Jump to content

User talk:Oshwah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is an edit filter manager on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has interface administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gidman2003 (talk | contribs) at 01:08, 24 May 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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.



Disruptive editing

Hi Oshwah, I don't think we have spoken before. How are you? It is a beautiful spring day here in Scotland. I had some content in my article Ettrick Bay removed by User:HappyWaldo. I have reverted it, but he is obviously peeved that I voted in the Ned Kelly RfC and taken action. I've warned him. I don't think it will do much. It is a brand new article as well. scope_creep (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the time he has been editing this, he is horsed the article. scope_creep (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed an image gallery and replaced it with a commons category per WP:IG ("Wikipedia is not an image repository") and MOS guidelines. It's a non-notable, generic looking bay, there is no need for a gallery. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep:@HappyWaldo: Okay, let me mediate here for the both of you, on this matter.
To Scope creep - It is a good idea to look at Wikipedia policies in regards to the use of images in an article, to make certain that they comply to them. If you are uncertain if they work well, talk to a Wikipedian here (not me, I'm not too well versed in the site's various Policies XP) and learn from them the best way to handle matters regarding images you wish to put in. Even if you are certain there is nothing wrong, it is a good idea to get a second opinion on the new article you created, just to be certain there are no issues, mistakes or problems with parts of it, or the whole article itself.
To HappyWaldo - If there is an issue with the images that Scope put up, discuss it with them reasonably, and inquire with others as to who is in the right on the matter; don't assume that you are. Just remember you came close to being blocked before; try to be reasonable with other Wikipedians and adopt a calm, civilised approach to issues you have with another Wikpedian's edits.
If the two of you approach this rationally, I'm sure that you can resolve this like respectable gentlemen. ;) GUtt01 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah. I just wanted to give you a head up before it gets into edit war territory that HappyWaldo is now suddenly disputing the number of victims in of massacres in Australia . He states that there needs discussion at the talk page, but is not doing so. Also the linked article has not been edited with any reliable references, nor any consensus achieved. When you can spare a moment can you please intervene before it gets out of hand. Thank you David.moreno72 13:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source I provided is a journalist's review of a documentary about the massacre in question. He reports that there were 12 victims. The source you provided is a social justice opinion piece linking to a dead (archived) website that cites an unnamed "old fella" who claims "four hundred people killed that day". The same opinion piece also links to Wikipedia articles. The first source is obviously more reliable, and I don't think it needs to be stated that a death toll of 12 is far more likely than 400. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James - Heh, the edits I made were probably all reverting vandalism... I can pretty much guarantee it. But you're welcome, nonetheless ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That counts too :-) Important work reverting vandalism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have to delete my userpage?

AmirFreeman2006 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AmirFreeman2006, please see your talk page. I should have left that message when your page was deleted, but I must have forgot. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CSD'd again per G10. Cut it out, AmirFreeman2006, or you'll end up on the receiving end of a block, I'm certain. Patient Zerotalk 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, I got back to you and responded to your email, right? Please confirm; I want to make sure I didn't forget to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did respond and I sent back another reply. Thanks again for your assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly - You bet. I'll double check and make sure you didn't need anything else in your response. Been busy in real life; excuse any delay in a response if I owe you one ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the user: 179.99.49.80

Please block this:

Disruptive editing in other articles, see history:

Thank you. - Rama Ybrahim (Talk) 09:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prinsipe Ybarro! Sorry for the late response to your message... I've been busy lately and I'm just now catching up on messages and emails. Looks like this user was blocked by another administrator, and the disruption has stopped. If you need help with anything else, please don't hesitate to reach out to me here. I'll be happy to do so. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I made in April 2017 on the NYSE page

Virtually all the edits I make on Wikimedia products (Wikipedia and Wiktionary) are GRAMMATICAL changes because it's blatantly lucid that most users on here know very little grammar. Kindly make it known why the edit I made was referred as a 'test.' Thank you.

~ Astounded user ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.105.148.98 (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir Oswah

first of , I would like to deeply apologize for sudden writting on Q28450975 Dragonica Mobile SEA page , secondly , personal targeting may unavoidable for some reason , but , real name never spoiled for privacy.

it just too much things that happen here , and ingame players can only silent as victim , so , writer here just trying to represent the cries of gamers / players , hope you and wiki admin could understand.

again , Sorry , and so many thanks for the time given to post some knowledge to this article.

writer gonna get rid all of the writing as soon as possible after related person involved reads the article.


if there's any credit , let it be taken for wiki or social donation instead of given to personal , or perharps spread to the following victim players inside the game as reimbursement or cashback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.125.87.159 (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Oshwah? Now that's a promotion! :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HA! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating user talk pages for extremely bad user name blocks

When you block an account which you intend to RevDel the creation log, please don't leave a tal page message. Any user you would feel the need to do this to is probably such a bad name that no admin would even consider an unblock, and you just create extra work for completing the hiding of the account - deletion of the page and RevDeling of 2 log entries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Od Mishehu - Good point, I guess there's no point of letting that user know that "Hey, that username isn't appropriate so I blocked you". At that level, they know this and it only makes work harder for us. I'm going to have to modify my scripts for this situation. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Would you be happy for me to unblock with the stated conditions at User talk:The American Gamer? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee - I trust your judgment; go for it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I just hope it doesn't bite me ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page?

Hi,

Is this a disparagement of Bob the Builder? Does any action need to be taken?

Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I believe so. Tagged. Linguisttalk|contribs 02:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Linguist111: I tagged his sandbox too. It was more obvious. Adam9007 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. Thank you, Adam. Linguisttalk|contribs 02:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adam9007, Linguist111 - Looks like this has been taken care of. Sorry for the delayed reply; I was at the office when you left this. Don't hesitate to message me if you need anything else. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They were deleted by SoWhy under U5 rather than G10, so maybe they weren't attack pages? Adam9007 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I wouldn't call it an attack page. U5 was the option I would have deleted it under as well. It's broad on purpose and for a reason ;-). Let me know if you have any more questions about this, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist where I can. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, me and Linguist111 took "dumb" as an insult. This reminds me of an instance a while ago when an admin disagreed that a page having nothing other than a description of a film as "pants" is a G10. Are these insults not offensive or negative enough to be considered G10? Adam9007 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Linguist111! Good question! So, as we both know... a G10 or an attack page is "a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced", according to the guidelines I linked above... of course ;-).
When I picture an attack page, it's a page that insults or threatens the subject ("[Person] is a trash whore who nobody loves and should back the hell off or face consequences...", or "[Noun] is a dumb pile of garbage that eats people and casts poop on humanity"), or is a BLP article that's entirely negative in viewpoint and/or makes unreferenced negative accusations or statements about that person. To TL;DR my interpretation: It exists with the unambiguous intention to harm the reputation of the subject, or insult/threaten/degrade the subject or BLP, and with content that clearly shows this intention.
User pages (like this one) can reaaaalllyyy teeter on the edge when it comes to being "an attack page". To me, a user page that just says "is a dumb cartoon" with nothing else for context, or your example above where an article was created about a film with the description of just the word "pants"... those don't come off as attack pages. Deleting per U5 was "the safe option" in this situation with the user page, and I'm not sure what the hell the other example is about... lol. The words technically could qualify the user page as an "attack page", but if you see the spirit of what it's trying to define as an actual attack page, I think my thoughts will make sense.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or need more help with anything. As you know, I'm always happy to lend a hand! Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Pants" is a British informal word for "rubbish" or "worthless". Me being English, I immediately understood the film example to mean "This film is rubbish". Just as I understood "dumb" to mean "stupid". They're both insults. But doesn't G10 also mention disparagement? I'd say both "pants" and dumb" (in the sense of "rubbish" and "stupid" respectively) are disparagements. Or are they, as you say, edge cases? While we're on the subject, what about words that are commonly used as insults, but are not necessarily so? "Gay" for example (I can't help but think of that word after the commotion on my talk page about my use of it a few days ago ). Although, having said that, I suppose "dumb" also fits that description... Adam9007 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adam9007 - AHH! Good call on the translation of "pants" - I learned something new today. Given that information, I could see how G10 could be justified or argued in that example (of course, without actually seeing the diffs... I'm just making an observation with what you're telling me here). ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, and there's definitely no other meaning of the word: just the British meaning, the American meaning, and the British informal/slang meaning of "rubbish", so it was almost certainly an insult. Adam9007 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(pinged) My two cents: G10 encompasses all kinds of subjects but, like Oswah, I think the intent behind it is and was to delete pages that have a potential negative effect on real people, no matter if you are attacking them directly or indirectly by disparaging their company, organization, etc. In this case, I think it was not really aimed at the makers of Bob the Builder as people but was merely misplaced rantings about the perceived "dumb"-ness, using Wikipedia instead of a private website. Basically, my approach to judging G10 (and I think Oswah shares it based on his comments above) is whether the content could possibly be grounds for legal action if posted on another website. Regards SoWhy 07:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy - Yep, that's a good way to explain what I was trying to get at as well. Thanks for the input ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

In regards to the message you left when I reported IP 112.120.148.39, he isn't adding correct information. Players are not nominated until a week before play begins, which in this case is September. He is just adding random players and assuming that they will be nominated in September. But there is no sourcing for that whatsoever. And this was also vandalism. No walkover occurred. Actually, the match is taking place as I write this. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adamtt9! Thanks for responding to my comment at AIV. Since this IP appears to have stopped editing, I'm going to hold off on taking action. However, if things continue, do let me know. Thanks again for your message. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your advice in our email exchange a few weeks ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants - Of course; you're very welcome. Don't hesitate to reach out to me any time you need help or any kind of input. I'll be happy to assist with anything you need. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniyal Waseem

Hi,

I removed notice since i know the the facts personally. Some of the links are old since free internet is not a given right everywhere in the world. However if you feel that this article is should be deleted I respect and have it deleted completely rather then up their with notice.

Regards,

Namra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NamraNaeem (talk • contribs)

Hi NamraNaeem - Welcome to Wikipedia! So... there are a few things you should know and understand when it comes to editing articles. First, when an article is tagged for deletion (either with a speedy deletion or articles for deletion discussion tag), it must stay on the article. There are instructions provided within the tag that tell you exactly what you need to do in order to properly contest or discuss the deletion.
Your message above also states that you have personal knowledge of various facts and information. Please understand that personal knowledge, experience, relationships, or references cannot be added to articles (it's considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia). Using that same personal knowledge is also typically interpreted by the community as an invalid justification or reason for a particular decision or viewpoint; please understand this.
While references and sources that link to websites on the internet do age with time (and hence the risk of becoming removed or lost increases with that age), we are currently in the process of implementing tools and automation in order to archive these references and replace dead links with references to those archives. So fear not! This is a known issue that's in the process of becoming much less of a concern as we roll out tools and bots that will fix this. If you have any more questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask me them. I'll be happy to help you further. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really

Do you understand the severity of your actions, you wrote that Adolf Hitler made a Jew eradicating space ship. I'm not sure you understand that you shouldn't be vandalizing Wikipedia, people use this as a resource for education and what you are doing hinders their ability to learn. Stop doing it or I may have to enforce a ban upon you. Science guy435 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have that. Thank you for your concern, Science guy. I have enforced the ban. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No subject

I am new to Wikipedia and I noticed you changed my edit on Dallas Clark and you asked for a reliable source. I do not know how to add a link to show where I got my info from — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb3025 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caleb3025 - Welcome to Wikipedia! No problem, remember that you can be bold and add improvements where you feel they need to be! Just remember to understand and take feedback as you learn (such as in this case) :-). Check out this guideline on adding references in-line with text. It will show you how to do this, as well as where to enable tools that make doing so very easy! If you have questions after reviewing the guideline I provided above, let me know and I'll be happy to help you further. Again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your stay! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bandeirantes

Keeping slavery associated with the Bandeirantes is a modern political move, not a historical fundamental truth.

