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 Dwayne158 (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 18 January 2019 (→hi: new section). 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.


Deleted user page AEK1961

I am at a loss as to why you felt it necessary to delete my user page. I have been engaging with a number of other admins with no problem. All I am trying to do is understand the way you work to get corrections on a page. It does seem that multiple inputs are arbitary and disconnected to the input of others . . . Pls advise —— — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEK1961 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AEK1961! Thank you for leaving me a message with your questions and concerns regarding the deletion of your user page. I went ahead and took another look at it, and I'm inclined to agree that you're correct and that I perhaps misread a sentence or something else that made me believe that deletion of your user page was the right action to take. I've gone ahead and restored it for you. Please accept my apologies for what happened, and please do not hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything else. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your response but have to ask why on earth multiple, seemingly unconnected admins, can dabble like this. From my perspective the whole process of engagement is marked by disconnected individuals taking a variety of contradictory actions some of which come across as deliberately obstructive to the point of bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEK1961 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again AEK1961! I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Can you elaborate a bit more and provide a few examples so that I can answer your questions? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simple really, different individuals seem to take unilateral action based on their interpretation of posts etc. This is done whilst others, previous to their intervention have signalled approval and thanks for my transparency in the detail I provided and we were moving the editing of the page I was interacting with forward. Beyond that in editing the page different individuals would add their 'edit' which was without reference to anyone else, including one who it transpired had a COI. In doing this referenced evidence was ignored and more detail requested despite an earlier editor being satisfied. On to of this I found myself previously barred, prior to your intervention, as a first response by another admin for infringing a rule that was not apparent until the multiplke reference pages referenced were investigated. AEK1961 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AEK1961 - Depending on the request and the actions to be taken, editors and administrators are allowed to use their discretion to edit pages and carry out certain tasks, so long as they're compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's a founding principle of Wikipedia that editors are encouraged to be bold and not worry so much about every single rule or worry about being punished or scolded for editing in good faith. Your edits might be reverted and someone might message you to let you know about your edit and what it may have done wrong or incorrectly, but we completely understand that you're new here and that you obviously won't know every single Wikipedia policy or guideline - I still don't. It's also a founding policy that no editors have any ownership of content, so anyone is free to edit any page or project they please if their aim is to improve it. :-)
Most policies and guidelines do not require a discussion first until another editor reverts the edit or action and takes issue with it. If somebody else does and you disagree with them and still think that your edit was correct and did not violate any policies, you both need to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol, discuss the matter with each other in a civil manner, and come to a peaceful consensus. Editors are free to undo the edits of others and disagree - in fact, this is the correct action to take on certain pages pending a discussion, such as biographies of living persons, but you also are free to start a discussion with the user (usually on the article or page's talk page) and the other editor is expected to respond and explain their actions. This also applies to administrators and any actions that they take as well. While dealing with discussions and issues between yourself and other editors can be frustrating, conflicts and disagreements between editors is inevitable; that's why it's expected of all editors to discuss disagreements, and also why edit warring is disallowed and considered disruptive.
Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before doing anything else here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and it led to them being saved hours (if not over a day's worth) of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. If you have any more questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to discuss them with you and help you further. Thanks again for the message and your responses - I'm more than willing to work with you and help you with any questions or concerns. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No subject

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Just having a bit of fun...(do it back) GOLDIEM J (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GOLDIEM J! HA! Thanks for the trout, and I hope you had a fun and safe new year. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol you're welcome😅 Happy new year 2u2. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC) (can't believe it took you that time to notice it)[reply]

duff mckagan

What was the source that said he was known as Duff "Rose" McKagan? Was the singer known as Axl "McKagan" Rose? I just read Mr. McKagan's autobiography, "It's so easy (and other lies)", and I can tell you he was NEVER known as "Rose".[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.181.249 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "It's so easy (and other lies)", by Duff McKagan, 2011
What is the source of this autobiography? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah - Re Ziggy Stardust album release date

Hi there My web page is www.5years.com (The Ziggy Stardust Companion) I specialise in that album and the 16 June release date does not agree with any references or Bowie books I have read in the last 20 years. I did see it crop up recently in a booklet for the Five Years boxset (2015) but again I think thats a very recent mistake which has now been repeated on Wiki Happy to keep chatting about this. regards Mike Harvey [REDACTED - Oshwah] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.169.186 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review this policy, and make sure you understand that Wikipedia requires reliable sources to support the information. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Wineland

Hi there..thank you for your note regarding a change I made to my daughters Wiki page. This is the first time I have done any Wiki editing and would love to understand what edit you were referring to so I can try to adhere to policies. Melissa.Yeager1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa.Yeager1 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melissa.Yeager1, and thanks for the message! Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you spend time making any more edits or changes. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and it led to them being saved hours (if not over a day's worth) of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise.
On a side note, I saw in your message above that the article subject you're editing is of your daughter. Please know that this represent a clear conflict of interest issue here when you do this. The community will typically not accept changes made to articles from editors who show a clear conflict of interest with the article subject like this. You should not be making any edits or changes to articles where this is a problem, and for many reasons - one of which being that it compromises the aritcle's content and its neutrality, since editors who modify articles in these conflict-areas will add content that reflect a viewpoint that is not neutral, which degrades the overall quality of the article as a whole. Please consider participating in other areas that interest you, but where this is not an issue. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great rest of your day and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will absolutely do the tutorial, thank you for the information. I am just trying to make sure her page is accurate and I don't see what you mean about conflict of interest but will educate myself on the wiki world. Is it ok if I upload a different picture? It is a family owned pic, just more recent than the one there. If you don't have time to reply, no worries, I will research my questions. Happy New Year (Melissa.Yeager1 (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Melissa.Yeager1 - Go through the new user tutorial first before you decide to do this. There are copyright issues that need to be known and sorted out before you do this. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link page

Hello Oshwah,I will put my piece in again with a link,if you don't feel that meets the authenticity issue,then I'll just stop because there will be no other thing I could add,thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daubje (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daubje! That sounds perfectly fine to me! I believe that this was the only issue, so adding a reliable source would resolve the concerns expressed. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

My name's quite similar to yours. Joshua. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man! Happy new year! Indeed; your name does sound pretty similar to my username now that I sound both of them out loud and think about it... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really does doesn't it? Happy new year to you 2😀 GOLDIEM J (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,I fixed it.In the future I will make sure I get all the facts to show up in the references and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daubje (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daubje - Thanks for following up with me here and for letting me know that you modified the article. Looking at your edit here, I see where you re-added the summary of the events and mention some details of the court case and ruling, but I still don't see where you added a citation and with an external link to a web document or page where this information is stated and verifies what you added here. This is what I meant when I told you here that a reference is needed. Were you able to locate an external link or URL that points to the court case documentation that you're trying to source? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a satisfactory reason in the edit summary.

^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.57.129 (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a notice here regarding your edit to the Young adult fiction article. The reason I reverted your edit to the article was because of what I noticed when looking at the overall edit history of that article. You removed content from the article and immediately reverted yourself twice. After I saw that you had removed nearly the same content a third time, I felt that it was the right thing in my capacity as someone who was patrolling recent changes because I thought that you may have been having issues or that you might have needed help to properly do what you wanted to do. I saw your edit summaries and (in normal context) I wouldn't have given your edit summaries much thought and I would have simply moved on to the next edit on my plate. When I said in my edit summary that your edit summary didn't seem "sufficient", I simply meant that, given your repeated circle of edits to the article that were ongoing, there seemed to be other issues that weren't being explained and I was going to try and work with you to see what's going on. Unfortunately, what often happens given the level of things I patrol, take on, and handle when others ask me for help, I got sidetracked with an urgent request and I wasn't able to follow up nearly as quickly as I planned on doing. My edit summary could also have been much more clear with what I was trying to say; I left it assuming that I'd be following up with you right afterwards. Looking at it today and given that I didn't, I'd understand how it could have been interpreted to mean that you had left no summary at all - which obviously isn't the case. It looks like the content is going into dispute due to the number of editors that are becoming involved with the issue at-hand. I hope that things get resolved peacefully and that the right decision is made and with the quality of the article's content, and the project as the primary focus. Thanks again for the message, and I hope my response here explained my thought process and that you now understand that I as only trying to step in and try and help. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Life (album)

