User talk:Oshwah
Let's chat
Click here to message me. I will reply as soon as I can. All replies will be made directly underneath your message on this page.
Please create your message with a subject/headline and sign your message using four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
Experienced editors have my permission to talk page stalk and respond to any message or contribute to any thread here.
|
| Table of contents |
|---|
Page deletion?
Ashwah, I read your guidelines and sent you an email. No hurry...[but I guess I only have 7 days!] Pls. direct me when you are able...I hope you and yours are well.Onganymede (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Onganymede! I received your email. What article was it that you were trying to create? Can you point me to it? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oshwah, thank you for your reply. Article in question is J. Jaye Gold. I believe tomorrow is day 7 since I received notification, so maybe this is too late to discuss. Do you know if the decision will be made Saturday? Originally I was told the issue was references. I understand now that my references, which were all to his works, we’re unacceptable. I have spend the week researching and have changed them all. Now it appears issue is notability. I believe I cleared up COI issue on my talk page. It would be nice not to have this also flagged, if others agree. But again, it may be too late. Again, many thanks for input/direction. Onganymede (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Onganymede! Thanks for responding with the link. To help explain the articles for deletion process for you: Discussions at AFD will not take the quality of the article itself into account when deciding whether or not to keep or delete it; they take the notability of the article subject into account, which is typically established by the availability of secondary reliable sources that can be researched and found (either on the internet or in print media) that provide primary coverage regarding the article subject.
- Oshwah, thank you for your reply. Article in question is J. Jaye Gold. I believe tomorrow is day 7 since I received notification, so maybe this is too late to discuss. Do you know if the decision will be made Saturday? Originally I was told the issue was references. I understand now that my references, which were all to his works, we’re unacceptable. I have spend the week researching and have changed them all. Now it appears issue is notability. I believe I cleared up COI issue on my talk page. It would be nice not to have this also flagged, if others agree. But again, it may be too late. Again, many thanks for input/direction. Onganymede (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Think of it like this: If, for example, the Barrack Obama or Abraham Lincoln articles were only a few paragraphs long and didn't provide many or very good sources, these articles would be kept if I were to nominate them for a discussion at AFD. That's because, well, they're notable people... :-) It's quite easy to go onto Google and type those names in - you're going to find numerous sources that are reliable and show that these people are notable. We don't delete those articles under that process just because they're not long enough, don't have great content, or don't have enough sources cited. The articles just need to be expanded and improved. The same principle applies here as well. On the other hand: I could have an extensively-written article about some random Joe person, but if they're not notable, the article subject won't be determined to be notable in an AFD discussion. Why? Because there obviously won't be any secondary reliable sources online or elsewhere that would establish Mr. Random Joe Person as a notable article subject. The quality of the article I wrote about Random Joe could be significantly above-average when it comes to content, but in the end, it won't matter.
- In short: There's really nothing you can do to the article itself that will change the outcome of the discussion. Don't go into an AFD discussion with the belief that, if you could improve the article to be "up to standard" before the discussion closes, that there's hope of it being kept. Either the article subject is notable or they aren't - that's what the discussion is created to determine. If anything, take the outcome as a good learning experience. Before you write your next article, I'm sure that you'll be much more well-versed in Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and you'll create an article that will do well. I created a few articles when I was new on Wikipedia, and I was angry and disappointed when they were deleted - it can be really discouraging... All that time wasted. However, I kept with it, and I took the time to know and understand the policies and guidelines and why they're important. In the end, it helped improve my editing and my experience a lot.
- Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Take some time and read through those guidelines. If you have any questions about them, let me know! I'll be happy to answer them and explain, or clarify anything that's confusing. Don't give up! You're doing well here! This is just a minor setback and you'll be a better editor moving forward. I've been there myself; I'm not here today and with the experience and knowledge that I have because I got everything right and did perfectly. I've made more than my fair share of mistakes. Trust me... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wow! Thank you much for all the details and your personal experience as well. I have read the guidelines. I know ALOT more now than I did when I first wrote you my anxious email! Did you get a chance to look at the article? I just added two more refs. It's clear Gold has influenced 1,000s of people over 30+ years of nonprofit service work... but there are, to my knowledge, only hard copy letters of thanks (from, for example, the Daughters of Charity in Cambodia, a Syrian refugee school in Turkey, Mae Tao Clinic on Thai/Burmese border, etc.) I assume these can't be incorporated, correct? So, can you tell me what your opinion of the article is--in terms of worthiness of the subject, as written? (Maybe your above advice answered this but I'm not sure if you were mainly clarifying/explaining guidelines, or telling me your opinion, i.e., it's over...better luck next time! Ok, much obliged and look forward to more input. Onganymede (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Onganymede! I'd have to do some research and look for secondary reliable sources in order to determine whether or not I believe the subject to be notable. The article itself is a good start in terms of content, references, neutrality, and overall setup and formatting. It does seem to detract a bit and talk about the organization a lot, rather than the person - but again, it's not terrible. Remember that this is irrelevant when it comes to AFD. They're not looking at the article itself and how it appears. They're deciding whether or not the article subject should even have an article at all in the first place. That's where notability comes in. ;-) My previous message was written to explain how AFD works and exactly what they take into account when making a decision.