WP:ROLE account?

Hi again,

Do you reckon this is a WP:ROLE account? Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam9007! From my 15-ish seconds of research (lol) looking up the phrase "InfamousCriminals" and "Infamous Criminals", I would say no. This is not a role account. Those are accounts with usernames that can imply shared use due to it stating a given position or role within a group, organization, or company... roles that can change from person-to-person or be a title given or used by more than just one person. Examples of this are usernames like "MicrosoftCEO", "McDonalds.PR", or "ToyotaCustomerRelationsBoardChair" - names like those. The plurality of "Criminals" could give concerns, but it's nothing I'd chase nor sound alarm bells over. Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. If there's something you think that I missed with your question and username above, don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's their userpage using "We" that got me suspicious. Adam9007 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adam9007 - Yup, I just saw that too... The "We" in that sentence changes things. I'd warn them about the user page and what you saw, and educate them on shared accounts; that definitely is a different story now that I take that into account... Other than doing that, lets wait until the user edits and go from there, or see what happens. Good call. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I not do that with Twinkle? None of the templates listed there are appropriate. Will I have to type my own message? Adam9007 (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adam9007 - Since it's not the username in itself that's causing the concern but the use of "we" on their userpage, I'd go with a custom message to voice the concern about the account being used by more than one person. If you wanted to talk to the user about a username violation that's borderline but not UAA reportable, you do that on Twinkle by selecting Warn. On the Warn window, select "Single issue warning" --> "Username is against policy" (fourth from the bottom), then type in a custom reason (don't include punctuation or a space after the last word, and don't include signature - that's added for you). That's how I do it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not the username itself, so the latter is not strictly speaking the right thing to do. I've left them a message, but I'm no good at this sort of thing, which is why I searched (in vain ) for a suitable template. Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, no worries my friend. We're were all new at doing it at some point in time ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope I don't become good at it: if I think I'm good at something, it will turn out I'm not good at it at all . Anti-vandalism for instance . That said, I haven't exactly been gay lately, so that is probably a major contributor to my cock-ups. Adam9007 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007, don't beat yourself up and let yourself become drained or emotionally tied-down over past mistakes. You're doing exactly what you should be doing here and now, and that's what truly matters; it will help you to look forward, move on from them, and come out from under any rut that you feel you're under... and much stronger and with much more experience than when it started.

You're asking questions and getting clarification on things that you're rusty with, unsure of, or need someone to translate and explain in simple terms... that's surely something that the community will see as a great thing, and certainly something I'd ever use against you! Nobody should feel guilty or bad, or be scolded or given flak for asking questions or asking for help. Keep this habit and behavior close to your mind, keep that habit up so it becomes second-nature, and you'll be fine. Time will go by, people will move on, and you'll learn lots of cool new things... a huge win/win for all. My talk page is always open to you, and you're always welcome to come to me with questions or input any time you need it. No judgment ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I used Huggle, I got blocked. Oh dear . I fell into the trap of reverting a policy violation with gay abandon. After that, I think it'll be a while before I trust myself to touch Huggle again . The thing is, mud sticks. With that and me being on the verge of a topic ban regarding CSD, it's no wonder I'm feeling bad and not sure whether to trust myself. I'm fearful I might cock it up and get blocked again. Adam9007 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Huggle is a very fast and efficient tool that's very powerful. The double-edged sword with having such a program in the tool belt is the potential to screw up in a large quantity before the problem is realized. Shoot, I've made accidental reverts and changes simply by having Huggle in the foreground instead of my browser, and believing that I was typing a response in a form... I was actually hitting Huggle hotkeys and spewing out warnings and reverts... lolol.
If you're someone like I am... you're probably someone whose really eager to help, loves what you're doing, and has a high desire to move up in the ranks and become the "go-to guy" and all-around liked by the community... but find yourself being told by others (maybe in real life, too) that you take things on or make decisions or changes too quickly, or you catch yourself making assumptions in order to go quickly and get things done. I'm not trying to make assumptions about you at all (LOL)... I'm trying to describe how I am and where I find myself as far as pitfalls go. In my past, I would tend to get overly eager to participate and help, become the best, and master all of the things... that I'd go too quickly, make bad assumptions, and make mistakes that I wouldn't have otherwise had I just slowed down and taken an extra second or two... toned myself down a few notches.
If what I described about myself in past (and recent times) also describes you, then the best thing you can do for yourself is to take on new tasks one-at-a-time, and become a master at that area for awhile before you decide to take on another new area or task. Do tasks in that area "the long way" (manually without automation) for awhile, understand how things work under the hood and why it's important to get right - before you consider moving to automation to increase productivity. And (of course), ask questions if you're not sure and don't make assumptions. Do those things, and I believe that you'll wind up to be less stressed and much more successful in gaining back trust and expanding your experience and knowledge. A major part of becoming a highly wise editor (and really, a person in general) is understanding your limits and how much you can take on simultaneously, as well as acknowledging that you're not sure about something and asking. Some of the feedback that others have given you have... heh... been quite stern and pretty harsh. Do your best to take the meat and leave the bones; don't dwell on the situation and what-not, but take the feedback left for you and use it to move forward.
You can't change the past... Close the door behind you. Look forward. You're doing what you should be doing now. Keep it up. Time will pass. Now take what tools and feedback you've been given, hold them tight. Now start walking forward.
I'm here if you need anything. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coat (dog)