Hello. I created the article Tree of Life (album) in the past which was later deleted but someone written it again under Tree of Life (Audiomachine album). Could you merge them? Eurohunter (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurohunter! Sure, I can do that for you right now. Stand by... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eurohunter -  Done. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eurohunter - No problem; always happy to help. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ossett

The information on the page Ossett about Ossett United F.C. was out of date and I edited it to correct it. Sorry for not adding the information, do you mind if I revert the edit back to what I edited it as? Thank you! Hiitsmebobby (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hiitsmebobby! No worries; please don't apologize. :-) What edit are you talking about specifically? I can't seem to find it... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It said in the sport section that Ossett Town and Ossett Albion were still two separate clubs but from the start of the 2018-19 season, it was one club under the name Ossett United. I edited it to correct it, and my edit was reverted for not putting a suitale comment. Cheers. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hiitsmebobby! Ah, okay - I understand now. Your edits were reverted because you did not take the time to locate a reliable source and cite it in-line with your changes. Any edits that add or modify content that's beyond typical knowledge should be cited by a reliable source. This is needed in order to establish a high degree of verifiability - otherwise, people who read and review the article can't assess the accuracy and legitimacy of its content. This is a founding principle that makes Wikipedia a reliable place for readers to visit. Otherwise, nobody would bother to visit this website at all. :-)
I see that your account is over a year old and that you've made a good number of contributions so far. However, if sources, edit summaries, and other things like this confuse you or if you need a refresher on the basics, just go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial and it'll help resolve that. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,I added the link to Massachusetts Court Electronic Access and put it under [6] with the referencesDaubje (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daubje! No problem; always happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:TheWikiWizard

Hi Oshwah. If you can/don't mind can you review my request above? Thanks. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thegooduser - Sorry for being late to the party, but it looks like Xaosflux has already responded to your request. If you have any questions, I'd direct them his way. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John McTiernan

Hi Oshwah,

Regarding the change of edit I made, I find your change to be inaccurate, and biased. Perhaps you believe McTiernan is a “former” filmmaker, but I do not. So how do we rectify that?

Calling someone, who is alive, “former” is not correct. Much akin to your sabbatical while in school.

Please leave the “former” omitted.

Thanks.

FactsMatter1 Factsmatter1 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Factsmatter1 - Someone who is still alive can be a "former" employee of a career path. They can change careers, retire, or quit - so please know that you don't have to be dead to be a "former filmmaker". In fact, someone who is no longer alive should still be called a filmmaker, etc. - the word "was" will imply that they're now dead. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hookworms edit

What part of the edit were you not happy with? I thought everything was cited ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.219 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Please see the response I made to you on your user talk page, as I explain everything there. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hookworms edit

What part of the edit were you not happy with? I thought everything was cited ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.219 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we've already resolved your concerns on your user talk page. Please let me know if this is not the case and exactly what wasn't resolved and I'll be happy to help you further. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User page deleted

Hello!

After editing an article, I started working on a user page, so people could see my credentials (just like I show my students how to check the credentials of Wikipedia writers).

Imagine my disappointment to see you deleted if for being a personal webpage. Three sentences about myself constitutes a personal page? How shall I word it so it remains?

Yourfavoritelibrarian (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yourfavoritelibrarian! I apologize for misinterpreting your user page in regards to WP:NOTHOST and WP:UPNOT. To explain and to put things into perspective: Unfortunately, many editors will create an account, add stuff to their user page (either a bunch of stuff about themselves, a bunch of blatant advertising, or something that are serious violations of policy. They'll add this content, make no edits to Wikipedia outside of that page, and then they'll leave. Part of what I do is review these pages and remove the ones that need such. I misinterpreted your user page as one of those places, and for this I owe you my apologies. I'm restoring the content you added to it now; give me about two minutes and you'll be able to see it as you could before. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yourfavoritelibrarian - I've restored your user page as promised. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns and I'll be happy to discuss it with you and make sure that everything is answered and addressed. Thanks for leaving me a message and for bringing this to my attention, and I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ORIGIN OF MAGARS

IT WAS MISSED - KHAM LANGUAGE IS A ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MAGARS WHICH IS IN TIBET ORIGIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.39.49 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted your change was because I didn't believe that it was part of the template. If you look here, your change broke the template and this is why I reverted it. If you have questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Bob Cranmer page

I maintain the Bob Cranmer page. Mr. Cranmer wrote a best-selling book titled "The Demon of Brownsville Road" which has its own Wikipedia page. People who are not aware of this occasionally add to his personal (political career) page facts that are related specifically to his book, which is referenced on the career page. Mr. Cranmer is a former notable politician and his personal page primarily covers his career. Details about his involvement with his book are covered at length on the book's page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceneridge (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sceneridge, and thank you for leaving me a message here with your input. When I read your edit summaries left with your removal of content, I interpreted them incorrectly and thinking that you were saying that the content should be removed simply because the article subject doesn't like it, which was the reason why I reverted them back. Now that I read them a second time (as well as your explanation here), I understand now what you meant and I'll leave you to it in order to fix and improve. Please accept my apologies for the misinterpretation, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for watching the page. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceneridge (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sceneridge - You're welcome. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Happy New Year! Hope you have a successful 2019, plus why have you givin me two warnings when I have only done 1 edit? 81.156.238.15 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I just took a look on your user talk page, and I honestly don't know how that managed to happen. You're correct; you should have only received one warning for the edit you made... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're lucky you ran into Oshwah, who's a nice guy. I might have blocked you on the spot. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct with that Drmies, he's very nice, why can I not edit my user page. 81.156.238.15 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You edited my section! Don’t steal my section 81.156.238.15 revert it back to where I wrote it again! 124.168.227.180 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what was that about? Tommy has a great username (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Trusova

Hello, Oshwah. You deleted some of my contents. Russian nicknames, or diminutives, are simply short forms of the given name. As opposed to full names used in formal situations, short forms of a name are used in communication between well-acquainted people, usually relatives, friends, and colleagues. Short forms emerged in spoken language for convenience as a majority of formal names are cumbersome.

Sasha is often the nickname used for a person whose given name is Alexander (male) or Alexandra (female).

Alexandra Trusova is known as Sasha Trusova. So I changed her name as Alexandra "Sasha" Vyacheslavovna Trusova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsamiSato28 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AsamiSato28, and thanks for messaging me and for explaining your edits. So long as it isn't disruptive and that it's referenced, that's fine by me and what's most important. If you haven't already done so, feel free to undo my revert and restore your changes back to the article. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, and I'll be happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

my edit

dear oshwah, i am ahmad omar's daughter, and i was researching when i accidentally found this article on wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar). i was thrilled to see my father online, and i thought to myself, let me add two images of him that are saved in my personal laptop. these images are personal and are mine and i assure you copyright regulations will not be violated. i am confused as you have repetitively deleted the images i have uploaded and the minor changes i made such as the spelling of my father's name, saying i needed to cite it and provide a source. the images are personal and the information is personally confirmed accurate. i would appreciate it if you allow me to edit my fathers article a tiny bit and add a few images. i was also thinking i might add more about his life in his biography later, so i need your authorization to continue to edit. thank you, jana husamk festok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janahusamk (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janahusamk - Sorry, but there are two issues here. Your relationship with this article subject represents a conflict of interest, and anything you add to the article represents original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review these policies and guidelines and let me know if you have any questions. Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you spend time making any more edits or changes. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and it led to them being saved hours (if not over a day's worth) of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. I hope you take my advice. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbaz azmat khel

Yes i am sure my editing is right and also currect about shabaz azmat khel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.9.8 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source that you can link me to that supports what you added? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Malik page

Hi Oshwah, As you can see, there were sources including India Today and the Times of India backing the changes that I made. Are these not reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.254.157 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! When I was reviewing the changes to this article, all I saw was this edit that added this information and nothing else; I wasn't aware that you had already cited references. Please accept my apologies for the mix-up, and please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help answer and discuss them with you. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grr!

Would you quit beating me to reverts? :) (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 20:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelan - LOL :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

same except it's with literally every admin (or whoever does the reverts) ever Tommy has a great username (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media portrayals of transgender people

Hi Oshwah, I'm editing this page to follow Media portrayal of lesbianism and Media portrayal of LGBT people as mentioned in the talk page. I've moved the lists to the appropriate list pages List of transgender and transsexual fictional characters and List of transgender characters in film and television so nothing is being lost. SpeakForMe (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpeakForMe! Cool deal; thanks for the heads up and for letting me know. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue

What happened to the blue background in your page? --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thegooduser - It was cut off by someone inserting an improperly-formatted template. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well fix it, My OCD's going nuts. lol. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just did... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for undeleting my page; here's a big ask

Hello Oshwah!

