if things go off the deep end again and I'll take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah:I'm not sure if this user has done it again, but someone tried to put back the information in dispute, to the relevant article once more. They were an IP User, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same user, operating under an IP, in order to avoid being blocked when putting the information back up. I checked, and they're the same IP User you reverted before.GUtt01 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh joy. Okay, I'll take a look. Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for two days for persistent BLP policy violations. I'm hoping this will encourage the user to seek the proper channel to have the concerns expressed here addressed. Thanks again, GUtt01. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Look at you, Oshwah!

You're so loved tonight! Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Amaury - HA! My talk page always gets a lot of... "love" :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

({help me)}

i am new in wiki i can not understand how to updte articale or talk with friends so guide me — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAEED AHMED JEHO (talk • contribs) 08:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

SAEED AHMED JEHO - Welcome to Wikipedia! You should go through our tutorial here, as it will teach you all of this plus a lot more! Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, I welcome you to the project. That tutorial will help you with your questions here :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

({thanks})

oh yes i will ask you. for any problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAEED AHMED JEHO (talk • contribs)

Cool deal; go through the entire tutorial and if you need additional tutorials, I can give you additional ones that will help you greatly :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No subject

I am one of the directors of AI Global Media.

Over the weekend someone not related to the company created a rather slandarous page for us, which I am trying to delete. When I delete the text again can you please leave it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatHallAIGlobal (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

KatHallAIGlobal - What parts of the article are false or (I think you meant) libelous? I can certainly take a look; do you mind explaining so I can understand better? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

KatHallAIGlobal - I removed the section that made claims about the company's awards, as they appear to be referenced by sources that aren't considered reliable. I think the article is good as it stands now. Let me know if you have any questions or see more problems that I should look at. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The is also a link to 'vanity awards' on the opening line on our page. Can this link be removed and the word 'vanity' be removed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatHallAIGlobal (talk • contribs) 11:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure,  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see that the AI Global Media Ltd page also has the category 'vanity awards'. Please remove this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatHallAIGlobal (talk • contribs)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Also please remove the link 'vanity awards' in the opening paragraph and replace the text 'vanity awards' with 'awards' only. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatHallAIGlobal (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Also  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

[3] — fortunavelut luna 11:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - I'm looking at this link now. What's this supposed to be? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it's a database of legal complaints and requests for online content removal. Interesting... thanks for the link :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Change of DOB FATIMA JINNAH

Hi,SHARJEELJOURNALIST97 IS HERE, good to see you, google also made the mistake of Fatima jinnah about DOB is also send a request to correct this.That all, if i found something wrong in anything i will tell you.  :) THANKS.. Regard SHARJEELJOURNALIST97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharjeelJournalist97 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Benniejets

Could you take a look at the recent edits of Special:Contributions/Benniejets? I'm about ready to take him to ANI, but am not looking forward to that. I can barely understand a thing this guy writes. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And now he's claiming I hate Catholics! - BilCat (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat - I responded to the user regarding the statement he made about you "hating Italy and all Catholics" here. What are the content-related edits that started this whole dispute? What article is this dispute over? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

OK but i like good feith.Just to start i offered a honest compromise for light carriers article.About Ernio48 i checked his past anyway i've no enemies ,just potential friends.Benniejets (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Benniejets - I have no idea of what you're talking about. What article are you having an issue over? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Primarily Blue-water navy and Light aircraft carrier. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Aaand both articles are now fully protected :-). There's definitely content-related editing disputes on both articles and over the last 24 hours (and not just between you two). So... what's the exact content that you two are in dispute over? I've partially read through the discussion on User talk:Antiochus the Great, but I got lost pretty quickly lol :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but in the second article (light carriers) i said no Cavour carrier in the list.This status quo isn't correct.Thanks.Benniejets (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

How isn't it correct? Are there references that support the addition of this carrier in the list mentioned? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No.For both the italian ones.Garibaldi anyway is light.Cavour not otherwise also the french,the russian,the chinese and the indian should be listed there as light ones.Benniejets (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat - What are your thoughts regarding this response? Do you have references from reliable sources that state or show otherwise? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not involved with the Blue-water navy dispute, as most of those types of categorical classifications are just national peeing contests without real meaning. As to Light aircraft carrier, I've mainly reverted to what was there before the dispute began, and will probably let another editor run point on the discussions, as there's too much of a language barrier for me to discuss at the level that I'm used to. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat - Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't certain with what portion of this dispute involved you directly. In that case, I think we should back up a bit: Benniejets, have you started a discussion on the articles' talk pages regarding the content changes that you're disputing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat we agree.Garibaldi is light and Cavour not.Cavour should be deleted from article light carriers.So all matter is solved.Here time to sleep)Benniejets (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't have a problem with Cavour being removed, as it's primarily an LHD with a secondary light carrier role, but other editors might have a problem. He really needs to make that proposal on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

French ,russian,indian and chinese have the same size so should be set as light.I agree with you to delete Cavour from light carrier article.Oshwah can you act?Don't forget to delete Cavour from light carrier article.)Thanks for your good action.BilCat i trust your good feith.Benniejets (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll delete Cavour carrier from article about light carriers as we agreed here when article will be unlocked.Thanks again User:Oshwah)Benniejets (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to comment on the article's talk page so other editors can comment. I'm not the only person who reverted you, so I cannot make an agreement for them. - BilCat (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the only person that has my opinion .I'll write on Talk page and i'll delete Cavour.When User:Oshwah asked you here ,you held 0 references to classify a light carrier like Cavour (otherwise french,indian,russian and chinese carriers should be added at the light carriers list,even the new british one).You even wrote that you had no problems to delete Cavour from light carrier, so don't care for others User:BilCat.Are you retreating your words?Who wants Cavour in the article must post very clear and trustble references to support it as Oshwah asked.The problem is for them not to you.Oshwah can testify for you and me.Benniejets (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Good acting Benniejets (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A flag for you!

File:Admin flag explosion.png	Admin flag
	Here is the coveted admin flag, with, in accordance to your specifications, an explosion. Don't get burnt! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

problems with article: "Hanuman Books"

Hanuman Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Oshwah - I've twice uploaded an entry on "Hanuman Books", an important series of books about contemporary art published in the 1980s out of New York. Very little information is available online about these books, which nonetheless have a cult following. I have drawn my information primarily from the University of Michigan website (where the archives are housed) and from an article in Parkett Magazine. I have rewritten this information entirely except for passages - such as the list of book titles - which cannot be edited. Twice however, my page has been removed, even after I have done substantial editing and rewriting. Can you help me understand why? Byranadasgupta (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User needs to be talked to - Connected to editing dispute with The Lego Movie

Heya,

I need you to have a word with this user - Joeymiskulin. He's acting like a spoilt kid for not being told off about his actions; another user gave him a 3-revert Edit-Warring notice over his reversions of edits on The Lego Movie article. The reason I ask is because he's made changes to the article, removing HIDDEN TXT I put up that requests Wikipedians to go to the article's talk page about the infobox layout for the two directors of the movie. I am not gonna revert this, because I don't want to become too involved in the matter, but his edit summary for the changes is not at all something I expect a Wikipedian to do:

"I'm done with the 3-revert rule, I'm serious!"