- Wow! Thank you much for all the details and your personal experience as well. I have read the guidelines. I know ALOT more now than I did when I first wrote you my anxious email! Did you get a chance to look at the article? I just added two more refs. It's clear Gold has influenced 1,000s of people over 30+ years of nonprofit service work... but there are, to my knowledge, only hard copy letters of thanks (from, for example, the Daughters of Charity in Cambodia, a Syrian refugee school in Turkey, Mae Tao Clinic on Thai/Burmese border, etc.) I assume these can't be incorporated, correct? So, can you tell me what your opinion of the article is--in terms of worthiness of the subject, as written? (Maybe your above advice answered this but I'm not sure if you were mainly clarifying/explaining guidelines, or telling me your opinion, i.e., it's over...better luck next time! Ok, much obliged and look forward to more input. Onganymede (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The reason I went in-depth with how you'll learn from this and encouraged you not to take this personally or as a reason to give up was not because I felt that the article should be deleted (again, I haven't looked into the article subject in-depth nor done any research). I wrote this to you because, looking at the AFD discussion, it appears that the consensus will be to either delete the article, or move it into draft space. Likely it will be deleted. I would copy the article and put it in your sand box - just so you have something to reference if you forget how to do something with the next article you create. And, who knows, if the article subject does become notable down the road (it happens quite often), you can re-create it again. All is not lost just because it didn't become an article - you can still keep the work you did and reference it later. I did, and it was very helpful. Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. I'll be happy to do some research and give you what I would've said in the AFD discussion if you wish. Just know in advance that I will be honest with you - if I find that the subject isn't notable, I will say so, but I'll also explain why. Such feedback would absolutely not be given with the intent to discourage you, but as a way of helping you understand, learn, gain experience, and come out of this better than you went in. Just let me know. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oshwah, Yes, to both.... I agree saving in sandbox is great idea. I'm researching it now, but any easy pointers on how to do that? And, Yes, if you'd be willing and could take the time to look and make a judgement call, I trust your neutrality and your sincerity and would be grateful to hear it. One question, do or can you know if today is the "decision" day?Onganymede (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Onganymede! Just edit the article, copy everything, then go here, paste the text you copied, and voila! You now have a copy in your user space that you can reference. ;-) There really is no "decision day". The typical minimum time for an AFD discussion is 7 days. If there aren't enough participants, or if the discussion is still in deliberation after 7 days (where the outcome isn't clear), the discussion will stay open until all participants have made their statements. In this case, it'll be closed after seven days when an admin gets around to doing so... there's no "time limit". Sure, I can do that. Give me a bit of time and I'll have something to you by the end of the weekend. I have a lot on my agenda. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes pls. take whatever time! Not wanting to add burden to your agenda load! Have a good weekend. Onganymede (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again! The article was deleted today! It seemed that 2 (3?) editors concurred with a "relist," and I have another half dozen sources to add in a week or so when I get access to them... so that might help .... Should I edit in sandbox for now, add the new refs, and then ask an editor familiar with the article to relist or restore? Or...? Hope your weekend was fruitful! Onganymede (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Onganymede! Sorry for the delay following up. Sure, nothing will stop you from editing in your own sandbox. Asking someone familiar with the article about it is never a bad idea. I haven't had a chance to examine the article subject in terms of notability, but I hope to be able to do so soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Onganymede. After taking a look through search engines and other websites, I would have to conclude with the consensus found in the AFD discussion. I don't believe that there are enough secondary reliable sources available and that provide primary coverage of the article subject itself to assert him as notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article at this time.