Thank you so much for undeleting my user page. Editing the Siegel page was the most exciting thing I did over break and having a username will be super useful when I teach the freshman about how to search the history of edits to a Wikipedia article. Here's a question: is it possible to change the author credit of my first edit on the Ralph Siegel page from my IP address to my new username? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Siegel&action=history You should be able to see that I'm writing from that IP address right now: [REDACTED - Oshwah]

Or do I just let it go and start editing other stuff?

≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourfavoritelibrarian (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yourfavoritelibrarian! I apologize for the delay responding to your question here. In short, it is not possible for anyone to modify past edits, revisions, or logs, and change them manually to something different. If this were possible, it would greatly reduce the confidence and reliability of each revision if this were possible. However, if you want your IP address hidden for privacy reasons, email me privately with this request by clicking here and I can do that for you. It will only suppresss the information, not modify it to be something else. I wish you well with your teachings, and I thank you for using Wikipedia to do so. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Vandalism on Talk page

@Oshwah: please remove the vandalism you forget on 72.69.164.229 user talk? Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Tristan Orense -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Racist attack

Hello @Oshwah: can you please advise where I can file an official complaint about racist and bigoted language used by Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs). This user has engaged in racist as well as religiously sectarian and communal language where the section was about clothing, but turned it into a Hindu vs Muslim argument. Using crude, disrespectful and bigoted language like "Hindu garbage". This is not acceptable in Wiki. Please let me know how I can file an official grievance regarding the user's racist attitude. Calling someone or someone's culture "Hindu garbage" is unacceptable. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Highpeaks35, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. The comment by Fowler&fowler you linked above doesn't seem to be anything that he/she meant to purposefully say in order to be uncivil or racist toward those who identify as Muslim or Hindu, or anything against India (although I'd understand if you took things that way; the comment could have certainly been worded much better). I'd advise talking to the user directly by leaving him/her a message on their user talk page here - just be civil and express your concerns appropriately and with a positive mindset and I'm sure that this will be quickly and easily resolved. If you're not satisfied with the outcome of the conversation between the two of you, you're of course able to file an official report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to express your concerns (though I'll predict that the majority of the responses will be similar to the one I said above - that it wasn't an intentional attempt to be uncivil or racist). I wouldn't consider this an issue that needs a report there, but you have the right to file a report nonetheless. If you have any more questions or concerns, let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. Thanks again for the message and I hope things get resolved peacefully and with a quick exchange of positive words with Fowler&fowler. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hello, i recently uploaded my user page as i would like to get a wiki set up in my name, and the page was deleted almost immediatly.after.

I was wondering why and can it be reuploaded.

If not may i have the text from the document? Just as i spent a while on it and would like it, thankyou :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH Noah (talk • contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TH Noah, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. Your user page was deleted due to violating Wikipedia's policies on user pages (specifically, what you cannot have on your user page) as well as Wikipedia's policy on what Wikipedia is not to be used for (specifically, this section). User pages are supposed to be primarily focused on Wikipedia-related content and information, and not supposed to contain excessive content about yourself personally or contain mostly non-Wikipedia-related information (such as what your user page had). This is why your user page was deleted twice (by both myself, as well as Fastily later that day). Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns and I'll be happy to answer the and help you further. Thanks again for the message and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:G PULLAIAH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cahk! Sorry for the delay responding to your message here. It looks like the disruption has stopped since your report, so I'm going to go ahead and just leave things as-is. Otherwise, had I responded during the time it was going on, I would've revoked talk page access as you requested. Keep up the great work, and I'm sure we'll speak again soon. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IRC assistance

Hello, how can a user get banned from accessing IRC? I recently was going to get onto #wikipedia-en connect, but apparently the screen says "you are banned". It seems annoying, however I am not sure how to resolve the trouble. Normally is a user told whether they are banned, because I thought usually a user would be notified. Can anyone be happy to help me understand the request? Because I only am there to talk to you, because it was in relation to the topic ban. Are you able to explain this to me, because I'm not certain. Also I can access other ones no problems :)

Also another quick one, how many users are needed to achieve consensus if a user was doing a topic ban. For example, if a user was being proposed ban from automobiles, do they need to have a set amount of votes. As i guarantee theres going to be an unfair advantage, as it'd be mainly Vauxford and others. I would like you to give me a quick hand. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EurovisionNim! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. I'll be happy to answer them and make sure you've received help with your concerns. What IRC client were you using at the time to connect to #wikipedia-en? If you were attempting to use Freenode's WebChat interface (the built-in web IRC link you see on Wikipedia at many places), the ban you saw could have just been coincidental. During times of extreme abuse from users who are using the web IRC interface to cause disruption to the channel, ops will place a temporary ban that will disallow anyone who is unregistered with Freenode and using the web IRC interface from connecting. If you are currently in the channel at the time the ban is placed and it affects you in any way, you are notified of the ban as soon as it becomes effective and you're removed from the channel. If you attempt to join the channel and you're affected by a current ban, you will be disallowed from joining and you'll see an error notification with a reason for the ban. If more than 24 hours pass and you're still unable to join the channel, you can speak to a channel operator and inquire about your issues by joining the #wikimedia-ops channel and following the instructions that are displayed as soon as you enter. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, or if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to assist you and make sure that all is well. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Sawyer (again)

I know why u removed my edit of the Ray Sawyer page, I forgot to cite my sources, that's clear to me. But I don't know why in the re-edit of Ray Sawyer Date of Death the DATE is NOW INCORRECT!?! Just because I didn't cite the source doesn't mean my information was incorrect, I did explain to u where I got my info.

According to Ray's official Dr Hook featuring Ray Sawyer Facebook page Ray passed away Monday morning December 31, 2018. NOT December 28 as it is now showing. This was posted to said Facebook page, related thru that pages moderator from Ray's wife Linda a few minutes after he passed Monday morning and is where I originally got the information I used to edit Ray Sawyer page that day (but forgot to include source). Could someone please fix that, I don't dare touch it again I don't like nasty notes lol.

(If you're uncomfortable with using the Facebook page as a source, u can also check Google)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ray+Sawyer+dies&oq=Ray+Sawyer+dies&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.8826j0j4&client=ms-android-metropcs-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Much Appreciated

RaysKid (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u for changing the date of death for Ray Sawyer to the correct one.

RaysKid (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RaysKid - No problem; I was simply fixing the issues on the article and restoring the revision text to an appropriate state and with these issues removed. What you probably saw was the article's text during the time that I was attempting to resolve everything. If you have any more questions or concerns, let me know and I'll be happy to work with you and make sure that all is well. Thanks for the message and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help to inform me why you recently deleted my article

Can you help me to edit the itel Mobile article I have created. I think it was narrated in objective way and the whole content has reliable references. So could you have me with this article? Your comments must be useful to me. Thank you so much!

02:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.117.97.4 (talk)

It appears that the article you're referring to has been deleted. Check the deletion log to see the reason and read more information about how to avoid this issue in the future. Alternatively, you can use Wikipedia's articles for creation process to create a draft page and allow yourself time to expand the article and submit it for review and approval to be published. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating WP:IDT

I think it is an excellent resource and refer to it often when I am patrolling recent changes. Thanks again and happy 2019! S0091 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S0091! Thanks for the message and for the very kind words. It took quite some time for me to create this page fully, and I'm very pleased to hear that it's providing good help and assistance to others. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Thanks again for the message and I wish you a great day and happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Willing and requesting another admin's opinion on a username appeal for a new and inconsequential account. SoapWithRope (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SoapWithRope! I appreciate the barnstar and that you recognized that I wasn't trying to give you a hard time when I initially blocked your account because of the username you chose. I'm happy to that it was able to come to a peaceful resolution and that you're still active and editing Wikipedia. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at possible and massive sockpuppetry on an article

Users Arnoc80 (oldest account), Atanuchaks, and Soumyaschaks introduce the same information constantly (peacock information about a specific person that may or may not be relevant to article), which has been reverted many times. There are also many IPs that do it, such as: 106.207.31.38, 27.61.97.85, and 106.207.101.151. Can you take a look at these three accounts and the IPs? I'm not experienced enough to file a SPI report on the matter. Thank you!