Can you handle this for me, please? Would appreciate it. :-)GUtt01 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - I've blocked the user for 36 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring at The Lego Movie. Let me know if I'm needed anywhere else and I'll be happy to take a look. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I wasn't expecting you to block them, just talk to them, but I suppose the way they behaved was likely to earn them this. Hopefully they'll amend their behaviour. Cheers for looking into this. :-) GUtt01 (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The user has tried to put forward an Unblock request, over the Block they got from you. Apart from not reading what it states about putting the Unblock Request below the Block Notice (they instead just write in the notice on the code section for Unblock Requests), they are giving a reason that is not valid. Or rather, they are just angily asking why they were blocked for disruptive editing... I've advised them in my Edit Summary what they should do, and reverted their edits on their Talk Page, but they just wouldn't listen; they repeated their same mistake and same Reason once more. I've reverted this again, but I think it might be wise to keep an eye on this and advise them on what to do. GUtt01 (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: User has given at least a decent reason now. Bad news is, they still put it within the Block Notice; I don't think they realize that they're supposed to put the Unlock Request template at the bottom of their talk page, under the notice. Why don't they just wait until the Block runs out? GUtt01 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Okay, I think you need to extend Joeymiskulin's Block, because they are not heeding the Block Notice in their talk page, have been writing in it deliberately, just to state why they were blocked or to question it, and I caught two edits they did when they removed it when they shouldn't have until time was up. Either that, an extension of the existing Block and a Block on their editing in their own talk page, or a stern word from you. I'm gonna exasperate myself if I continue to monitor this anymore... Please help sort this out as soon as you can, please. :'-( GUtt01 (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, hold off on that. I'll keep a watchful eye on them and the article page they were disruptive on. However, do have a word with them about what they shouldn't do to the Block Notice in future, and what they should do if they wish to request an Unblocking of their editing privileges. GUtt01 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just let me know if you need my help, or if I need to step in again :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Greeneville TN

Hi oshawa the thing about greeneville TN i am not a serious editor i was trying to be funny sorry if i'd inconvenienced you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.133.81 (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Reporting at AIV vs SPI

Hi Oshwah,

Thank you for taking care of my report at AIV. I had second thoughts after I posted it, and then I saw your reply I have now opened an SPI case as you suggested.

This particular guy has a very specific MO (adding poster images to the same articles again and again). I have previously reported IP editors doing the same edits to AIV (where they have been blocked), because I was under the impression that SPI reports cannot connect an IP address with a specific account. Maybe I'm mistaken, though; would you suggest I report any future cases like this to SPI instead? Thanks! –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi FlyingAce! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your response and your question. In cases of vandalism, definitely make reports at AIV when they've been warned enough or the severity of the vandalism blatantly calls for it. If it's a case of sock puppetry and not necessarily *vandalism*, you'll want to instead gather as much evidence as you can and create an SPI with that evidence. Remember to provide diffs and give as much information as you can - the more information you provide, the more helpful it will be for clerks and admins to determine what to do. If it's sock puppetry that involves vandalism, file an AIV first (so we can stop the vandalism) and then file an SPI also (with evidence of course). In cases of sock puppetry by an LTA where it's so blatantly obvious (such as the username being threatening, the account is making threats or harassing users, or engaging in gross vandalism), AIV is fine :-). Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Please excuse my late response, by the way. I was busy the last few weeks and I'm just now catching up with messages and emails. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Can you semi-protect Crying in the Club, Know No Better (song), Lauren Jauregui, Cry (Sigma song), Now That's What I Call Music! 97 (UK series), Still Got Time and Down (Fifth Harmony song) to persistent long-term abuse of Wikidesctruction vandal. 115.164.218.235 (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I've applied temporary semi-protection to the articles that I felt warranted the need for it. There were a couple that haven't been edited in a few days, so I held off on protecting those. Overall, you should be all set :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

administrators noticeboard

Hey Oshwah, thanks for dispute resolution info. I will use that to resolve the problem. I am disappointed no one addressed any of the complaints I had about others, only the complaints others had against me. Perhaps that was not the right place for that and dispute resolution is. I do appreciate the fact you realized I am new at this, yes I have been here 8 months but only have a couple hundred edits. Heck some of you guys are doing a hundred edits a day. How do you do it? I did offer a compromise to objective3000 which is what you are supposed to do, correct?Aceruss (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aceruss, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. I'm sorry that you feel that the discussion was one-sided, in that you feel that your issues were not given a fair analysis and discussion. This is a situation and a feeling that I've seen many times in my experience; it can be disheartening and make you feel unnecessarily targeted. I want to assure you that this was absolutely not what the discussion intended to do. Everyone was new here at one point and it's completely okay to make mistakes; what's truly important is that you learn from them, make the necessarily improvements to reflect what you've learned, and move forward with the experience you've gained. Don't let yourself feel that you have to make edits and contributions in comparison or to the level of frequency of another. Your time and energy is beneficial to the project no matter how much or how often you edit here. It's appreciated just as much, and you're just as welcome to the project as anyone else. There's a lot of policies and guidelines that new editors have to become proficient with and from the very start; it can be quite an overwhelming task becoming proficient with them and making sure that your edits comply with them -- shoot, I remember being very overwhelmed with everything when I first edited here. It's an unfortunate normality that has been the center of discussion regarding how we can improve Wikipedia and retain editors. That's why we understand that new users will make mistakes; it's inevitable and nobody will ever be perfect here. Just take things one step at a tie, ask questions if you're unsure about anything, and take any feedback that others give you to heart. Do that, and there's no doubt that you'll excel here. Please do not hesitate to message me here if you have questions or need my help with anything. I'll be happy to help you with anything you need. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah, I haven't gotten much good welcoming feedback. I will take you up on your offer of help and answering questions. Best regards to you as well.Aceruss (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Aceruss - I'm sorry to hear that. While feedback should be honest as to not waste your time going down the wrong path and guide you in the right direction, feedback should also not be discouraging or leaving you feel put down or insulted. If someone engages uncivilly towards you (such as making personal attacks toward you), please do let me know so that I can put a kibosh to it. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Protect "Body Like a Back Road"

Please, could you protect Sam Hunt single "Body Like a Back Road", in the last weeks, a lot of IP users and accounts are changing the genres without a source, if you can, can it be a long time protection please, thank you. (24.41.228.188 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC))

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Beth Porter page - your edit - please help!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Porter

Hello Oshwah - everything below will seem a bit like deja-vu because I've only learned of your edit/s to my Wikipedia page. Without going into too much detail, the eMail notification of your change/s was mis-directed to my spam folder and then my system crashed. When I reconfigured everything the message was lost. So earlier today I was checking on my Wiki entry and noticed some changes and your alert message popped up.

It's hard for me to recall the previous version, but one thing I noticed was the entry for my US television appearance in an episode of Kojak ... the footnote number 17 refers to that which now leads nowhere. There's also an error that's been added in the last paragraph of the section called Career ... the phrase should read "Woody Allen's sister-in-law in Love and Death." My character Anna was married to Woody's brother Boris - so I'm not sure why it was wrongly changed. Also, in the penultimate para of the Later career section, I was going to update the penultimate sentence to read "2017 was her 20th year as a nominating judge for the international WebbyAwards..."

Can you please help by 1] explaining what you've changed ... I think the notice said it was in April 2016... and 2] whether you think the new editing system is a good option for me in future. Over the next couple of months I'll want to add notice for two of my latest books once they're published. I'd also like to add some info to some of my acting credits.