This page contains numerous errors, omissions and incomplete information. My edits which you have removed were good. They were correct, readable, complete and where applicable supported by inline references. I did not remove referenced information, and only removed information that was incorrect to replace it with correct. I was not playing around, and I do not understand your accusation of such.24.129.225.118 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your reasoning, or was your reversion in error?24.129.225.118 (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm not sure what happened, but it looks like the removal was in error. I've undone my removal of your changes and restored your previous changes back to the article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I apologize for the confusion. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns. Thanks again! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Have a great day!24.129.225.118 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks again for letting me know. I apologize and wish you happy editing. You should consider create an account! There are many benefits to doing so! Give it some thought, and let me know if you have any questions. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Solved the mystery. I had written in harmless context the scientific term "opposite sex" and no doubt that one little 3-letter word is most frequently added by persons of dishonourable intentions and flagged with prejudice and without closer investigation of circumstance. I'll look into the account thing.24.129.225.118 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
High quality work on WP:UAA! Thank you, Oshwah. Cheers, FriyMan talk 10:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FriyMan! Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! I also owe you a big "thanks" for all of those reports you've been leaving at UAA; they've been quite helpful :-). Keep em coming! ...And don't hesitate to message me here if you have questions or need input over any usernames you're unsure of. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changes

Hi Oshwah,

Thank you for your message. This edit is correct, as Dersim is the actual name or Tunceli. Dersim is a province, with mainly kurdish people living there. Dersim is the original name but it has been changed by the turkish government. The reason behind is, that Kurdish people were not allowed to speak their language. Also, the are starting with, Bingol, Erzincan, Dersim, Elazig is where Kurdistan start and was separated by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosakr (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midway?

Found a midway, eh? lol —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to please, Usernamekiran ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
see you around :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Oshwah. You have new messages at WP:Articles for deletion/2017 NY Times Square attack.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

sort of urgent. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran - I just added to the discussion. Let me know if you have any questions regarding the reason behind my input. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I thought your ping notifications were off so I used the talkback tamplate. There is one more duplicate article. It is currently being discussed on User talk:Mz7. If you would like to participate there, you are more than welcome. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Somalia

Excuse me, but the information that was added to the page was in fact valid. I know this player personally so I would appreciate it if you would add the information back sirKennymiller37 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kennymiller37, and thanks for leaving me a message here! Sorry, but adding content to articles citing personal knowledge or relationships constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All content added to Wikipedia articles must either be able to be attributable to a reliable source, or cited directly to a reliable source. This keeps all information added verifiable and accurate. Please let me know if you have any questions about this policy. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for understanding :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

97x

Hi! Just letting you know that I am re-adding the material you removed from the WXLP page. When I hit submit to add in the content, I realized I forgot the source of the article where I found this at and went back in to add it in when I got the message that you removed it. Just wanted to clear things up here. Jakob9999 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Cannon article

the reason i don't leave any source was because is private i did that to help the Wikipedia updating his personal life probably nobody knows the new but unfortunately for him that's the reality he's also moving to palisade and she's living in mulHolland drive i can' give you the exact location sorry is confidential they have 2 children Celeste Cannon and Remi Cannon.i know more details about him just to let you know, thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0CE:2300:5537:F765:5354:827E (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made an edit to Wikipedia:Sandbox that clearly shows you have no life. In the future, please remember to get a life, because if you don't have a life, you're dead—both figuratively and literally. If you have any questions, or if you think I made a mistake, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Okay seriously, congrats on your 200,000th edit! Here's a cup of coffee to help you recover from your Wikiholism. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympique Lyonnais (Women)

Hello Oshwah Ok i'm new on wikipedia and you're the first that explain me how it works when you have to modify an article. It's a minor edit on OL (women) page that described all the games played by this team in European cups. Excuse for my english it's not so good but i try to improve more. Friendly regards fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredc6671 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Border Action Team

Border Action Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Contentious article, I presume. Protect or delete? Jim1138 (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim1138 - I'd say neither, to be honest. It's not being heavily vandalized, the content removed looked to have NPOV issues, and it doesn't fit a CSD criterion. I'd say that if it doesn't look to be notable, nominate it for AFD ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ldsengineers

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cahk -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Gielgud