The article in question: Hetampur
There are so many diffs, I'll get back to you if I can, but please take a look at this. Arnoc80 is banned, but I fear the article may be hit with even more massive sockpuppetry attacks. Thanks for your time. Neot/c 16:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neolytical! Thanks for the message and for letting me know about this. I'll take a look and see what's going on... :-). Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neolytical - Thanks again for bringing this issue to my attention. There's definitely no question in my mind: The accounts and IP users you listed above are definitely either the same person or a group of people that joined as meat puppets. The users have been dealt with, and I thank you again for the message. If you see any more issues like this, please don't hesitate to let me know or file a report at this noticeboard (just follow the instructions). Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Received and replied - thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardano ready for submission?

Hello @Oshwah:, I pinged you, because I saw you where also previously engaged in Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) talks: contribution. Thank you for your input so far. Do you think this article is ready enough to be submitted as an article for creation? Or do you have any suggestions? If so, please post your comments or just your approval on this talk page. Thank you, --FlippyFlink (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlippyFlink, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your question. The extent of my contributions to this article was simply to redact some revisions that contained content that was in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. It appears that the link you gave me was to a page that has since been deleted - can you verify that you've provided a correct link and with correct spelling? Remember that page titles are also case sensitive - so a page titled "Example Page" would be different than a page titled "Example page" (note the lower-case 'P'). Let me know, and please don't hesitate to respond with any questions. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Oshwah:, Thanks for your reply. The link is ok, but my question was to review this new draft page. If you have any remarks on that new Cardano page, please leave your comments on this talk page. --FlippyFlink (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, FlippyFlink. Weird; I must've confused the link provided in your message with the link provided in someone else's... seems to work fine now... Okay, will do! Thanks for the response and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greninja listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greninja. Since you had some involvement with the Greninja redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re: Innovation of Industrial Internet of Things

Sorry to keep bugging you, but I had some follow-up questions about the article merge, which can be seen on the talk page. Thanks. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfroThundr3007730 - No problem, and no apologies are necessary. I'll take a look there shortly. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reversion of my edits to the article Dodge Viper

I understand your removal of the (thats a lot of damage) comment which was simply an experiment of a new wikipedia user, seeing how far you could go. The comment was going to be removed after a few weeks, however I fail to comprehend your removal of my addition to the clay moulding section of this article. I hope that you will understand and fix this anytime your not in a hurry.

Sincerely ProForzaman12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProForzaman12 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProForzaman12 - Are you referring to this specific edit? The reason it was removed was because I didn't feel that it was content that's attributable to a reliable source; instead, it felt like original research (or content added based off your findings, experience, relationships, research, or findings). If this isn't the case and if I'm mistaken, please let me know and provide a reference to a reliable source and I'll be happy to add the content back to the article and cite the reference for you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kenneth C. Martis

Hi Oshwah - I left a reply to your message in December and haven't seen a reply from you. Did I do something wrong in the way I replied to your question? Thank you Cybeleta (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)cybeleta[reply]

User talk:Cybeleta Re: Kenneth C. Martis The Historical Atlas of United States Congressional Districts: 1789-1983 The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress: 1789-1989 Thank you for your message explaining the need for more information for my edits. This is my first series of edits and I am learning the process. I have some questions about explaining changes: If Kenneth C. Martis provided information to fill in knowledge gaps, would it be appropriate for me to state that when I am making updates? This will be true for all my edits and is verifiable through him sending an email or giving a contact number. Is there a way to restore the edits that I made to those pages or should I redo the edits? Thank you Cybeleta (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cybeleta, and thanks for leaving me a message here in response to the question you asked on your user talk page. Since your response didn't include a mention of my username, I wasn't notified that you had responded and asked questions. Generally, you want to include an edit summary with all of your edits and messages, and you want to briefly explain what you're changing on the page (or... "summarize your edit" - hence the name). :-) Edit summaries help other editors and users to understand what you're changing and why, and leads to less edit reverts and confusion. Can you clarify what you mean in your response when you said, "If Kenneth C. Martis provided information to fill in knowledge gaps..."? Are you saying that this person is giving this information to you in order to update the article? Or are you simply saying that you're citing or referencing a source and you're adding the information from those sources? If you're using sources to update the article, you simply just need to cite them in-line with the text you're adding. You also want to double-check that the sources you're pulling this information from is considered reliable per Wikipedia's guideline page here. Please clarify your statement for me and elaborate further when you can, and I'll be more than happy to help you. I just want to make sure that I fully understand your statements and that my answers are accurate. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is needed

Hello Oshwah
My name is Waqar and I'm new here. I recently created this account to edit and revamp the ACCA page (which you also did recently) and most of the other accountancy bodies' pages. Let me tell you that the ACCA page was full of clutter. But I am here to ask for your help as I'm a novice in all of this Wikipedia stuff, though I would really like to learn. So here are my questions:

  1. My page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waqar_Hasan_Siddiqui shows a red link for Talk and Sandbox why?
  2. What is a Sandbox?
  3. How can I prevent non-users to edit the ACCA article without giving any reference (recently some fools edited it without any proper reference which led to misinformation, and it's quite frequent; it's also getting quite annoying)
  4. What is the procedure to protect or semi-protect an article (I've seen a lock on a couple of articles before)

Please keep the answers as simple as possible. I know there is help available in Wikipedia pages but those are a bit lengthy, plus they contain a jargon which will take some time to master. I visited your page and am inspired by your dedication and the number of stars you got, but not your hair :) Hope to hear from you soon.
--Waqar Hasan Siddiqui (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Hasan Siddiqui - Have you tried going through Wikipedia's new user tutorial? That place should be simple and it shouldn't have any jargon - it's meant to be for brand new users who aren't familiar with Wikipedia. Give that a try and let me know how it works for you. If you still need help or still need help with the questions you asked above after completing the tutorial, let me know and I'll be glad to answer them. Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive message on my talk

Oinkmachine left me an offensive message on my talk page here. As I have never seen this account before, they only logical explanation in my mind is that this account is a sock. I can only privately suspect editors who this might be, as I have no clear evidence to suspect editors of being the master, so I can't file a sockpuppetry report, so what should I do? --TedEdwards 21:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC) On seconds thought actually, I think there might be only one person it could be, so should I email you and give the reasons I think it might be them? --TedEdwards 22:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=877782958[reply]

Hi TedEdwards! I apologize for the delay responding to your messages here. I was busy recently and I'm just now catching up on all of my Wikipedia messages and emails. :-) If you have evidence that the user is engaging in sock puppetry abuse, file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations with the information and as much evidence and detail that you can provide. This way, the issue is officially reported and can be handled using the proper process. Just expand the "How to open an investigation" instructions near the top of the SPI page, add the account username of the parent user account (the account that you believe that this user is a sock puppet of), and fill in the information after clicking "Submit" and the report will be created for you. I also suspect that this account is completely up to no good, but if there are other users involved that are connected to this person, we should definitely file an SPI report so that all of the accounts can be blocked, not just one of them. ;-) I'll look into the account's contributions in the meantime. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you get stuck anywhere in the process of creating the report, and I'll be more than happy to help you. Thanks for the message, please forgive my delayed response, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. However, now I'm not so sure who the master is, and I don't feel anymore that I have strong enough evidence to incriminate anyone as the master yet; I only feel certain that Oinkmachine is a sockpuppet of someone. All I feel I can say is that I assume I've done something the master didn't like, and I also assume the master has edited Doctor Who articles before (Doctor Who (series 11) is the only article we've both edited). Also it wouldn't surprise me if the master has been uncivil to me before. So is there anything that can be done in this situation, other than keep looking at what Oinkmachine does? --TedEdwards 00:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TedEdwards - I just left Oinkmachine a warning on his/her user talk page regarding the uncivil message that was made towards you. I don't think that sock puppetry is occurring, but the user's conduct is not acceptable. Keep an eye on them (revert bad edits but don't bother the user or do anything to antagonize), and if you notice any more edits that are disruptive and need attention, let me know and I can take things from there. We don't want to have the attitude or demeanor that we "want someone to go" and that "we should get them out of here", but we don't have to stand for uncivil conduct or edits that are blatantly disruptive. If it continues, the user will be held accountable. Let me know how things go, and don't hesitate to message me if I can assist with anything else - I'll be happy to do so. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why revert my changes? If a YouTube video where the YouTuber says they are Bi isn't evidence enough then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69 BigOof 69 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 08:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @69 BigOof 69: Someone's personal statement, even if made in public, is a primary source, and as primary it is not reliable. Wikipedia is not interested in what people want to say about themselves, just what others say about them. See WP:SOURCES & WP:PRIMARY. --(talk page stalker) CiaPan (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both responses above are correct. I owe a big "thank you" to both (CiaPan and Abelmoschus Esculentus) for responding to this message while I was offline. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User 190.247.105.108 is attacking me