Thanks in advance for your help; hoping to hear back from you soon. Best wishes Beth Bethporter (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Bethporter - I made a number of changes to the article. The bigger issues, however, are other things. First of all, it appears that you're creating an article about yourself as well as adding original research and unreferenced content to it - these behaviors are highly discouraged because this not only represents a conflict of interest, but it makes the article nearly impossible to be worded in a neutral point of view... since you're writing about yourself. People who do this tend to leave out negative or controversial things as well as keep the article positive and aimed toward building one's reputation, as opposed to being worded neutrally and having all sides with due weight expressed. Please read these important policies and guidelines and let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cookies and the site links I think those will be very helpful to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxon Boothby (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jaxon Boothby! You bet! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your time here, and if you need help with anything - let me know! Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Brandi Glanville

Why are you deleting my posts? She was never a high fashion model. Not once, not ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.82.140 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Well not to seem rude but it states here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3508157/Brandi-Glanville-pines-modeling-days-throwback-photo.html And countless other websites that she was. I haven't seen one that says otherwise. Dinah In Wonderland 23:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you stay away from the page until you read over sources. If you find one that says otherwise you are welcome to change the page but until then please leave what is there 173.71.82.140 Dinah In Wonderland 23:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel frustrated with the changes made, but you need to understand how we constitute sources that are reliable from those that are not. Please give this guideline a read, and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Hello @Oshwah: may I ask you why I was blocked yesterday? I only removed information from those pages because it broke a rule on Wikipedia as it was an example of synthesis of published material. So why was I blocked? I am not a vandal or anything like that. Are we not supposed to follow rules here on Wikipedia? I don't think it's fair that I got blocked just because the other user was angry with the removal of information. The information, I repeat, was removed because it broke Wikipedia rules. I specifically told the user to add a source before adding the information back in, so how does that warrant a block? I only edited those Zara Larsson-related pages because she performed on an Australian TV show yesterday to know what the name of her songs were. I have never made any edits to her pages before, because I am not a huge fan of her. In general, I hardly make edits to music pages. I generally make edits to geography and culture-related pages such as Japan foreign marriage, Decline of Buddhism in India, Colorism, Merina people, Assamese people, Bamar people, Malaysians etc. If you look at the edit history of those pages you will see a slew of different IPs that geolocate to Victoria, Australia. How was I confused with another user? I have never owned an account here, could you tell me how I was conflated with another user without any evidence? (121.219.32.128 (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC))

Let me take a look at the contribution history and articles involved and get back to you. If I blocked you by mistake, please accept my most sincere and humble apologies. I'll follow up with you here as soon as I'm done taking a look at everything. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Oshwah:. Here are some of my previous IP addresses to make the job easier. 101.160.163.49 (talk · contribs), 110.148.128.52 (talk · contribs), 137.147.133.217 (talk · contribs), 121.214.32.26 (talk · contribs), 110.148.152.148 (talk · contribs) and 121.219.13.43 (talk · contribs). (121.219.32.128 (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC))

Great, thank you for providing these. I'll take a look at each of those as well. Stand by. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Oshwah:. (121.219.32.128 (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC))

No problem; I'll just need some time to go through everything. I occasionally make mistakes (which sucks and I absolutely hate doing), and I probably did in this instance. The least I can do for you is explain what I saw and what led me to believe that you were block evading. Then you can point and laugh at me, call me a moron and a dunce, and pledge to kill my first-born child for what I mistakenly did. It's only fair :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have children, but if you want to count my upstairs neighbor as my first-born, please do. He stomps on the floor late at night and wakes me up and I wouldn't miss him at all :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha it's okay @Oshwah:. It's not the first time I've been blocked by mistake. In 2015, I was mistakenly blocked after the perpetrator commented below my report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. (121.219.32.128 (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC))

@121.219.32.128: I didn't report you because I was "angry with information being removed"; I reported you because your behaviour and manner of speaking mirrored IPs I have interacted with before. I don't report users because I disagree with their way of doing things. Also, I repeat, the information you removed from So Good (Zara Larsson album) was already sourced besides one sentence at the beginning that called the song a single because it was not in a source when you removed it. The rest of it was fine. I never "restored unsourced material" that "broke Wikipedia rules"—you reverted me again because, despite my adding a source that called the song a single from So Good, I forgot to add the beginning of the cite web template, which made the URL I supplied include the pipe (|) next to it instead of the code reading that as the beginning of a separate parameter; it's right there in the article history. You, sensibly, stopped reverting when I and the user @Dinah Kirkland: pointed out to you I already did provide a source for the claim. You also claimed on my talk page that I added the information to the page months ago, whereas I never did any such thing, and you may want to make sure you have the correct user before you get belligerent on their talk page about something they never did. If you are not said user I confused you with using a proxy—which has happened before (they are not a vandal anyway, just a user with a very bad attitude who contested much sourced material because they disagreed with it), then I apologise, but your manner of speaking made me initially believe you were, and, not that I can speak for Oshwah, but behavioural evidence is sometimes enough to block users for evasion. Perhaps in future the evidence should be a bit more compelling. Ss112 15:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Si I followed through with every single thing that had to do with these two and everything @Ss112: says is true. Dinah In Wonderland 15:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: I removed it because it was synthesis of published material. The information you were claiming that was in the source was not in it. Yes, it's a single but the source never said it was from her album, that is why I removed the unsourced information (not the source). Now that you found a source, there is no problem. (101.160.4.240 (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC))

@101.160.4.240: I have told you at least three times now, including above, that I was not the one who originally added the information to the page. Please get your facts straight before accusing other editors of adding unsourced material. When I reverted you, I added a source. I am aware of why you removed it; you don't need to keep stating it. However, I don't think it's synthesis of published sources, just not supported by what was there. The fact that it was a single from Larsson's album was unsourced. Edit: As the IP has repeated at least twice now that "The information you were claiming that was in the source was not in it", when I never claimed such a thing—and I was not the editor who created either page—here's the first edits to Symphony (Clean Bandit song): A user named Djdjpollard15 claimed it was a single from Zara's album. Unreal7 later restored the page after I redirected it with more information, including the problematic claim. On So Good (Zara Larsson album): an IP editor added to the prose that "Symphony" was the sixth single from the album. Anonpediann later added the source next to said claim. Ss112 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Just wondering if you looked through the IP addresses I gave you, no worries if you haven't. I know I don't use the blocked IP address anymore and I know this might sound petty, but I would like if you removed the block log if you found me not guilty. It's just that I don't like to carry that baggage, sometimes I get the same IP addresses that's why I would like it removed if you were wondering. (121.219.3.3 (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC))

A block can't be cleared from a record, only another action taken to unblock said editor. It was only for a period of like 36 hours. Ss112 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: I understand but I don't think it was right to block me without any evidence. I don't know who I was apparently "block evading" because I have never owned an account here. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if you were blocked for something you did not do. (137.147.32.46 (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC))

@137.147.32.46: I didn't block you and it ultimately was not my decision. Now please stop pinging me on this topic. I'm done. Ss112 23:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah so your that IP. I saw you around while doing my research. Dinah In Wonderland 14:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah

Hello it will be very beneficial if you change the page's title to 'Sylhet Surma Sixers' and if you think I'm wrong do give me evidence why I am wrong. You could set up the current squad table and add Liam Dawson, Dawid Malan and Chris Jordan as they are confirmed by bdcrictime.com and Jamuna TV. Please do me a favour and let us make think page a better one

May God keep us safe and secured

CDveChilliers (no I'm not from some country other than BD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDveChilliers (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

CDveChilliers - It sounds like we need to file a move request. I'd do this so that others can weigh in, as well as come to a consensus with what the best title should be for this article. After all, (n+1) heads are better than (n) heads ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Town doesn't exit

I live here and this town doesn't exist. Nevins Florida. Have no idea where this information comes from. Dagster3 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It relates to the Nevins Fruit Company, which had a warehouse there. The best I could get (without enough sourcing to add it to the article) is that it was a railroad name, possibly a siding or a station. It is listed in the GNIS, which means that at least at some point in time it did exist, and therefore should have an article. John from Idegon (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Archive?