Thanks for protecting the John Gielgud article. Please could you explain your comment: "Reviewing the history in-depth over the last three days show that there's disputes and edit warring from user groups of all levels. Forcing dispute resolution practices by all those involved."? Did you also take into account the wild accusations made by the IP on my talk page that I am unable to look up references, their statement they intend to continue to edit war etc? Or that the IP seems unable to grasp the basic concepts of Wikipedia and despite being asked to take it to the article talk page did not do so? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also ask if the talk page of one of the IPs used was looked at? It has been explained to them that refs supporting the information are already supplied; the IP responds with accusations of people editing logged out. Were you also aware that the article was TFA when all this kicked off? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sagaciousphil, and thanks for leaving me a message with your questions. I'll be happy to explain my thought process and the reasons behind the protection of the article. Looking at the history over the last few days, it's clear that there are content disputes and that back-and-fourth reverting occurred between multiple users of all access levels and user types, as well as different IP addresses (or to word it more appropriately, non-registered users - there are different IPs in the history that clearly belong to one person). This back-and-fourth reverting occurred in-place of dispute resolution, and over content-related matters (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). I understand that you're perhaps frustrated or even upset over the messages left on your talk page; communicating with users who are behaving irrationally and making accusations that are unsubstantiated towards you is certainly not an easy task... not at all. However, the reason behind my decision to fully protect the article came from the back-and-fourth reversions that were occurring between two other users, you're in a content dispute with an IP address, and two IP addresses were even edit warring over a template... full protection was absolutely what was needed in order to stop the edit warring and nudge all users involved to seek dispute resolution on the article's talk page (angry messages and accusations don't count... haha). I hope this response thoroughly explains my rationale behind the decision I made, as well as the statement I made in response to the report filed at RFPP. If you have any more questions or concerns, please let me know. I'll be happy to assist you further. I wish you good luck with resolving the matter, and I hope that everyone chooses to sort out each individual dispute at-hand and do so rationally and peacefully. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding; I guess I'm expected to take it that you have no intention whatsoever of issuing any advice/reprimand etc to the IP? Also please explain why you feel the edits you link are incorrect? Editors have clearly stated reasons why the edits were reverted (not referenced, trivial etc etc). This honestly feels as if you are treating several established editors with nothing but contempt. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sagaciousphil - That's actually what I'll be doing next ;-). All I've done so far is determine whether or not page protection was justified giving the report filed at RFPP, and (if so) what level of protection would stop the disruption in a manner that is both necessary and fair - that's all. I had to step away for a bit and take care of a few things before I had a chance to examine things further. Now that I'm back, I'll be going through discussions and messages and taking action if necessary - you just gotta give me time ;-). Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, despite previously stating "Reviewing the history in-depth [...] show ...", it is only now that this is going to be reviewed "in depth"? It's okay to add unreferenced information to FAs? It's okay for IPs to maintain something is unreferenced despite having two reliable sources in situ? No one bothered about the message left on my talk page by the IP hours ago? Or them accusing others of editing logged out? As I see you are now editing elsewhere and had stated above "That's actually what I'll be doing next" I guess I must again conclude that you have decided the IPs actions are acceptable, fully endorsed and to be condoned? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The IP address who messaged you on your talk page (31.52.160.34) was adding a {{fact}} tag to the article, this IP (70.185.178.206) added unreferenced content here but a source was later added with it after its removal (diff), and this IP (31.52.165.95) was simply changing the definition of a term in the article (diff)... where's this addition of unsourced content you're speaking of? What IPs are "maintaining unreferenced content"? Can you provide me with diffs please? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you obviously do not understand. The addition of the "fact" tag was done to a sentence already fully supported by two refs or perhaps you didn't notice that? The diff you offer up as "simply changing the definition of a term" - really? Earlier I made the effort on the article talk page to supply further refs for the 'fervently homophobic' wording as demanded by the IP but I can see I was wasting my time. The 31.52 IPs are blatantly the same individual as can be seen by the talk pages. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see that there have been attempts to discuss the matters in concern, and I hope discussions continue peacefully. I've protected the article from further edit warring so that all parties will discuss the issues at-hand, and I've warned the IP regarding civility and making accusations without evidence. I know that you're frustrated over this matter and I apologize if you believed that my edits in other pages made you feel or believe that I was finished or that I'm no longer looking into the matter - I multitask in different areas; I didn't forget about you :-). In the end, the protection was made due to the back-and-fourth reverting. The fact that discussions were taking place doesn't mean that those editors can continue reverting one another repeatedly and edit war - that act in itself is disruptive, hence the action I took. I don't understand exactly why you are perhaps frustrated with the action I've taken... what exactly is causing your continued frustration? How can I help? What else do you want me to do? What action that I could take would be fair in your opinion? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No remonstration was left on the IPs talk page until after I'd complained but thank you for finally doing something about that. I note the accusations made by the IP on my talk page are not considered worth bothering to mention though, so evidently the comments/accusations made are acceptable or even agreed with? The fact the IP was tagging something which was already fully referenced has also been ignored and glossed over - as has the fact the IP will no doubt shift to yet another IP the next time they log in, so "discussions" cannot properly be tracked and, as I indicated earlier, should actually be taking place on the article talk page. Above you asked "What IPs are "maintaining unreferenced content"? - please indicate where I used the words "maintaining unreferenced content" as it's in quote marks? I believe what I actually said was "maintain something is unreferenced despite having two reliable sources in situ?" which is entirely different (but, of course, I'm forgetting that I'm incapable of looking up refs so I shouldn't be surprised that my reading abilities are also in doubt, should I?). Yes, I am frustrated as well as angry that I have wasted a great deal of time finding additional refs for something that is already fully sourced when my time could have been better spent working on one of the articles I was expanding. I am logging off now so we'll see if "discussions continue peacefully" or if the IP is permitted to carry out their stated intentions of continuing to edit war once the full protection expires. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that just because I didn't reference the edits that the IP made on your talk page does not mean that what the IP did was acceptable per Wikipedia's policies. The warning I left was to give the IP the clear understanding that what he's been doing recently is not acceptable, and simply gave a few specific examples. I think that you're making the right decision by logging off for a bit and taking a break... give yourself time to cool off emotionally and allow yourself to evaluate the situation when you're no longer frustrated or angry. You're angry and to the point where you're taking unrelated and insignificant context in my responses and edits, and you're making incorrect assumptions and assuming bad faith... I think that, when you come back after cooling off and allowing yourself time away, you'll (hopefully) see and realize that. The actions I've taken in response to the issue reported in RFPP are done, and unless significant events change, there's nothing more I'm going to be doing. It's up to everyone involved to make the right decisions, follow Wikipedia's polices, and resolve your disputes with one another in discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in, but if the concern, from Sagaciousphil's perspective, is edit warring by unregistered editors, then perhaps a slightly extended period of pp-semi would be useful? It would force the IPs to engage on the article's talk page—which, as best I can tell, they have so far been unwilling to do—and thus hopefully encourage the D part of WP:BRD. It will of course not do anything regarding civility and related issues, but those are usually much easier for an uninvolved admin to deal with once the content issues (which admins are prohibited from engaging with while acting in their capacity as admins) are out of the picture. It would, slightly, privilege the registered editors; but I feel a presumption that they will engage in proper dispute resolution is not unwarranted, and if problems with civility or ownership should materialise they can be dealt with as needed.