- Hi Onganymede! Sorry for the delay following up. Sure, nothing will stop you from editing in your own sandbox. Asking someone familiar with the article about it is never a bad idea. I haven't had a chance to examine the article subject in terms of notability, but I hope to be able to do so soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again! The article was deleted today! It seemed that 2 (3?) editors concurred with a "relist," and I have another half dozen sources to add in a week or so when I get access to them... so that might help .... Should I edit in sandbox for now, add the new refs, and then ask an editor familiar with the article to relist or restore? Or...? Hope your weekend was fruitful! Onganymede (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oshwah, Yes, to both.... I agree saving in sandbox is great idea. I'm researching it now, but any easy pointers on how to do that? And, Yes, if you'd be willing and could take the time to look and make a judgement call, I trust your neutrality and your sincerity and would be grateful to hear it. One question, do or can you know if today is the "decision" day?Onganymede (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The reason I went in-depth with how you'll learn from this and encouraged you not to take this personally or as a reason to give up was not because I felt that the article should be deleted (again, I haven't looked into the article subject in-depth nor done any research). I wrote this to you because, looking at the AFD discussion, it appears that the consensus will be to either delete the article, or move it into draft space. Likely it will be deleted. I would copy the article and put it in your sand box - just so you have something to reference if you forget how to do something with the next article you create. And, who knows, if the article subject does become notable down the road (it happens quite often), you can re-create it again. All is not lost just because it didn't become an article - you can still keep the work you did and reference it later. I did, and it was very helpful. Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. I'll be happy to do some research and give you what I would've said in the AFD discussion if you wish. Just know in advance that I will be honest with you - if I find that the subject isn't notable, I will say so, but I'll also explain why. Such feedback would absolutely not be given with the intent to discourage you, but as a way of helping you understand, learn, gain experience, and come out of this better than you went in. Just let me know. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- I took a look at the references you used in your article as well, and I found that many of the sources you cited don't primarily cover the article subject (meaning that there aren't sources written to primarily talk about or provide coverage of J. Jaye Gold). While there are some sources you cited where he provides a statement or quote that primarily covers something else, I don't see much of anything that primarily covers him. This is a big requirement that editors look for when discussing a subject's notability and when looking for the availability of sources.
- If someone wrote an external article, news headline, or another kind of journal or report that covered J. Jaye Gold that could be used as a source, that would count as one (of many needed) that would be considered. However, if someone wrote an online article that covered something else, but mentioned him in passing, such as where J. Jaye Gold provided a statement or quote, or were just mentioned in part of the article, that wouldn't be considered as a reference that primarily covers him.
- In time, J. Jaye Gold could become notable down the road, but at this time, I'd have to agree with the consensus found. Please don't think of this as a downfall, and please definitely do not let this make you think that you're not doing well on Wikipedia. The exact opposite is true. Don't let yourself get discouraged, either; I believe that the next article you write will meet the notability requirements simply because you learned so much from this experience. Seriously! We learn the best when things don't work out, and we become experts on subjects when things don't go according to plan. Think about it: If everything went all hunky-dory, sure, we'd learn and gain experience... but we wouldn't take the time to stop and read up on something so far in-depth if things just worked out. Keep positive, and let me know if I can answer any questions or help you in any way. I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Plz
All this changing URL and API off my phone. I know my ex put it on here when she was trakking me to take a shit man. I got 2 girls stalking now. Cock blocking my texts my calls I’ve probably missed out on girls and money. I’m not trying to get anybody in trouble I’m a outlaw with good heart myself but all this GIF crap is old and I’m getting mad bc I feel like there winning. Plz get all this off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.223.1.21 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Umm... not exactly sure what you're asking me here. I can only help you with Wikipedia-related matters. Is there something I can help you involving the Wikipedia project? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Congrats on new checkusership! WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
- Hi WesternAtlanticCentral! Thank you for the barnstar and for the congratulations! It means a lot to me and I appreciate it very much. :-) I'm happy to be able to serve the community as a checkuser, and I promise that I won't let you down! ;-) I hope you have a great weekend and I wish you happy editing. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The User
User in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194.81.78.4 /// I have just had to warn this guy to not make false edits as he made an edit to the page on William Russell, changing his name to Big Willy. As I was in the process of undoing this, he removed it himself but even so, I have let him know not to do this and I am informing you. edit: I know the last time action was used on him was in 2016 and by you which is why I am here on your page. Damien Swann (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Damien Swann! Thanks for leaving me a message here and for letting me know. It looks like this school IP range has already been blocked, so we don't have anything to worry about now. In the future, if the user has been warned enough times, you can report them here to have an administrator block them or take other appropriate action. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again, and I hope you have a great weekend! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Armenia/Azerbaijan Sanctions
Hey Oswhah, thanks for protecting Dashalty. The sanctions authorisation I was referring to there was from WP:ARBAA2, where an amendment was passed that authorised standard discretionary sanctions; sorry, I should have probably said ARBAA2, not just ARBAA. Best wishes, Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 11:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Blablubbs! Ah, that makes sense! Thanks for letting me know. the "ARBAA" part of your link rang a bell, but when I couldn't find anything, I just went with the normal policy. The article would've been protected anyways. :-) Thanks again, and I hope you have a great weekend! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey!