Could you please point me in the direction that tell me how to archive my talk page? Please keep in mind I have the mobile view so I might not understand some of what you say. Dinah In Wonderland 15:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Also 2 more questions; am I allowed to make a Humor page? And where can I add my Userboxes that I've Created? Dinah In Wonderland 15:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dinah Kirkland! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions! I apologize for the late reply; I've been very busy lately and I'm just now catching up with my messages and emails. I choose to archive my talk page completely manually and by hand, but there are automated and much easier ways for you to do it that are pretty much 100% hassle-free. See this help page; it'll provide you with the different ways to do it, as well as instructions for getting started. Humor pages can certainly be created, but must be done so carefully, in the correct namespace, and in a manner that is not disruptive nor against policy (such as making a "humor page" that personally attacks other editors or any living person). I highly recommend that you become proficient with Wikipedia, it's policies and guidelines, processes, namespaces, and have been here for a little while before making a humor page. This assures that you have a full understanding of the culture, what is and is not okay policy-wise, and what things can and "should" be humored. This essay on humor is a good read, but I'd seriously wait for awhile before considering it. When you refer to "adding userboxes you've created", are you talking about adding userboxes to your own user space? Let me know what you mean exactly, and I'll be happy to help you out. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have questions about anything I've said in my response here. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah thanks! And I actually withdraw my UserBox question! As for the humor page thanks! I'd never think of insulting another user and I've read the policies so I think I have a good hang on this! I'll keep what you said in mind! ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 19:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong information

There is know proof than Kane Williamson is the captain and Faulkner, Shanto, Jayed are playing and the team is in talks with Bishoo!!! Please correct the current squad box as I tried previously but NH4293 keeps messing things up!! Please check your sources before editing!

CDveChilliers — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDveChilliers (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah. I noticed you deleted everything I added to Patricia Cardoso's Page. I'm right now working with her and you're just making it more complicated since I have to rewrite it again. Can you please restore it or tell me why you deleted what I wrote? Next time I will explain my edit but please don't delete it without telling me first. I was updating and I'm going to continue updating her information according to what she wants on her wikipedia page, adding sources and references, so it would be nice if you could just check the information beforehand. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathalielibos (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nathalielibos: Hang on... I read this, and it seems to me that you're editing of this article may not conform to WP:NPOV, particularly as you say "I'm going to continue updating her information according to what she wants on her wikipedia page". @Oshwah: Oshwah, do you think I might be right on this? GUtt01 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

About the article of Sally Hemmings

I don't see how my edit was not constructive. Sally Hemmings was a 14 year old girl and Jefferson was a 46 year old man. This is definition of rape. I cannot see how a factual statement could in any way not be constructive when the common narrative serves to sugarcoat this fact. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5C4:7650:EC60:C8D9:889C:18EC (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this fact afterwards. Please accept my apologies for the confusion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

blocked christian borle

hey, i get why you changed the christian borle page but under spouses there is an incorrect statement. it states that christian is married to andrew rannells which is false and an invadement of privacy. please change this, someone named deanna made this change in the first place because people think they are married. this is incorrect. please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayoooo1119 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It is unsourced so I removed it as a BLP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Gayathri raghuram,actress india

Why we cudn able to edit her wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.62.186.142 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Simple. The page was put into semi-protection, because of persistent vandalism on the article about the Indian actress. Only autoconfirmed Wikipedians can edit on this page. The level of protection is temporary. GUtt01 (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Giuseppe

I've seen that you've write that brawl stars is a game in two different platforms (iOS and Android). Brawl stars (Android) not exist, so why do you write this information? Have you got any information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.227.163 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This was not information I wrote but a page revision I restored to in order to remove vandalism... however, technically what content I restore bears the burden for me to prove... so technically I did write it? Anyways, if there isn't an Android version, remove the content (but make sure to state what you're doing any why in the edit summary). If you have any more questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for leaving me a message here :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Moshe Gaon

Hi Oshwah,

Wondered why you think putting up my personal biography is promotional. I added it because many people search about me and its available in Hebrew but not in English. Also would love it you look at what we do: yoocanfindcom and if you find it important add it to Wikipedia so more people will know about it and improve their life. Thanks (GaonM (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC))

@GaonM: There are some issues in putting up a personal biography of yourself - it goes against Wikipedia's policy regarding autobiographies, because it is considered a conflict of interest. Others can write about you, and you may edit personal biographies of yourself if, as the policy article states, "you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our {Wikipedia's} biography of living persons policy". Also, if you want people to know about that website, don't ask people to check it out; that's promoting it. If you want an article about the website, create a draft and then have someone check it to ensure that it maintains a neutral point of view and adheres to other policies of Wikipedia. GUtt01 (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Joeymiskulin - Guess what has happened now...

He's only gone and blown the blinkin' doors off! Nah, only kidding...

He's gone and got himself blocked for three days now. Why? Guess which article he's gone and committed further reversions and changes to, which are the same as before? If you guessed The Lego Movie, give yourself a cookie. Honestly... Anyway, I thought you should know.

Also, the message above this - not being too involved, but I gave him a response in regards to the things he said, and I hope you agree that what I stated is correct. Anyway... Back to the grindstone of enjoying Wikipedia! :D GUtt01 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I had to remove a message from this section, because someone was trying to send you a new one, but attached it to this. User who did this, is one who sent you a rather... disturbing, and rather 'adult' request. I think you may have to decide on a course of action with them, as I got a feeling they may have created the account, just to be a troublemaker. GUtt01 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You got mail

Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly - I responded (albeit late) to your first email and I received your follow-up response. I'll respond today to your message - just hang tight! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Time is on my side. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Resorted Categories under "certain letters (and more sensibly so)" - Is this... correct or makes sense?

Oshwah, I'm a little confused over someone's edit in regards to categories for an article. The article in question is The Lego Ninjago Movie. A user has done an edit to the article in which they modified two categories, by adding in "|Ninjago" to the category "The Lego Movie", and "|Movie" to the category "Lego Ninjago", claiming that they did so, so "they are resorted under certain letters (and more sensibly so)", but I can't understand what is sensible about doing so. I mean, there's hardly any difference at all in how they appear in the category layout at the bottom of the article; I mean, they still retain the name of the category, regardless of the addition of these words within the [] format. I don't know what to think on this - does the Wikipedian believe this is correct but is actually wrong and shouldn't have made the edit, or is it correct, and do I need an explanation about this to help me understand it?