PS. SagaciousPhil: I thought your post on the article's talk page was a very good start. I would encourage you to re-post that and focus on any objective arguments the IP editor(s) make, and just ignore any lack of civility (including any aspersions made) on their part. I imagine Oshwah will keep an eye on the article, at least for a little while, after the full protection expires, and can deal with any unconstructive behaviour as needed. These things tend to sort themselves out eventually, even if it's incredibly frustrating in the thick of it. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this issue. I'll make the points about the article on the Talk page in due course, but as far as the dispute goes, if you haven't already seen these diffs it would be worth a look. [11][12][13][14][15][16] (edit summary on the last one). I'm not the only one to be uncivil, it would seem. The diffs and the discussion above highlight worrying issues at Wikipedia; the discrimination and contempt that some editors show towards IP editors, and a fundamental lack of understanding about policy being the two key issues. By no stretch of the imagination could my edits be described as vandalism, and as far as I know, it's entirely permissible to challenge a statement with a fact tag. Such tags should not be arbitrarily removed, as has been done here. Worse, is that the supposed reference to the disputed assertion simply isn't valid, but I'll go into detail on the talk page about that one. Finally, the comment above from Xover yet again illustrates contempt (mild in this case) towards IP editors - shovel them off the scene by SP. 31.52.160.34 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

Hey! I found this IP editor: Special:Contributions/188.141.7.213 while scouring the recent changes page who seems to be using the user talk page of an unregistered user as a sandbox: this one. I've tagged it for speedy deletion, but it took me a while to find out the intent of the IP editor. Can you take a look into this matter? Perhaps create a draft to shift the edits the user has made and then delete the pages? The IP editor is also using their own talk page for working on articles, even after being blocked for a month and warned regarding the same. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 12:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. The issue has been resolved, thanks to Athaenara! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 13:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging it, Jiten Dhanda. That IP user had continued after previous blocks; I blocked it for another 3 months. – Athaenara ✉ 13:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your $20 is in the mail. 207.93.13.150 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athea

Hi,

Which edit, can you advise. As I live in the village of Athea.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nephinlodge (talk • contribs) 22:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please examine your reversion

the correct anagram is "acutally minus"

If it is, can you please cite a reference to a reliable source that verifies this? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please check your reversion

no citation is needed. the original anagram is obviously in correct because it contains 2 u's. if you need to check the correctness of the new anagram use wordsmith.org/anagram/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6005:2:3D58:B22C:2C81:D2E9 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why

I'm writing about my own family. How on earth do I provide citations.

Steven Weinstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slarcorp (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please revert your reversion

to be more clear, the original text states, "lunatic asylum" (an anagram of "analytic sum"). please notice the 2 u's in the original. the incorrect anagram has only one u. "analytic sum" is not an anagram of "lunatic asylum", "actually minus" is such an anagram.

Dear; Oshwash

Dear; Oshwash
Can you show me how to delete pages I'm not causing vandalism or a Scandal. TTTEFan2017 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TTTEFan2017, and welcome to Wikipedia! While you can't delete pages, you can tag or nominate them for deletion. You'll want to review Wikipedia's deletion process, which outlines and explains the different deletion processes and the criteria that articles and pages must meet in order to be eligible to be put through that process. Please let me know if you have any questions after reading this guideline, and I'll be happy to answer them. Happy editing, and welcome again! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No point in recent changes patrolling

Well, it is useless as long as you, and Clue are online. Whenver I try to revert, it says already reverted by Oshwash, or ClueBot. You guys are very fast lol. my Lupin is slow :-/

That reminds me, could you process my request for rollback? Approval/denial whatever seems to be the good choice best on my contrib history? My request has been just hanging there since a very long time now. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here you go. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I actually was expecting a denial though lol. May i ask if it is you in the photo on your userpage? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usernamekiran - You're welcome! While I see you've made some mistakes, I feel that your intentions are good, you're receptive to feedback and have the desire to learn and move on, and that if given the chance and the opportunity show that you can move forward and handle the use of user permissions, you'll be extra cautious and do what it takes to not repeat the same mistakes and show that you're learning from your past. Nobody is perfect, and I'll never expect them to be. Just do exactly what I hope you'll do - use caution, ask questions if you're unsure, and use this opportunity to show that you're learning from your mistakes and that you're able to do what you need to do in order to avoid repeating them. This is a behavior and skill that is absolutely critical. If you get this down, you'll most definitely have no issues moving on and these mistakes will be long in the past. My talk page is always open to you, and I'll be more than happy to mentor you and make sure that you keep on track and continue doing the good things you're doing. I hope you allow me to do this ;-). Either way, I wish you good luck and I wish you happy editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) According to the file summary, the answer is yes, it is Oshwah. Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's me! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Adam9007: lol. You are very young Oshwah. I used to think most of the admins are 35+ in age. You also look like someone who likes and enjoys humour.
Yes, you are spookily right about everything. Especially about learning. I am 100% sure that I will not repeat any mistakes, and 99% sure that i will not mess-up on source-code levels. Thankfully, I will be travelling a lot in next 3-4 days. I will do normal copy-editing meanwhile, and read/practice everything about rollback. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll continue to make mistakes, Usernamekiran. That's a completely normal part of learning, growing, and becoming experienced with the project here. If you're not making occasional mistakes, then you're not learning. Now don't take this the wrong way... this is not in any ways an implication that you should go make mistakes and become careless - that's where many people fall through the cracks and see themselves being managed out... they get careless. I'm saying that you shouldn't scare yourself so cold and into thinking that you can't make mistakes EVAR and that they only hurt you... that's absolutely not true at all! The editors here who I see as the most experienced and seasoned, and whom I genuinely respect and look to for guidance - all have numerous "battle scars" from making mistakes. I, myself, have made a shit ton of mistakes - we all do. What separates the experienced from the new, and makes leaders out of followers are those that have the true desire to learn, and have strong collaboration and communication skills with others and benefit from those hurdles. Now put your head up, look forward, and take a deep breath. Take another....... now start moving forward :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I understand you.
See you around. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 00:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jableh