Hello, I would like to report 190.247.105.108 because he is attacking me. I told him to refrain from disruptive editing but he started attacking me. See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VictorTorres2002&diff=877884509 He sweared at me in the edit summary. Also I've already reported him at the AIV and I'm just waiting for the block of the IP. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • UPDATE: The IP user that I was reporting to you was just recently blocked for a month becuase of his actions by attacking fellow Wikipedia editors and as of the result. The IP became blocked again for the 3rd time. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi VictorTorres2002! I apologize for the delay responding to your messages here. I was busy recently and I'm just now catching up on all of my Wikipedia messages and emails. :-) Great; it looks like this matter has been taken care of - that's definitely good to see. I agree that this IP user has been up to no good and the message he/she left on your user talk page was an attempt to be a troll - it's always best to ignore those attempts completely (even though it can be very hard to do sometimes - I completely understand). If you run into any more issues like this, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to take care of it. Again, please forgive my delayed response here. I had some real-life matters to take care of, which is why I was offline for a little while. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Benadir and Battle of Barawa

Hello Oshwah, hope you're having a happy 2019 so far. Sorry to hassle you again with this specific issue, but since you're already aquainted with it, you might remeber that a few months backs I requested a lock in the pages Battle of Benadir and Battle of Barawa due to persistant vandalism. Since a semi-protection lock doesn't seem to be enough, I have filed a request for indefinite full protection. You will find my reasoning in the talk pages of the respective articles as well as my request over on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that I have made.

Best regards, Wareno (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wareno! I apologize for the delay responding to your messages here. I was busy recently and I'm just now catching up on all of my Wikipedia messages and emails. :-) Great, thanks for filing those page protection requests in the proper noticeboard. That's the best place to leave your requests (you're obviously welcome to message me and point me to them as you did above); they'll receive faster attention and be viewable by any admin who views or regularly patrols that page. Feel free to file additional requests (and let me know as well) if the issues continue, and someone (if not myself) will be happy to take care of things.
I also noticed from your message above that you requested indefinite full edit protection to be applied to those articles. Applying indefinite full edit protection on an article is extremely rare; I've only applied it to an article maybe 2 or 3 times since I've been an admin, and it was in response to a situation where extremely contentious information and details were starting to be reported in the news involving a biography of a living person under a topic where discretionary sanctions were authorized, and where unreferenced content and speculation were being added to the article by users of every level (from anonymous to extended confirmed accounts) and at a rate of one or more edits per second. That should hopefully give you an idea of a situation where I'll consider applying indefinite full editing protection to an article. ;-)
I recommend that you take some time, go through the protection policy page (or at least this section of the page), and give yourself at least a quick refresher on the different protection levels and when they're typically justified, applied, and used. I review all page protection requests - regardless of what the user asks for (and I'll apply a protection level that's different than what someone asks for about 20% of the time), but some admins out there might not do so if the request seems too farfetched or excessive given the reason provided. Creating protection requests that ask for a justified and realistic protection level will help your requests stand out to admins in general, and will avoid being quickly brushed off, not taken seriously, and declined without being looked into fully. If you have a problem where this happens to you somewhat regularly, 1) that's bad on the admin's part and he/she should know better and at least look into your request, and 2) my advice will help to significantly resolve it. :-)
Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else, or if the issues return while I'm currently online - and I'll be happy to step in and make sure that things are handled. Thanks for the messages, please forgive my delayed response, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's no wonder then, that my request got denied. I presumed "indefinite full protection" was meant as an edit-breaker against vandalism, I just didn't know it was used that rarely. Alright then, if you think it's unnecessary, I will drop the idea right away. Though I will file more "reasonable" requests in the future should the vandalism persist. Thank you very much for taking the time to clear things up for me! Wareno (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wareno - No problem! I just wanted to take time to explain the different levels of protection that can be applied and make sure that you understood each one and when they were typically used. Edit protection requests that ask for an appropriate protection level given the situation will generally be taken more seriously than those that don't (even if the difference is minute); they show that the requester has some experience and a proficient knowledge of Wikipedia's protection policy. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can do anything else for you and I'll be happy to help. I hope you have a great rest of your day and I wish you happy editing. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor - Received and replied - thank you! I've executed your request; let me know if I can do anything else for you and I'll be happy to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New invention promoted here?

I'm not sure if this requires administrative intervention, but if you don't mind, please keep an eye at the topic.

Special:Contributions/Charles Checkley
Special:Contributions/Charles H. Checkley
Special:Contributions/2601:198:C17F:ECD0:B145:1D7A:A554:64DC
Special:Diff/878207345
Special:Search/DIAMO*MINO

--CiaPan (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the Diff link from the listing above - apparently the page has already been removed.--CiaPan (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CiaPan! Thanks for the message and for keeping a lookout for ongoing disruption and issues of sock puppetry. The edits by both accounts (as well as their similar usernames... lol) as well as the edit by the IP address are certainly enough for me to assert that they're all from the same person. Both of the accounts will be seen as stale if an SPI report is filed, since their last edits were made more than three months ago (Charles Checkley's last edit passed that threshold by just over a week - darn!). The IP address listed above could be checked for accounts that have been created or edited while behind it, but I doubt that anything will come back as a result... the IP has pretty much no activity going on and the network CIDR range is much too large for a CU to be bothered to run. However, we should file a case nonetheless so that this information is documented in case the user decides to return using more accounts and begins to cause a higher rate of disruption. Have you filed an SPI report for this person? Can you do so for me? If you have trouble with this or need help with filing it, please let me know and I'll be happy to walk you through the process. Thanks again for the message, and for your extreme level of diligence and dedication to this project and keeping it free of disruption. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting page protections

Can you put page protections for the articles Isis-Khorasan Province[[1]] and Open Defecation[[2]]? A sockpuppeteer called Abhishek9779 keeps making disruptive edits through various IP addresses.

See[[3]] [[4]]-Mountain157 (talk)

Hi Mountain157, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your requests. It looks like there's a discussion currently open at ANI here, as well as a report currently open at SPI here. Since the discussion and report are both currently open and awaiting investigation, input, actions (if applicable), and close - I'm going to hold off on applying page protection and let the admins involved with the matter apply it if they determine that it's a necessary action - it's possible that this IP user might not be hopping between addresses purposefully and that the issues reported all come down to being a content-related dispute for you to work out among yourselves... I obviously don't want to intervene and apply protection until I have a full sense of what's going on. If you have any questions or concerns while these reports and discussions receive input and comments by other users, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I think I need more information and to look into the situation a bit more before I consider doing anything right now. I appreciate the message and your understanding, and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the Toney page

Hello Oshwah. I added the court case again and on the cite,I pasted in the district court link with the case number CV number,but it doesn't stay up.Am I continually missing a step? Thanks for any information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daubje (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below for an explanation of why your edit continues to have issues. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toney additions