Please reply ASAP. :-) GUtt01 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

They do not change the category appearance on the article page, but they do change where the pages are located on the category pages. Where previously the article was sorted under L at Category:Lego Ninjago, the change I make now adds a custom sortkey, which sorts it under M. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Matter resolved. I got a better understanding on this now from Izno. Problem solved, and I learnt a bit more as well. GUtt01 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Sorry for being so late to the party! I've been extremely busy and I'm just now catching up with my messages and emails. Glad you received help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Urgent Request - Defuse tense situation by reviewing behaviour of an IP User

Oshwah, mate:

I need you to step in and review the behaviour of an IP User, 24.178.250.78, who is currently involved in an Edit War on an article - Terrell Owens - and who has been disruptively arguing on Talk:Jared_Taylor, in which a comment by another user stated that they refused to accept sources on an article and wanted to demand it consisted of Original Research; another on the IP's talk page believes they are using the article's talk page as a forum to state out their viewpoint. The user has been reported for Edit Warring on the affected article, as can be seen here; a check of the history log shows that they are continuing to act disruptively, despite the warning that they have been reported. I want to put a stop to their behaviour, and ease tensions for the users who are becoming frustrated by them.

There is a lot of strong evidence that the user appears to be disruptive and aggressive in their manner, and also is being biased and not neutrally editing articles. GUtt01 (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi GUtt01 - I haven't dug into the details of the content being disputed yet, but I'm seeing long-term back-and-fourth edit warring between two parties (the IP and an extended-confirmed user). Because of this, I've added full protection to the article for three days until the dispute is sorted out, or (if applicable) any action is taken for any policy violations that may be occurring. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll take a look at this and see what's up. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The article was fully protected on August 9th (less than a week ago) due to the same two people edit warring. Looks like it's time to start escalating how these two are warned. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Rename log..

Any idea why this link draws a blank?Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Erm... What exactly are we being linked to, per se? It's not quite clear what this is supposed to be that we are going to, via the link. GUtt01 (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01:--User rename log of Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(tps) The account Renamed user.. has not had a subsequent name, so it doesn't show up there. It's not hard to get the original name, but there is only one normal way to do this, sometimes, AFAIK: this -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz:--Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Zzuuzz: That's not it: the correct link to the local rename log entry is here. Yes, I know it's a bit wonky, but the "Target" field for local rename log entries is for the old username, while in the global rename log, "Target" is for the username they were renamed to. As an added bonus, the global rename log has a "Previous username" field. The one downside to the global rename log is that it doesn't list renames made before global renaming was a thing. A simpler way of looking up the previous global renames done to a user is by using m:Special:GlobalRenameProgress and then typing in the new username of the user in question (In this case, you'll want m:Special:GlobalRenameProgress/Renamed_user_jC6jAXNBCg) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The simplest way is to look at contribs to talk pages. If they signed any, they'll still be under the old username. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller:--That's surely a good idea!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did I leave warnings on K.e.coffman's page? That's a weird question.

"Why did you leave these warnings on K.e.coffman's talk page?" Why did I leave warnings on K.e.coffman's page? Why wouldn't I? First of all I had put a lot of thought into it and I did what vandalism page suggests and what I wrote was quite clear imho but I'll reiterate. I am sorry but I can't shake of the feeling that you didn't pay much attention to details.

"If you have a dispute over content, please follow proper dispute resolution protocol and discuss it on the article's talk page." We don't. It was blatant, nonconstructive 100% content removal. K.e.coffman simply decided to remove contents of 5 pages I listed, I haven't seen any signs of discussion about the idea and IF it was ever done I couldn't find it nor was it pointed to. The reason given was lackluster, as he just decided these were "not independently notable" thus removing content and leaving redirs. Moreover these lead back to their page of origination creating a loop. I have to say here I am not the only one, as The Art of War (Sabaton album) page history shows, to disagree with coffman's overeager removals. A lot of people had put effort in creating those pages which was simply undone because a singular individual decided that. I see no reason why he shouldn't have improved the pages instead of removing all their meaningful contents.

On the other hand your removal of the warnings I left on his talk page is suspicious, I left those where they were so they are clearly and undeniably visible, as any warning should be. Isn't talk page meant for meant for disputes? I thought quarrels like this should be resolved and not swept under the rug making me the bad guy here while it was K.e.coffman who basically cleared those 5 pages of content in a relatively short period of time 04-23.06. Maybe the question that you should have asked is "why would anyone (me) feel the need to leave such warning(s) on your page K.e.coffman, why did you do that?" Lastly I don't think it is me who should be explaining myself, or at the very least, not the only one. If my warnings were unfit I ask you to issue a fitting and firm warning so that he refrains from similar, destructive actions in future. From what I've seen he has been accused of that in the past which means his editing "style" could use an improvement to make less controversial.

Ultimately, regardless of the way, my goal is to keep those 5 pages in existence, and the rest of album pages, and not as redirs, clearly. Avoiding similar removals in future is a preventive goal. Tyrael pl (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

I have another IP being very offensive on my Talk page. I've reverted the edit, but I would like it hidden per RD3 please. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Absence is not permitted

The admin chair requires good balance!

Doing regular patrols around the project, I became accustomed to seeing your name plastered over the project from various admin functions. Your promptness in handling these issues is very much appreciated! Over the last several days, I started noticing a delay in things being processed, and wasn't seeing your name. Knowing that 1 + 1 = 3.141592653598793, depending on the observational frame of reference, I decided to see if you were active or not. I see that since August 2, you've gone largely inactive :( This brings me to comment on something I've been meaning to say for a bit...

Don't burn out!

On occasion that I've seen administrator statistics since you became an administrator, I've seen that you are rapidly rising through the ranks of the admin corps in terms of admin functions performed. It's obvious you are part of the extreme left side of the pareto diagram. This concerns me as I'd hate to see you burn out. We need you! I'd rather have you operating at half speed for a lot longer than full tilt for a short window. Take time for yourself, and don't burn yourself out. The full circle element here is that you need to be repeatable, to be able to keep at it.

So, I hope you haven't burned out and you're still with us. If, on the other hand, you're just on holiday for a bit...stop being a slacker and get back in your damn admin chair! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hammersoft! Don't worry! I'm not burning out ;-). I've been busy with real life stuff lately and plan to be back starting tomorrow or Saturday - you'll see me around! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That's just not allowed. An invoice for 50% of your administrator's salary will be coming forthwith under separate cover. And if it happens again, a guy will be around to collect the key to the private admin only bathroom! John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Dude. Kelapstick totally blew up that bathroom. We're out in the bushes. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering why the smell around here rather dramatically and suddenly improved ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Tommy Sotomayor page being vandalized again

Hello, it seems the Tommy Sotomayor Wikipedia page gets vandalized quite a bit, here is the latest person to vandalize the article, in the past the article was locked for a year to stop this activity, if you could speak to or warn or temporarily block this user to keep this from happening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:3109:F010:84E7:CF39:799:9A85

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Sotomayor

Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident - It looks like this article is now semi-protected. This should stop the vandalism (at least for now). Please let me know if you need anything else and I'll be happy to assist you further. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident - You bet! Always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Able to do some Administrator work on WP:AN/3?