I removed the data from Jableh as it is inaccurate; I should have till I had time to fix it with more reliable sources however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuhesh (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jableh

I forgot to sign my post. Anyway, the data for Jableh is inaccurate so I deleted it. If you check the second source what's in the box doesn't match the sources data.

Abuhesh (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mamma Mia! (film)

Sorry. I don't know how to put in a reliable source. I just from time to time make edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.222.43 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jason knight hick diaz

hi mate why did you change my jason knight ufc fighter hick diaz edit it is his nickname 

ps:this is my first edit so sorry if i have messaged you the wrong way


Gidders (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here is a traingle shaped award

Warning icon keep stopping the bad guy vandals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:381:101:142:504A:71CF:709E:FBFD (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hello. Can you fix the problem[18]? Because user GünniX is offline now. Thank you. 162.244.239.220 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick and Morty (season 3)

Hi, if you happen to be on could you please see :https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&type=revision&diff=781382899&oldid=781382734

The protection expired and the vandalism almost immediately resumed. Thanks! Morty C-137 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morty C-137! Looks like the page's protection has been extended. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not for right now but can you keep an eye on it? I'd expect the problem to resume if the season hasn't started up by the time protection expires. Cartoon Network / Adult Swim's pages are less than easy to read, and the "next showing" page for some reason keeps getting us a bunch of anonymous readers who think they've found a stealth listing or something and can't be bothered to check the actual schedule to see what the episode titles will be. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do what I can. If you notice more problems after the protection expires, just let me know or file a request at WP:RFPP. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor comes back

Hello! The IP editor (User:112.198.75.246) that you've blocked a couple of days ago has come back to do disruptive changes in the page Love in the Moonlight. I think the page needs protection for it to stop. Thank you! 45.123.197.253 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Twitter?

I'm trying to learn how to do edits based on something someone tweeted. Could you help me learn how to do that correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tb2186 (talk • contribs)

Hi Tb2186! Sure! Wikipedia's guideline on citing sources in-line should provide you with all of the information you need. Be careful with citing Twitter though; I don't believe we encourage that practice. Please let me know if you have questions after reading the guideline I provided for you. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake

Hello I edited the article and you removed what I wrote. I don't understand why? Zareh is the BBQ master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.247.19 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Sarah Walford and WP:DUCK

I'm sure your rationale for blocking Sarah Walford was sound, and your suspicion that the account was a sockpuppet has been borne out at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiko4564. However, your stated rationale and the reason you expressed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Carolmooredc ("I believe that the average user / admin would agree under the WP:DUCK clause.") make no sense at all.

Have you actually read WP:DUCK? In what way does Sarah Walford leaving a message for Carolmooredc relate to anything in that essay?

Had you said so, I would agree with you 100% that by leaving that message, Sarah Walford had signaled her intention to be a disruptive editor. Except you didn't say so, and Wikipedia administrators are not supposed to block editors on suspicion of what they might do. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malik Shabazz, and thanks for leaving your message here and providing your concerns. Yeah, invoking WP:DUCK wouldn't have applied in this case, as there's no behavior to compare to another username - I agree with you, and I appreciate you for pointing this out. However, I believe in a general measure that when there are actions made by an account that suggest strongly enough or give enough suspicion that a user is a sock puppet, that blocking under that suspicion is justified based off of those actions (whatever they may be). Again, I really appreciate your input here, and I do agree that WP:DUCK wouldn't apply like I had said it had. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sash-windows

Just curious, why was User talk:Sash-windows deleted? It's not very common for user talk pages to be deleted. FYI I left this user two warnings before you blocked them (thanks for that, by the way). Altamel (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Altamel! That user's talk page was deleted per G11. The account used it to self-promote. And I agree - it's rare, and I probably would have just been better off removing it manually instead of deleting :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in my experience G11 is generally not used on user talk pages. From WP:DELTALK, it seems that user talk page deletion is reserved for offenses in G3/G10 territory. Yes, I agree it would have been better to revert to the last version without promotional material. The other thing is that I'm just curious what they posted on their talk. I've been keeping a close eye on this user's edits in case they move on to other articles or promoting other websites. Altamel (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Altamel - I ended up restoring the history of that page. The deletion was not justified. Thanks for the message; I very much appreciate it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It turned out to be exactly as I feared—they left a message protesting the deletion of the content. Whether the user is blocked or not, I feel obligated to give a detailed, non-templated explanation when so requested. Altamel (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Altamel. And thank you for poking me about this. I'm always open to feedback and re-evaluation :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah

You reverted my edit on the Auf Wiedersehen Pet page. What do you think was wrong with it? I'm a big fan of the show and have edited it before but I was just putting down the opinions of Jimmy Nail and Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais on the second series. Is it too biased if it's the opinions of people that worked on a show/film? Notice how I added that the series got great viewing figures. I just think it's not only good when someone can criticize their own work no matter how popular it is but gives people info they might not otherwise have known. Did I over indulge or is it not right for the page? Thanks. HOTTUBGUY (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HOTTUBGUY! And thank you for leaving a message with your questions. I'll be happy to help you. I think that there are portions of your changes that have problems, but they don't seem major. I restored all of your changes up to your last one you made (see here). I'm going to go through each diff, and (if you don't mind), I'll assist you with the issues and help you fix them - is that cool? Other than that, the article has been restored to your second most recent change. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers :-D -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah

I've no problem with any changes that need to be made. As you can tell I only occasionally edit. Do you think what I added about Jimmy Nail, Ian La Frenais and Dick Clement's opinions shouldn't be there at all or pared right down? I made sure to add the sources of their views. I appreciate your opinion. 04:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No way! Keep em up; we're review and go over them, and I'll help you improve them :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Last year you kept undoing an edit I made to the Nord University wiki page (even though I was correct), you kept sending me warnings. I just wondered why you never apologised (I assume you have since noticed that I was right?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordicsam (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (MZ vandalism protection)

Thanks for the attention to, and protection of, MZ (company) and Game of War: Fire Age. I have struggled against this vandalism (likely the same editor) in the past. To me, the sad thing is that I nearly share the vandal's opinion, while recognizing that it's not appropriate to express it in the articles. He's almost got a useful contribution to make; his position could probably be backed up with sources and expressed in a way that complies with WP:NPOV, if he tried to do so instead of editing as a vandal. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lwarrenwiki - thank you for the message and for the kind words. You're quite welcome; I'm always happy to assist in any way I can and try and make life easier for others :-). Yes, it's always quite unfortunate and disappointing to see the choices some editors and users resort to when in conflict, disagreement, or when they want to push a viewpoint. Over the years that I've been here, I've seen a lot of good and skillful editors with high potential (many of which I tried to mentor) lose it, spiral downwards one way or another, and eventually become blocked or banned from the project. Those are the ones that get to me in particular. Really, all you can do is give it your best. There are some people, no matter how well-intended they may be - that just can't be helped. You can bend over backwards and slave yourself over providing them numerous opportunities to learn and improve, and many will just not take them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katy B

Hello,

Sorry I was trying to update the pic for Katy B and not too sure what happened! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originallankstar (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gigi LaMayne

Oshwah, I just realised our warnings at User talk:Gigi LaMayne are pretty pointless, because all their edits are from 2014—15. Somebody reported the user to UAA, wasn't it, and we just assumed it was a current problem, both you and I. Not that we need to change anything, but just, sigh. So it goes. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. Join me in some frog cakes. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen! Arrgh! Good catch on your part - I can tell you that I definitely did not notice the date of the edits from that user. Oh well... like you said above, "so it goes". lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of page of Elize Ryd

I guess this is misunderstanding as Richard Söderberg died more than 25 years before she sang that song with Rickard Söderberg.

Henkka hurricane (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10/10 revert m8

my edit wasn't vandalism

in fact you could argue that i was getting rid of vandalism, so you essentially just reverted the page back into a vandalised state

the villain's name is mr. dark, it's not mr. dank, some guy changed every instance of dark to dank on the page, all i did was replace all the danks with darks

92.21.13.43 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)anonymous editor[reply]

Jeremy Rall

The age on the Jeremy Rall page was added earlier this year and is wrong. What is the note that cites the current age posted? Please remove or correct the age.

23:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatboy21 (talk • contribs)

Nanga Parbat

My edit to Nanga Parbat was not a mistake. Please review edit summary before reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00E:C6B8:114D:6E54:AED1:370F (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, for once, look into things before you revert.

Alright, listen bud, this is about the third time this has happened between you and me and it's getting old.

If you'd actually go through the article history before you just revert me, you'd see that I'm undoing damage done by a pro-fringe POV-pusher. Since that type of editor seems to edit in a bunch of small pieces rather than one large one, I can't simply just revert them, so I don't always fill in the edit comment. Then you come in and drive-by revert while I'm in the middle of making another edit, ruining the whole thing.

Please either start being more observant or just stop completely. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the frustration, but you didn't explain any of your edits with an edit summary. I highly recommend that you start doing this, as it's a practice that's both common and expected. It will also avoid confusion (such as this) in the future. If you have any questions about edit summaries, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. I appreciate your message, and I wish you happy editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No subject

You have removed vital information to the page of Population Transfer, which I have added, calming that I did not show references, which I certainly did. How do you explain that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juventis1 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juventis1 - The content you added (here). This is why it was removed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I Had a Million Dollars Lyrics Addition

Hi, you keep reverting my edits to the If I Had a Million Dollars Wikipedia page. I am trying to add a section with the textual lyrics for the previously stated song. I am also trying to add a hyperlink to the popular YouTube lyrics video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4L3ls_6UYg, by RustyHandgun. I think the lyrics could help out the page. If the formatting for my edits is incorrect or not "clean", then please say so, and I will attempt to fix it. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.99.168 (talk • contribs)

(tps): The lyrics are copyrighted, so cannot be legally included due to US copyright law. See WP:SONG#LYRICS for a full explanation of the issues with including lyrics and music videos. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barek is correct - lyrics are copyrighted and they cannot be included in articles. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Happy editing -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cidny Bullens

Hi there, Oshwah,

You had left a message on my page regarding the Cidny Bullens page. Bullens identifies as transgender and goes by Cidny instead of Cindy so I thought it appropriate to change his name from Cindy to Cidny.

Henrylucasjean (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Best, henrylucasjean[reply]

Well i would like to know what disruptive edits I'm making? Gidman2003 (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)User:Gidman2003[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=781926474"