Hello oshwah,I've added to the Toney page with a Worcester district court case number,but nothing stays in.Am I continually missing a step?Thanks for any helpDaubje (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Daubje! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions. I'll be happy to help you understand why your edit to the Albert Toney III is still problematic. I left you a message on your user talk page with information and an explanation of the issues that are still ongoing (click here to read it). To explain further and more in-depth: The last edit you made to the article at the time of this writing (which you can view by clicking here) adds what you believe is a direct link that navigates users to the court case page. This is incorrect. What you added was a link to your search for the specific court case information, not a direct link to the actual case. If you were to click on that link, you'll most likely be navigated to the court document just fine since the browser cookies, cache, and session information may not yet be expired on your computer. However, if you use a different computer (or even just a different internet browser on the same computer) and you click on the link you added to the article, you'll see exactly what everyone else will also see: you'll be redirected to the search home page of the website; no court information is displayed. I took some time last week, located the court page using the website, and looked around for a direct URL or a link to generate one - unfortunately, I did not find a way to do this.
Aside from the issue with a direct link to the court document being provided within the article, this court document and website cannot be used as a reliable source to support the addition of this content. The content is contentious in nature and it is being added to a biography of a living person ("BLP" for short). We scrutinize articles of living people much more strictly than we do with other articles, and due to this policy section, we cannot accept the URL, website, or the type of document that you're trying to add as a source to support this content - it even mentions court records or documents specifically as something we do not accept as a source. Instead, the source must be secondary (meaning that it references primary sources such as that court document and discusses information using them), independent of the article subject (meaning that the source can't belong to or be controlled at all by Albert Toney III), and published where it can be peer-reviewed and scrutinized.
To summarize the information I've said to you above as well as on your user talk page: For you to be able to add any kind of potentially contentious content to a biography of a living person, it must be cited by a source that meets the requirements listed in this Wikipedia guideline and hence be considered as reliable. Any other kind or type of source (such as those mentioned in this policy section) cannot be accepted on BLP articles. What you need to do is locate another website and type of source (such as press or news coverage by a reputable news source), and use that to support the content being asserted. Until then, your edits to this article that fail to meet these requirements will be removed and considered a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy (which is something we take seriously if done repeatedly). I know that you're not fully familiar with these policies and guidelines; you don't have anything to worry about - you're new and being new and making mistakes is a completely expected thing with new users. :-) We just can't have this issue going on forever; you need to do what's necessary to review and understand the policies and guidelines I've listed for you in this message and use the resources available to you on Wikipedia to locate a proper source and make sure that your next edit to the article complies with policy.
I hope this response helped to clarify any confusion and explained everything necessary for you to fully understand the issues with the edits you've been making to the Albert Toney III article. If you still have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you and to make sure that your questions are answered and concerns addressed. Thanks again for keeping me updated, for your patience and understanding, and for taking the time to discuss this issue and learn about the important policies we apply to articles and pages. I wish you a great day, happy editing, and good luck with locating a source that's proper. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight?

Could you have quick look at [[[REDACTED - Oshwah]|this edit]]? If memory serves, this is quite similar to some edits to [[[REDACTED - Oshwah]]] that you suppressed a few months back. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik - See your email inbox for my reply to this message. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Received and replied - thanks! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Hi I plan to make a bot designed to Welcome Students and Teachers participating in an educational assignment. What code should I write for the bot? I have very little experience in coding btw. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thegooduser - The creation and use of bots typically requires proficient knowledge of programming, script and code, automation, and HTTP/HTTPS before one begins to build one for Wikipedia; it's unfortunately not something that you can just pick up, learn in just a few steps and in a short period of time, and have done and out the door and doing everything you want perfectly. It doesn't work like that at all. These things take experience, patience, time, and must go through an approval and trial process before it can even be switched on. You're of course welcome to read into bot creation and use as much as you want - Wikipedia's bot policy page should cover most of the important things as well as provide you with a good list of links and references to check out. That would be the place I'd start reading through if you're interested in this area.
I obviously have to urge extreme caution - do not, under and circumstances, get ahead of yourself in this area; don't do anything before you ask and receive approval first. I run into unapproved bot use or bot misuse sometimes on Wikipedia, a percentage of which require me to allocate extensive amounts of time in order to fully clean up the damage (I'm talking 6+ hours of work). Misuse or overuse by approved bots is quite rare, but unfortunately something that the community has had to deal with before. They usually always led to heated discussions, blocks being placed on the bot accounts, and (sometimes) even blocks or bans applied to the bot's creator. In one particular case (that I will not mention names or provide a link to), a user was desysopped and had their administrator rights removed due to bot overuse, repeated overuse and incorrect use of automation and automated editing tools, and repeated disruption to discussions that involved automation. The same principles apply in this area as they do with the use of Twinkle, Huggle, and other tools - you're responsible for the mess that is made as a result of its use, and you'll be held accountable for any damage you cause.
I hope that my response didn't scare you away from reading into this area or discourage you from attempting to learn about bot creation at all - I'd never want to do that to anyone here. I just want to make sure that whatever you do, that you're careful and that you do things the proper way and get approval before you attempt to do anything - especially when it comes to automation. It only takes but a few moments for a bot to cause a lot of damage due to careless procedures and process, deploying untested or poorly-tested code to production, and/or taking shortcuts around best practices... Good luck, be careful, and make good choices. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep edit

The source is I am a current student, and I know that the school is not located in Baghdad, Iraq, the mascot is not Thanos from the movie Infinity War, and that the color is not magenta (again in reference to Thanos) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.94.120 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi. Sorry, but you will need a Reliable Source. Thanks. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your explanation regarding the edit you made here to the Out-of-Door Academy article. Sorry, but what you described in regards to the "source" you used constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. In summary: You cannot add any content to Wikipedia articles that's based off your personal findings, experience, relationships, research, or published work. All content that's added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable source, or (in cases where the content added isn't "common knowledge") it must be directly attributed (cited in-line) by a reliable source. Please take some time to review this policy (as well as Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest), and let me know if you have any questions about them. I'll be happy to answer them and help you if you do. :-) Thanks again for the message, I appreciate your understanding, and I wish you happy editing. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-Door Academy

Hello Oshwah,

Somebody vandalized this article to show the location of this school from Sarasota, Florida to Baghdad, adding a variety of hogwash. There has been a series of edits reverting the vandalism and adding it back. An IP cleaned up the mess, and you reverted, restoring the vandalism. Please take a closer look. There is no doubt that this school is in Sarasota. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to semi-protect the article but that would be counterproductive because IP editors are now maintaining accuracy while established editors are not taking a close look, and are reverting to the vandalized version. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328! Aww crap... I did accidentally restore vandalism, didn't I? Grr... good catch. lol... Thanks for leaving me a message here and for bringing that to my attention. I just now went back to that article and restored it to a previous revision here, which removed even more vandalism that was being added and restored by others. I also just applied pending changes protection to the article for two weeks so that edits like those will be reviewed before it has time to get out of control. Anyways, I thought I'd respond and let you know what I ended up doing to the article. I appreciate the message and for letting me know about my idiot mistake. ;-) My talk page is always open to you; don't hesitate to stop by again if you catch more bone-headed moves on my part. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

Ive been trying to edit a page regarding a notable graduate of the University of Missouri. I'm not sure what i've been doing wrong and my editing ability is getting threatened to be halted. I would rather that not happen and love the product Wiki produces. Thank you so much for your time and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuyler324 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please adhere to A Neutral Point of View. Thank You. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schuyler324, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your concerns. Your edits to University of Missouri have a number of issues and problems. They do not comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, were not cited in-line by a reliable source, and could even be interpreted as being purposefully disruptive. Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before doing anything else here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. If you have any more questions after completing the tutorial I've linked you to, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. Thanks again for the message and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a user specifically invites people to discuss potential conflicts of interest on their talk page, that is presumably something they welcome.

"I will always disclose and freely discuss any potential conflict of interest." - User:Cullen328. You cannot threaten retirbution against someone for sincerely inquiring about a conflict of interest, when the person said they would be glad to discuss exactly that. Nor is that question (""Do you perhaps feel that you have a conflict of interest regarding this particular article, a conflict which might result in a need for you to recuse yourself from it? Do you perhaps have a deep-seated animosity toward Jewish traditions, values and beliefs, which is causing you to present those traditions, values and beliefs in a negative light in this encyclopedia, or to facilitate others' efforts to do so, in a way that makes it appear to the world as if Jewish civilization and history was and is a fraud?") a "personal attack" by any stretch of the imagination. However, if that is an accurate description of his behavior, and he did have a conflict of interest that was causing him to behave in that way, and he was facilitating a pattern of editing that did portray Jewish traditions and beliefs as if they were a fraud, then that would be a very serious issue that could not be allowed to persist.

Note also that the WP:INSULTING page specifically states: "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic."[1] 174.126.168.126 (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your "inquiry" is not sincere by any reasonable definition. You are hectoring me, and engaging in endless ranting in protest about how Wikipedia works, and against its policies and guidelines. You are engaging in innuendo and personal attacks against me as a result of your imaginary interpretation of my religious beliefs. I am rigorously neutral regarding religious topics (and all other topics) here on Wikipedia, which is why I enjoy a measure of respect here. In my private life off Wikipedia, I am a proud Jew. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?