Heya mate. Just read the message above the one above this, and just wondering if you might be able to take a look at some of the reports on WP:AN/3, if possible. See, there's some reports that need attention; there's one that's 3 days old and hasn't yet been dealt with. Mind taking a look at them and providing some closure to them, please? :-) GUtt01 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - Sorry for the late response; I've been very busy lately and I'm just now catching up with all of my emails and messages. Sure, I don't mind sorting out AN3 reports if they're currently backlogged and in need of administrator attention. I'll admit that I help with AN3 occasionally compared to most other places; I guess it's just a place I haven't let myself venture into just yet. But if AN3 is severely backlogged, I'm always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with it. I didn't know you were online. I'd have contacted you . Adam9007 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 - You bet! Always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: facts

Hey. I noticed you got the information wrong on the edubble wikipedia page. According to Tommy, (The Co-Creator of Black Paisley) Evans death cause was unknown, as the doctors later retracted their statement that it was an infection. They did that because the medicine they tried was entirely ineffective, ruling it couldnt have been what they thought. Tommy said to this day they still dont know what the cause wa, and if you need proof ill more than happily send you a photo of that text from tommy. Just note that I will blur out the rest, because its very personal info. my twitter where you can find me at is @MattTBU — Preceding unsigned comment added by FattIsObease (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

FattIsObease - I'm looking at the history page of the E-Dubble article, but I don't see where I recently made any changes to it. Can you provide me with the exact diff of the edit you're referring to so that I can answer your question and assist you? The confusion aside, I see that you state that you have a text message as proof of the content you're changing. Sorry, but this does not constitute a reliable source, and would actually be considered original research. I highly recommend that you view these two policies and make sure that you fully understand them. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Verification of an account

Hey, I verify the originality of this account. The info is available in ticket:2017071610001095 where he has contacted us via his official e-mail at my request. Please let me know, if there's any questions in this regard. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein! Thanks for the message! If the user has verified their identity via OTRS, can you add this verification to the user's talk page using the appropriate template? This way, process is followed, the right steps are taken, the verification is "official" for me to proceed, and the user isn't at risk for being blocked again for the same thing. Let me know when you've done this and I'll be happy to proceed with the unblock. Thanks :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein - Never mind; I did it for you. I got in touch with another OTRS user and we verified the validity of his identity. I've added the template for you and have unblocked the account. Thanks again for leaving me a message with the update; much appreciated. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblocking and for the template. Special thanks for your offer of help. You seem to be of the kind and helpful admins of the project, I'll let you know if there was anything. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein - You bet! Always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

africans

why u revert back to original its true dont u watch youtube sorry if im rude but its a true fact im just tryna help

Warn him Where?

You declined my request for temporary protection on 13 August 2017 for the List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada article, advising me that I should "Warn the user appropriately". Given that I had already repeatedly informed him of his violations of policy both in edit notes and on the articles talk page I would have to ask where you wanted me to warn this anonymous ISP hopper? Do you want me to create pages for all of the ten or twelve ISPs that he has used so far in the off chance that he may use one of them again some day? I think the warnings he has already been given through the channels available are more than sufficient in this case. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mediatech492, and thanks for leaving me a message with your thoughts and concerns regarding the protection request that I declined recently. The reason I declined the semi-protection request wasn't simply because you "hadn't warned the user enough" (although I might have responded stating such, and if I did please accept my apologies), but because (as of this writing) there have only been 9 total edits to the article this month (August), which isn't frequent enough for me to justify that we semi protect the article and disallow all anonymous or unconfirmed users from editing it. However, looking through the article's history again, I think that pending changes protection is justified given the fact that multiple IPs have been reverted for adding unsourced content and for quite a long time... I should have done this instead of outright declining your request, and I sincerely apologize for this. I've added pending changes protection to the article for one month; if the issue continues after it expires, let me know and I'll extend it. Thanks again for messaging me with your thoughts and concerns, and I apologize for declining your request instead of taking the appropriate action. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

FIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 321idk123 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about deleted page...

The recently added page: 01:38, 25 May 2017 Oshwah (talk | contribs) deleted page Demetrius Klee Lopes, M.D (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.demetriuslopesmd.com/about/lopes-biography/) has been deleted. Would it help if I reference the biography in the external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithrandir281 (talk • contribs)

Hi Mithrandir281! And thank you for leaving me a message with your questions and request for help. There's much more to things than just adding the external URL; you have to paraphrase any content you're referencing, cite the source in-line so that it can be peer-reviewed and the proper credit is given, as well as other things. This guideline page on close paraphrasing will explain why this is important. It's also extremely important that you read and understand Wikipedia's policies on copyright violations and plagiarism. Violation of any of these policies I listed here are taken very seriously by the community; users are usually blocked if they repeatedly violate them - so definitely take my advice and review these documents! If you have any questions about them, please ask and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for your message! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Is that photo of you? 85.255.236.134 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would assume and hope so, I mean that's what the file description says. (talk page stalker) SkyWarrior 19:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruption on articles about Indian history

Hello. The same IP-hopper (geolocating to NJ, USA) who was disruptive on Maratha Empire is doing the same on History of India, so would you mind protecting that article too? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thomas.W -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Big Smile~!

Hello Oshwah, Dinah Kirkland has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

♠Dinah♠ 🎤 21:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dinah Kirkland! Thanks for the smile! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a new member Of the Department of Fun so smiles for everyone~! ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! I always like seeing new members! Welcome :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you~! ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Rock Mafia Discography Removal

Hello, I am trying to remove the discography section from the Rock Mafia page. I work for the company and the owners would like it removed for reasons of professional privacy. How can i ensure that it is successfully removed. Thank youJacobkoransky (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacobkoransky - You need to contact the Volunteer Response Team by clicking here. They have the tools and training in order to verify your identity and assist you with this particular matter. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding how to contact them, and I'll be happy to answer them. Best of luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Henrik Steffens Professor

Are you sure about the redirect from Henrik Steffens Professor? The subject appears to be different. Thank you, however, for blocking the author for his repeated removal of speedy tags. It was up to others to decline the speedy, as someone indeed did before your redirect. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

David Biddulph - I actually am not sure about that... lol. I left a message on Malinaccier's talk page regarding this. I didn't realize that he had declined the speedy tag until after I had turned the article into a redirect - he thinks they're two different things as well. I apologized to him for the mistake and told him that he was welcome to undo my change without need for my approval. Since the page is now fully protected, I want to be careful and discuss all changes like this before they are made. This is to prevent us from making an edit that may be controversial while the page is fully protected. Thanks for leaving me a message here with your thoughts and concerns. I think you two may be right on this one... I think the page would be better off if my edit was reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We should have this chat on one talk page. I volunteer/sacrifice User talk:Malinaccier#Ruh roh! since I suggested a course of action there. Malinaccier (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User Manchild1's unblock request

In case my pinging didn't work, I've responded to your request on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Manchild1#August_2017 . I strongly suspect this user is the serial vandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TomWatkins1970 ; don't get drawn in to their innocent act!Nqr9 (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nqr9! Thanks for responding to my question on Manchild1's talk page. I wasn't implying that you did anything wrong; I was just curious (plus the user also wanted to know). The user asked some legitimate questions (which I answered and ended up fixing in the articles mentioned); I wasn't sure if maybe this user was caught in a block that might have happened too quickly (making good faith changes and mistakes), or if there were other details that I wasn't aware of. I'm going to wait for the blocking administrator's input as well and see what he thinks, and do some digging myself. I'm still not entirely sure... this might be an AGF situation, or it might not be ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I know I can't offer concrete proof that this user is TomWatkins1970, but the (deliberate, I think) poor expression and grammar is very similar to that used by his sock puppets - I think this user has spelt answer "anwear" before, which appears on the unblock request section of Manchild1's talk page. If you look through the archived sock puppet cases for TomWatkins1970, the pattern of editing is very similar.Nqr9 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

About Re-adding link

Hi, I don't care about nofollow attribute i am not going to promote my site, i just want to refer people also try fast password generator in reference that this is also tool like free passsword generator, random password generator etc..