Protection request for 2020 in American television

Hi there! I noticed you recently used protection powers on the Toy Story 4 page, and I was wondering if you could help protect 2020 in American television. This recently created page has been used as a sandbox of sorts by anonymous IP users who put blatantly false (and unsourced) information in the page only to quickly delete their contributions. It’d be one thing if it was once but this has been a repeated occurrence with the same shows being added. Them removing it on their own just isn’t a well-meaning enough gesture to say they won’t do it again. And that’s why I ask for some sort of protection to stop this from reoccurring--Fradio71 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fradio71! I've applied temporary edit protection to the article. Please let me know if problems continue and I'll be happy to take another look. Happy editing! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I’m kind of nervous to create articles even for the redlinked TV shows so creating that article was a big step for me, even if it wasn’t that risky.--Fradio71 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fradio71 - No problem, and no worries - we were all new here once. ;-) We've all had to take that "big jump" and write that first article, nominate that first page for deletion, add that first template, revert that first vandalism edit left by someone else, write that first warning to someone whose causing disruption, report something or someone to a noticeboard, and many other "firsts".... you'll get more used to it as you make more of these "big leaps" and you'll find yourself feeling less nervous and less afraid of doing something wrong as you grow and become more experienced with Wikipedia, it's policies and guidelines, and how everything works. Just remember that we won't go after you for making good faith mistakes and errors. We expect them to happen (I've sure made my fair share of mistakes and still do so every now and then...); just be positive and open to any reverts and feedback left on your user talk page, learn from that feedback you're given, and take every bump or mistake as a positive learning opportunity. You're always welcome to message me if you run into any issues, need input or help with something, or if you have any questions - I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Have a great rest of your day, I wish you happy editing, and I hope we speak again soon. :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abelmoschus Esculentus - Just replied. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No subject

Thanks a lot Oshwah, have a great day wherever you're based :) JenniferAVsg (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JenniferAVsg - You're very welcome. Keep those policies and guidelines in mind as you edit Wikipedia - as a paid editor, this is very important to do at all times. I'd also consider going through and completing Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you start making any edits or changes. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. I'm available should you have questions or need help - don't hesitate to message me here and ask. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol indeed

It was too early! :( GiantSnowman 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman - It gave me a good laugh. Thank you for that :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The least I could do! GiantSnowman 10:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Benoit

Do you know a lot about Chris Benoit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.41.158 (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, I am not an expert nor do I know much about Chris Benoit. However, I can try and help you if your question is Wikipedia-related. Do you have a question or do you need help with something? Let me know and I'll be happy to help you (or at least point you in the right direction so that you receive the help you need). :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arvin Appiah edit

I understand editing without a reliable source or from a ‘bias’/not neutral point of view is against the Wikipedia terms of service. However the info added from Blandle on the Arvin Appiah page was factual and arguebly true even is it is considered an opinion as opposed to fact. This knowledge of Arvin however comes from somebody relatively close with Arvin and the knowledge is a primary source. Blandle (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blandle! Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your edit to Arvin Appiah. So, there's a few things wrong with your edit and your statement here. You stated that your edit is considered an opinion; I agree, and this is exactly why I removed it. Wikipedia articles are not for adding personal commentary, opinion, or viewpoints - all content is required to be worded to represent a neutral point of view. Your statement that the content you added was "factual and arguebly true even is it is considered an opinion as opposed to fact" does not make sense. Opinions are not factual statements; they are opinions. Opinions can contain facts, but they are not considered facts.
You also stated above that this content "comes from somebody relatively close with Arvin and the knowledge is a primary source". This constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. To summarize this policy: You cannot add any content to Wikipedia articles that's based off your personal findings, experience, relationships, research, or published work. All content that's added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable source, or (in cases where the content added isn't "common knowledge") it must be directly attributed (cited in-line) by a reliable source. Reliable sources also typically should be secondary, not primary.
Please take some time and review the policy pages I've linked you to here. Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I also highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before doing anything else. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very useful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and it led to them being saved hours (if not over a day's worth) of time and frustration. If you have any more questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to discuss them with you and help you further. Thanks again for the message, I welcome you to Wikipedia and hope you enjoy your stay, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I am new to editing so as you can understand I am inexperienced to say the least. I hope you can bear with me as I learn and hopefully in the future can make useful edits on the page. I will now take the time to read and complete the tutorial like you mentioned, but thank you very much for the support you’ve given. Blandle (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blandle - Yes, of course; you're very welcome. We understand that new users will make mistakes and won't be familiar or proficient with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines yet. We were all new users at one time here, and I can tell you that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes over the years that I've been an editor here. Mistakes are expected, they're a normal part of learning, and we won't hold them against you so long as you make them in good faith and with the intent of attempting to improve the project - so fear not. :-) Yes, definitely complete that tutorial - it'll be very helpful for you. If you run into any questions after completing it, or if you get stuck anywhere or need help - just let me know and I'll be happy to assist you. Welcome to the project, and I hope you stick around and become a long-term and experienced editor here. It's a lot of fun, and it's definitely worth the time you volunteer with us. :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geller

Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for locking the article to stop the edit warring. Can you review the recent article history? The first sentence of the current version includes (debatably) poorly-sourced, negative content about a living person that was not present in the long-standing rev of the lede. I think WP:WRONGVERSION should be viewed through the lens of BLP in this case. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's exceptionally debatable that the source is poor. It's the SPLC, a respected secondary source with expertise on the subject matter and the argument against inclusion is deeply tendentious. WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies here as the sour grapes are more that this particular Breitbart contributor is being called far-right for espousing far-right views. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC is a great source... that doesn't directly call Geller a right-wing extremist, eg the proposed edit is "poorly-sourced" along with the other issues I mentioned above. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi VQuakr and Simonm223, and thanks for leaving me your messages with your concerns about the content in dispute on this article. I believe that the content being referred to is debatable in regards to whether or not the source can be considered reliable or if it cannot be used to support the information, as well as the particular use of words to describe this article subject is accurate and acceptable.
I always try and stay away from modifying the contents in an article that I've applied full protection to. It assures that my actions never give the impression to others that I'm taking a side, or that I'm using protection in order to favor certain users or edits over others, any of that stuff. ;-) However, per Wikipedia's BLP policy and regarding the content that's added, contentious in nature, and where its sources, legitimacy, or compliance with policy is questionable, debated, or being discussed - I can remove it pending the resolution and consensus from the relevant discussion at-hand. Given the questionable nature of the reference in regards to its reliability, and the use of words (specifically, "extremist") to describe this person - I do believe that removing this content pending the outcome of the discussion is the right thing to do in this situation. Hence, I have done so and without certifying its compliance, reliability, or whether or not the content is acceptable or belongs in the article.
Please let me know if I can assist with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. I wish you both a fair, peaceful, and civil discussion and that it comes to a close that best reflects the quality, legitimacy, and accuracy of the content, and with the project as the upmost priority. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Hello, Oshwah.

I did make a mistake, I was in the process of trying to find out how to state that the image was not fit for fair use, and I oviously had selected the wrong license template.

The problem has been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.233.218 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me this message and for letting me know. No worries; it happens and it's not a big deal. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can you keep an eye on this user he is very close to a block and I can't block him (because I'm not an administrator), Thanks Forres Harriers (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made another vandalism edit, enough is enough He is getting blocked. Forres Harriers (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forres Harriers - I've already taken care of the issue. Please let me know if I can help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Just very disruptive user I think you should block Indefinitely as they will do it again after blocked. Forres Harriers (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forres Harriers - IP addresses don't receive indefinite blocks unless in circumstances that are extremely rare. Out of the number of blocks I've applied as an admin, I've only applied a justified indefinite IP address block maybe one or two times. IP addresses can change and be allocated from from user to user as often as only a few hours - this means that someone editing today from an IP address that was used to make edits a year ago may not be from that same user. Blocks that are much too long in duration or that are set improperly can result in an innocent user being impacted later, which is something we absolutely do not want to have happen. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete request

Hi Oshwah, Can you please delete following pages: my tp archives, corresponding ClueBot indices and master Indices. Due to various reasons I have moved to manual archives 1 and copied content of all these old archives. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1997kB -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Jones