Just want to add a reference or external link not spamming i needto add link at relevant page with password generators.

Please help me how i do it?

Waqas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightrester1 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Rightrester1 - Wikipedia is not the place to list external links for people to try. See Wikipedia's guidelines on external links here - it'll provide you with all of the information you're looking for, as well as when adding an external link is appropriate and when it is not. If you have questions about this guideline, please do not hesitate to ask me here. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. Thanks for leaving me a message, and I wish you happy editing :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello

You seem to be following me around the 'pedia. Not, that I mind it's nice to have a friendly admin follow me around. Whispering 04:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Whispering! I don't believe that we've met before :-). I'm quite active on this site and in many different areas; you may find that I've made edits or changes to a number of pages (past or present) that you may be editing as well - don't worry; I'm definitely not following you or stalking you... lol. It comes with the activities and tasks that I do ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I highly doubt you would of I just got back from a three year Wikipedia sabbatical. I tend to stick around new page patrol and vandalism patrol. So most likely we'll cross paths again. Whispering 23:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Right. I will let you handle these. Thanks. I was being ironic.... 損齋 (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi 損齋! No worries and cool deal; it definitely seems like the IP is who started all this. I hadn't looked into anything yet, which is why I had worded the message I left toward both of you (as to remain neutral and not be one-sided). I've been here for quite some time; I completely understand how frustrating and irritating that situations (and other people - lol) can get at times. However, you definitely want to do your best to not let any of that get under your skin. The very instant you start becoming defensive or start stooping to their level and engaging in the same incivility that the other user started, you've just lost any and all credibility that you've tried to build with that user; you've given them exactly what they wanted and you've now dug yourself into the same hole and allowed yourself to be at risk for the same action that the other person may deserve. Don't get sucked into that hole! Trust me - it's rarely if ever worth it ;-). If you have questions, need help, need advice or input, or just some mentoring - please don't hesitate to ask me for help. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything you need :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Alan McCann

Can you help with the Alan McCann page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.163.70 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure! What exactly do you need help with? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mistake

It was a mistake. I updated back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash 0703 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Page Deletion Query

Why My page named TestOrigen Software Testing Services Page is deleted?

I really wanted to known what type of content is used in any company's page for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archanayadav66 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Archanayadav66 - The reason this article was deleted was due to meeting this criterion for speedy deletion. What I suggest you do is create this article by using the wizard here - it will provide you with information and guide you through the process of creating your first article. Alternatively, you can go here to create the article in the draft space. This will give you all the time you need to complete it. Once it's done, you'll submit the article for approval and (when approved) it'll be moved to the article space. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

University of Newcastle (Australia)

Thanks for protecting University of Newcastle (Australia). It's become quite ridiculous today. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

AussieLegend - No problem. Always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the protection is long enough though. I'd suggest a week might be more appropriate given the length of time that this has been going on and the number of IPs that have been involved and the lack of interest shown by other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

AussieLegend - I felt that way initially as well. I'm going to start it at three days. When it expires, lets re-evaluate and go from there. There's no harm in applying it again if it's needed ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I'm pessimistic. At least the original IP was leaving the status quo up. An IP arbitrarily decided to incorporate the disputed text today. After I reverted him (because there was no consensus) Cjhard decided to do the same (a bit coincidental if you ask me) and then, when yet another IP jumped in, he/she was reverted by uninvolved editros who I don't believe even bothered checking what they were reverting. One even left a message on the IP's talk page saying they should use an edit summary, which they had on both occasions. The thing that really shocked me was Cjhard's complete lack of understanding of BRD, statusquo and revert wars. And Cjhard is a DRN volunteer!!! I can see this article becoming a rel mess and I'm getting quite disillusioned with Wikipedia. Sorry for the rant. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

AussieLegend - No apologies are needed. I've been an editor here for a long time as well; I understand the frustration ;-). Once I saw back-and-fourth reverting between two users that were extended confirmed (or had 500+ edits), which I saw today, that was my reason for applying the golden lock on the article. Even the best editor can get sucked into an edit war; hell I've tripped over the edge a few times. Just let me know how things go, and if things go off the fritz - give me a holler! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Caucasian race IP block

Hi, could you please block 47.8.6.114? He's been adding unsourced content after your notice. He's also an obvious sock of 112.196.188.140, an account that has already enjoyed the three-levels-of-warning-before-being-banned experience. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock - Looks pretty obvious to me ;-).  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Merton College

I attempted to edit some information on the Merton College page, I'm trying to remove the inaccurate line about "where fun goes to die". I'm new to wikipedia editing but as I assume one doesn't need a reference to remove incorrect information especially as I go to Oxford myself. IldertonJ (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi IldertonJ! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'll be more than happy to help you out :-)! Because you represent a conflict of interest with the article (since, after all, you go to this school haha), it would be better and within Wikipedia's guidelines if someone uninvolved takes a look and makes the change instead. I can certainly do that for you - exactly what content on the article is problematic? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hope you don't mind me butting in, but I couldn't resist this time. IldertonJ, the phrase in the MCR Graduate Freshers' Guide 2014 is Merton’s reputation as a workaholic college can be used against it. Be prepared to laugh dismissively at the phrase “Merton is where fun goes to die” far too frequently. The phrase from the article is Merton students have expressed ambivalence towards this reputation, with the popular (mis)description of the college as 'the place where fun goes to die' reaching student-written prospectuses. I can see how a bias has crept in and perhaps distorted the intended message. I can't see where ambivalence was expressed in the Guide. It's more a warning to expect taunting. I'm going to change it to read "Merton's students have earned the college the reputation as workaholic, and it is frequently referred to as 'the place where fun goes to die' by others outside the institution." Oshwah, does that sound fair?  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 13:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Myk Streja - No, not at all. I didn't get a chance to read through the article yet; it sounds like there's content that obviously needs modification or removal. Go for it! Fix and remove away! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 13:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if anything the recent re-edit has made things worse, you've now gone from 'students feel ambivalent towards the reputation' to 'they are now workaholics who have caused this reputation' I'm trying get rid of the bias caused by referencing one informal source which constitutes an opinion not a fact. My problem is that the accusation that students are workaholics who have no fun doesn't belong in a wikipedia article at all.IldertonJ (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Why, will it harm the college's rankings, do you think? — fortunavelut luna 14:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No but it gives the wrong impression to potential students, especially when it isn't accurate. I just don't think it should even be included.