I find it offensive that you even dare take it off the page. Carter Jones means different things to different people and I am just trying to reach out to those people. Where I come from he is a god and a friend. I can't believe you don't know that and am quite disgusted that you don't know the importance of Carter to me and my fellow peers. I believe I should be able to continue editing on this page because I know more about Carter than you ever will. And for God's sake put a picture of the actual Carter Jones on the page. Another thing about his photo. I can send you the way we see him, the way he is a god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.206.60 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Racist Melanoma Comment

White people is racist. Caucasian? Fine. White people? Would it be viewed differently if it said something else? I think so. Change it to reflect nutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:29D3:6F00:D8D9:C692:F59B:E767 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Adding content like you did here to Melanoma and calling it a "spelling correction" in your edit summary is not only disruptive, but achieves exactly the opposite result compared to what you appear to be concerned about here. If you feel that content and wording isn't written in the best way or that it implies a point of view that isn't neutral, then you're welcome to be bold - improve the article, fix the content, make positive contributions, or you can discuss your concerns on the article's talk page - but edits like these are not okay. They will be interpreted by other editors as being malicious or purposefully disruptive, and will be removed accordingly. If you need help and wish to make positive contributions, you're free to message me here with your questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why are you the way that you are — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichbarker (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the Toney page

Ok,I will give up,apparently nothing I do can add some truth to the page of this charlatan,al toney,Daubje (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daubje - What are you stuck on exactly? Were you able to locate a source from another website? Let me know where you're at and I'll be happy to help you... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yisroel Belsky

Hi, thanks for your comments at ARV. I just want to confirm that the edits from the IP, [5] are 100% vandalism. The edits in question, are about a controversial figure and he used buzzwords in Hebrew or Yiddish that you might not be familiar with, and he then hid many of the edits by then doing another edit and changing tenses from past to present.

  • For example, his first diff,
  • [6] he changes several items, adds a negative epitaph to the name, (SR"Y) proclaims him non-orthodox, and a golem (in other words not a real nice person) and talks about his relationship with kissing Hillary Clinton and "Rabbi" Bernie Madoff.
  • The second diff was just as ludicrous, [7] adding "purportedly" to him being a son of his parents.
  • His edits also talk about "Gestapo Nazi" like torture, etc.
  • This edit, [8] added, "He was "widely acclaimed for his in-depth knowledge across the length and breadth" in Torah which he used to manipulate and pervert Halacha."
  • This edit, [9] added that he received smicha (rabbincal ordination) from Bernie Madoff, and that he considers himself a student of Rabbi Al Sharpton.
  • All in all, this is just a sampling but it's clear that it's not just a sources needed but clear vandalism. Thanks, and sorry for the formatting.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph - Stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph - I appreciate the follow-up message and explanation; that helped me out a lot... thank you. :-) The user has been blocked. If it continues, please don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. Hopefully there won't be a next time. :) Sir Joseph (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph! HA! Yeah right... we'll speak again soon (when the next vandal comes around in about a few minutes from now). lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No subject

I understand. I will add the source soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxSkippiexx (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XxSkippiexx! No worries; thanks for letting me know. Please don't hesitate to message me if you run into any questions or get stuck anywhere - I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

discrete logarithm base 10

dear, i need to compute 10^? mod N=M where N and M are known, so how many to raise 10 in some exponent to match the result. Thank you. 41.102.225.197 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're asking about how to solve 10^(x)(mod N) = M for x? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for Letting me Interview you at TheWikiWizard! Here's a Beer to say Thank You. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thegooduser - Thanks for the beer, man! No problem; hope it helps :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you rename from Beano, to Oshwah? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
**Oswa ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HA! That was a loooong time ago. It was a username I chose simply to annoy my friend in High School. He was registering an account and told me what he was going to choose as a username, so I quickly made my account faster than him in order to take it before he could. He was not amused. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cards84664 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cards84664 - I didn't do it! I'm innocent!!! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong?

I'm new to adding info to Wikipedia. Can you tell me what I did wrong so I know how to do it correctly next time? Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfire101 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Halfire101, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your question and your request for help. I'll be happy to explain why your edit was reverted and point you to the right policies and guidelines to help you.
Your edit here to Marc Yaffee modified content and without citing a reliable source in order to support your changes and assert that they are accurate and true. When adding content to articles that are beyond "common knowledge", you need to cite a source in-line with those changes. This is especially true when making any kind of edits to articles that are biographies of living people. If you can locate and cite a source with your edit, you should be just fine and shouldn't run into any more problems there.
Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any additional edits. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Don't cause yourself hardship; this tutorial will make your time here much easier and better!
Please let me know if you have any more questions or if you need further assistance, and I'll be more than happy to help you. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay and that you decide to become a long-term member of the community. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Halfire101 - Please see the message I just left on your user talk page. I accidentally reverted more than what I originally intended, and this has since been resolved - please accept my apologies for letting that happen. Let me know if you have any questions - I'm here to help! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

== I need your help as you have blocked me to post in Wikipedia == A N T P L (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you lift off the ban on me ?? Earth article? Example (talk)  A N T P L (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

discrete logarithm base 10

yes...solve for x=? thanks.

//im sorry...i dont know how to add reply on your last comment so i sent as new message...sorry again. 41.102.225.197 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked spammer User:Vthebbar

Hello. I found another, obviously related, account that was used for adding spamlinks to the same site (way2know.com) a few days ago, having done nothing else: Vthebbar1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So would you mind blocking that account too? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. They'll probably show up again... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas.W - Oh yeah, man - of course they will. That's a given... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Challoner article

Hi oshwah May i change this article as it says it an all girls secondary school and it says holy cross on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cake11HD (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User you blocked clearly using a sockpuppet to edit.

Per this and this, you recently blocked the user for the mentioned misuse of sources. Seems this is happening again, albeit with a sockpuppet. I've just realized the same editing pattern (changing sourced information to fit their POV) was used at Chapli kebab. The user before the block made this edit, misusing a source already from the article which does not support the addition. They made the edit again.

Now the user is blocked and they are very clearly making the same edit using a sockpuppet, .hodajan (talk · contribs).

As well as making the same edit to Pakol that has been reverted over 5 times, the same edit you blocked them for. This time the user hijacks a different source versus the one they were hijacking before.

(tagging @Dlohcierekim:, as they were a part of the AN discussion.)- R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this sock has been used since Novemberm and there are numerous warnings on their talk page. I'm certain that User:51.39.124.130 &User:51.39.124.179 are connected as well. The edit summaries between the four are identical in word useage.("Afghanistan"; also see [11], [12], [13]) - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Took it to SPI. Listed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/.hodajan. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
R9tgokunks - Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to your messages here. Let me take care of a few high priority tasks and I'll take a look at this today and get back to you... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User page protection

Hello! Could you please extend the protection time on my talk page? I'm being harassed by a user, or multiple users, both on and off Wikipedia. Bizarrely, he's telling me he'll continue to edit my user page using new accounts until I email him. I politely asked him to stop already, and he refused. Thanks! GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfNoMeme -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No way, I did not know how to use it.

No way, I did not know how to use it. Queen70 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah, could you perhaps draw their attention to WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE (see current user page). I would do it myself, but I wouldn't want to be misconstrued... ——SerialNumber54129 16:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 - LOL - I don't think that it would be. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta be careful—one is complicated enough :D thanks for the U5 though ——SerialNumber54129 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 - Indeed. ;-) No problem; always happy to help. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article and wrote it myself and someone deleted it

I changed the article because of copyright a few minutes ago and then RHaworth deleted the page. I already changed the page, so there a no copyright infringements anymore. I feel like RHaworth deleted the draft too soon without even noticing the changes.

RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Jessica Clements (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.models1.co.uk/women/main/3889-jessica-clements/) (thank) 16:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)NYC2019 (talk)

NYC2019 - I would take your concerns to RHaworth directly so that he can assist you with this and (if applicable) resolve the matter. It's necessary to do, since he is the deleting administrator and it's something that he should potentially be aware of. Let me know how this goes and if you run into any issues when attempting to resolve the matter with him; I'll be happy to help you further. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I where can I contact RHaworth?NYC2019 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NYC2019 - You can click here to visit his user talk page and leave a message there. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi

yes I changed it because some of the information is incorrect I added some boxffice that was missing based on boxscore reported to pollstar which you can find on pollstar website and the tour final gross is incorrect only 4 show " sprint center, entreprise center and the 2 in Miami hasn't been reported.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=879068217"