IldertonJ (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I see; but- surely- the encyclopaedia isn't actually here to give any impression to potential students? — fortunavelut luna 19:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Freshers' Guide is written by doctorate students, overseen by a college staff member, for the benefit of incoming students. (Based on the text, I assume it's a guide for Freshman students.) As far as I can see, the statement is intended to encourage the serious student. Certainly it's better than saying it's the place to party. If you can thiink of better wording that does not slant the information provided by the guide, you are encouraged do so here.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:The Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture

You may wish to revoke talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Cahk -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice one Cahk- Such a catchy username I bet you've been humming it most of the day! ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Best place to take up a discussion about an article that needs improvements, or suggestions regarding what needs to be done

Heya mate,

So... I was wondering if you might know a good place on Wikipedia, where a Wikipedian like me can go and put up an article that could be given some TLC - namely, improvements that are urgently needed to an article, which has got some good notability to it, only to be let down by a lack of information that was put in by its creator that has not been expanded upon, along with a lack of citations and poor grammar. The article in question is on a Russian ATV, the Avtoros Shaman. I put in a multiple issue template on the page, but I wonder if more could be done about this article. Personally, I don't want this to be put up for deletion; the car exists, it featured on my favourite motoring show (Top Gear), and there are webpages for it.

I don't know if I will take care of it, but... maybe you could suggest some things in regards to it, perhaps? :-) GUtt01 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Only warning notice you left

Hi. I didn't leave a warning notice due to this edit. It wasn't even vandalism. But please check user's other contributions. He removed wikilinks, places of birth of footballers, e.g. [4] [5] [6]. Regards. Cynko (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Am I an idiot?

Hi,

About what happened last night: my concern was for upholding the rules (that a creator of a page is not allowed to remove CSD tags from it). I didn't have an opinion on it, nor did I really read the article (my stupid comment at the AfD is proof of that! ). If I had read it and declined the CSD, all hell would have broken loose (not that all hell hadn't already broken loose by that point), so on reflexion, I suppose I had no choice but to restore it and wait for it to be properly declined (the phrase "damned if I do, damned if I don't" springs to mind: I either get reported for edit-warring, or topic banned from CSD declining. It's also possible that people might have taken a refusal to keep restoring the CSD tag as an endorsement of its removal, which could also have led to a topic ban. Reverting the creator and then self-reverting would lead to the same outcome.). As for AIV, the editor's past behaviour contributed to my thinking their report wasn't honest (the editor had previously labelled another editor's restoration as vandalism and trolling (also, the fact he/she did something after being told he/she is not supposed to made it harder to AGF)). Adam9007 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! The short answer is "No"; the long answer is "Noooooooooo". You are not an idiot :-). Remembering back, I understand that your situation here is quite unique. As someone once told me, "Once bitten, twice shy" - you were afraid of the possible ramifications that you might have faced for declining the speedy tag, but you were also in a position to restore the tag that the page creator deleted. Remember that if you're sure that the speedy deletion tag should be declined, by all means - do it. But I think what may have happened (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was that you may not have been certain, which was why you felt the way you felt. If you're unsure about what to do, remember that you can always do nothing and take no action, and instead get someone else to step in. I found the ANI thread that you referred to - the discussion took place just over a year ago - July 2016. I think you've done a great job moving on from this and have done well with re-training yourself and stepping back into the role of declining CSD tags and in a slow and steady pace. But don't let yourself get stuck in a bubble of where you've taken action when you weren't certain and are now feeling like you're now in a lose-lose situation. It's not a weakness to say that you're unsure and that you need someone else to help you. In fact, it's a strength... a great quality that all experienced long-term editors that are looked upon and respected by the community possess. Shoot, I find myself asking for second pairs of eyes and for input all the time - (n+1) heads are better than (n) heads ;-). Coming back from the ANI a year ago isn't a fast process; and it certainly won't be without making mistakes - it happens. Don't dwell on it. Take what happened and learn from it positively - understand what happened, what caused you to act and why, and take things from there. You'll come out of this just fine - just don't be afraid to say "ehhh... maybe someone else should take a look at this...". I do it a lot. If anything, it makes things easier for me ;-). Please feel free to message me any time you need input, mentoring, or just someone to help you. My talk page is always open to you and you're welcome here any time. Keep up the good work, expect mistakes to happen, learn from them, move on, and don't think of yourself a fool. Fools don't give the amount of effort and dedication into improving themselves as you've been giving :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring not only to the ANI thread 13 months ago, but also to more recent - dare I call them this - show trials (sorry, but they really do feel more like show trials than proper discussions) on my talk page. Many seem to have decided that I'm always wrong about CSD declining, and I really do think that any more declining will inevitably lead to a topic ban, regardless of whether I was right or wrong. At one point I got so fed up with the endless carping and castigating, I decided I couldn't continue on Wikipedia. I really do feel like I'm in a lose-lose situation there, and situations like what happened last night and what happened at the end of April it feel like I'm (slowly, but surely) heading that way in anti-vandalism too . Adam9007 (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You're beating yourself up - the exact opposite of what is actually going to actually help you :-). One thing you should realize is... most people who legitimately have not demonstrated improvement and kept digging themselves deeper would be topic banned by now. You went through a tough ANI as well as a few bumps and scratches since - yet you're still here... and you're not topic banned :-). You've been under threat and scare of the storm, yet after just being involved in an ANI over a mistake... the storm didn't come :-). Nobody ran at you with torches and pitchforks, and nobody jumped on you and roped you down over your past. Instead, people just said, "Hey, next time don't do that. Do this instead" and that was it. You've been traveling down a rough path; nobody will doubt that for a second. But you shouldn't doubt yourself and make yourself feel that a topic ban is the only path that you're given and hence will take. Just keep up the good work you've been doing, and take this as a small bump in the road - which is really what this situation actually was. I understand and respect you greatly for viewing this as a major incident. This tell me that you've legitimately taken the feedback the community has given you to heart, and you're trying your very best to improve yourself and learn from all of this. People who don't care or don't take the project to heart wouldn't feel this way. Let yourself feel bad for a small bit if you feel that you have to, then pick yourself up and keep truckin' it. The community (as we've all seen) is quite good at instilling the scare that a storm is brewing, but if you keep doing what you're doing... only good things will happen :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way... I'm glad you decided to come back, and that you didn't leave Wikipedia. I mean that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

you're not topic banned Not formally anyway: I believe some consider me to be informally so. I understand and respect you greatly for viewing this as a major incident Anything that genuinely (I'm not counting trolling and the like) goes to ANI is major in my book. If it was not minor, it probably wouldn't have gone there, and would have been confined to talkspace. I'm glad you decided to come back, and that you didn't leave Wikipedia I suppose I really did "go gay" . It's just a shame that, no matter how hard I try, I can't be so gay here: I'm always worrying about something, such as ANI threats or my GANs failing . Adam9007 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

172.58.136.42

Hi,

Do you reckon all the pornography he posted should be revdeled? Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Nah. I save rev del for the really bad stuff. We both know what that means... porn? Nah. Not grossly insulting or purely disruptive. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not like it was worth looking at the first time around.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 03:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia - White Pride

The current version of this article is a racist interpretation of white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.28.152 (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue (season 15)

Hey, I made a minor edit to the cast section on Red vs. Blue (season 15). Just added a few links to existing articles, changed the credits very slightly, and added a couple credits that were not included there after checking their authenticity on other places. It got undone, which was attributed to "because it did not appear constructive". I wasn't really trying to vandalize it or anything. I was trying to make an honest contribution. Is there some kind of problem on the page or something?

P.S: Is it just me, or is the episode list out of date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.111.70 (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did you ban me?

Why did you ban me from editing on the alex gilbert article. not fair. you should be fair to all the editors. i will wait until the protection comes off. i see it's not perminent. thanks for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorAtBest (talk • contribs) 04:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Me7

Result!! Can you help me out. You are kool I hope 82.26.176.191 (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)