First i wanted to thank u for protecting and being interested on Miley articles. I wanted to asked you if you could do soemrhing about it. The user gagaluv1 was actually asked to stop ny old users and almost blocked if you see it on her talk page, but she hasnt been blocked het. She obisbly doesnt wanna participate as she disnt listen to my collegues warn about warring and violent language but she kept going on and if you see the desception edit said "deal with it". Can u roll back and leave the edit bu lk95 where it was consensed by everyone as you see. She is adding songs that were included on other albums too after rhey were originally eeleased and that soace is for songs that wwere not availble on her own albums berore. So it makes thenimpression that that songs were not only included on her albums before. Thank you.--Night Crawling (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Night Crawling. I'm sorry to hear that this is going on. I'll definitely look into this. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling, Gagaluv1 - So what's going on at the Miley Cyrus discography article? Why is it that I had to fully protect the article over this dispute? You both know that you could've been blocked for edit warring, ya know... Can you help me to understand what's going on so that I can help you two work things out? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- She is adding songs that were released BEFORE on her own lbums. That section is for songs quch are not xeom HER albums. Many users already suportes this. The article is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, for more proof, she was the one asding this songs. Theyve never been there since 2017 wich they there "released". In the meantime please i would like if you could use the last revision by lK95. As it was the original version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling - Unfortunately, I cannot do that. That would be against my responsibility of acting as a neutral, impartial third-party, and as an uninvolved administrator. Once I fully protect an article, I cannot edit it unless current revision contains any serious violations of Wikipedia policy - such as copyright violations, BLP violations, threats or harassment, serious vandalism, or other such matters. If any are present, let me know and I'll either remove that content or revert the article to the most recent revision that doesn't contain those issues. Other than that, I can't let things such as who last edited the page, what the revision text is, who filed the protection request, or any other irrelevant matters factor into my decision to protect the article and when I do so. I have to keep things to "the luck of the draw" as much as possible in order to be fair and neutral to everyone involved and to avoid portraying any sort of image to other users that I'm being biased or playing favorites. I hope that you understand. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to address them with you. :-) I will await Gagaluv1's response here so that I can assist you both. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok thank you i will do it if i can onve the protection is over. We cant let a aingle user decide what we include and qhat not, the consus qas alwayd there until this uswr came in. Love xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawler (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- I will always be restauring the original version before her edits since it was like that until she came in. I hope she can understand that she has to use the talk page and wait for consensus to change things. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling - No, you really shouldn't do that... The reason that the article is fully protected is to systematically "nudge" you both over to the article's talk page so that you both can work things out properly and edit collaboratively. This isn't a "cooling down" period where you just wait it out and then resume exactly what you're doing once the protection expires. You will be blocked if you go straight back to the article and continue edit warring, and so will Gagaluv1 if he/she does that, too. You have both been given warnings for edit warring on this article, and other than the full protection being placed to put the brakes on your actions, that will be the last warning you two will receive. Having the attitude that you "will always be restauring [sic] the original version before her edits" is the exact opposite of which you should be having, and is exactly what is going to get you blocked. Have you read through Wikipedia's guidelines on dispute resolution? If not, you really should do that. It's ultimately up to the both of you how things are going to wind up. I really hope that things go positively and that we don't have to go to the next step. One way or another, the disruption will stop - whether it be that you two work things out, walk away and focus on something else, or end up being blocked. Please, I beg you, choose the easy and the right way that will end the disruption. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- I completly agree w you. But the version that should be kept is the one that was consensed and not the one he wanted? Thats what im saying. Its not like i want my esit to prevail. Its the all time page edit rhat didnt incluse that rhat way. I hope u understand ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling - No, you really shouldn't do that... The reason that the article is fully protected is to systematically "nudge" you both over to the article's talk page so that you both can work things out properly and edit collaboratively. This isn't a "cooling down" period where you just wait it out and then resume exactly what you're doing once the protection expires. You will be blocked if you go straight back to the article and continue edit warring, and so will Gagaluv1 if he/she does that, too. You have both been given warnings for edit warring on this article, and other than the full protection being placed to put the brakes on your actions, that will be the last warning you two will receive. Having the attitude that you "will always be restauring [sic] the original version before her edits" is the exact opposite of which you should be having, and is exactly what is going to get you blocked. Have you read through Wikipedia's guidelines on dispute resolution? If not, you really should do that. It's ultimately up to the both of you how things are going to wind up. I really hope that things go positively and that we don't have to go to the next step. One way or another, the disruption will stop - whether it be that you two work things out, walk away and focus on something else, or end up being blocked. Please, I beg you, choose the easy and the right way that will end the disruption. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling - Unfortunately, I cannot do that. That would be against my responsibility of acting as a neutral, impartial third-party, and as an uninvolved administrator. Once I fully protect an article, I cannot edit it unless current revision contains any serious violations of Wikipedia policy - such as copyright violations, BLP violations, threats or harassment, serious vandalism, or other such matters. If any are present, let me know and I'll either remove that content or revert the article to the most recent revision that doesn't contain those issues. Other than that, I can't let things such as who last edited the page, what the revision text is, who filed the protection request, or any other irrelevant matters factor into my decision to protect the article and when I do so. I have to keep things to "the luck of the draw" as much as possible in order to be fair and neutral to everyone involved and to avoid portraying any sort of image to other users that I'm being biased or playing favorites. I hope that you understand. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to address them with you. :-) I will await Gagaluv1's response here so that I can assist you both. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you Oshwah for getting involved. I would first like to apologize for my behavior, it was childish to keep reverting and I am sorry for not taking it to the talk page for discussion. However, I do not understand the vitriolic response from Night Crawling, who seems to be almost offended by these songs' inclusion in the page and I have no idea why. The jist of the situation is that I added two Miley Cyrus releases, Spotify Singles and Spotify Singles - Holiday, to the extended play section. Night Crawling disagreed with these release's inclusion as they are only 2-song releases, which according to the extended play article, does not meet the definition. I would say that rule is not always true, as Drake's Scary Hours is called an EP despite being two songs, but I accept the disagreement. I then went on to add the songs to the "Other appearances" section, to which Night Crawling also objected and I don't know why. These are four officially recorded and released songs and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be included on the article. Again, I apologize to all involved for being a part of this dispute and I hope we can find a peaceful way to resolve it. (Oh and by the way my pronouns are they/them. Not anyone's fault because I don't have them listed but I figured I'd say since there seemed to be some confusion.) Best, Gagaluv1 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry GagaLuv1 for using qrong pronoms. The thing is that these songs are not "other" appareances since they apoñpwares first on her own albums. People when they will look there they qill go. Oh bad mood was never included in her albums and is originally by these Spotify Session. False. Qhy dis no one add fhem since 2017? Thats the reason. I hope everyrhing goes ok now! Love xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, with all of these typos it's very hard to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that it's weird that these songs weren't added in 2017? I don't know, I guess no one cared to put them in the Miley Cyrus Discography article, but they clearly are real songs, and have been listed at the Spotify Singles article for a while nowGagaluv1 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- These songs were released before on er own albums. This songs dont belong here. Period the section album appearances are for songs that were released on others people album. Thats why they dont belong here. Never said they arent official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I Think you may be confused. These weren't compilations of old songs, they were new recordings never appearing on other releases. Of the four songs between the two releases, only one is a Miley song and again, it's a new version. This argument doesn't make sense.Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is my last message towards you, the new versiona of songs arent considered different songs, and that section is not to include every miley song, its for songs on others peoples albums, thats why Right Qhwre I Bwlong isnt there. Know how discography pages work and stop obsessing over things, its weird. Every 5 edits u are reverting that edit, get a hobbie. they dont belong there and never will thats why more users never accepeted your edit or added them before. Keep doing what ur doing and you know what will happen, as other admins have told you before. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 12:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oshwah will you weigh in on this? I have a feeling Night Crawling is not capable of making a compromise.Gagaluv1 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling - Your last message above to Gagaluv1 telling them to "know how discography pages work and stop obsessing over things" and to "get a hobbie [sic]" was completely unacceptable. Your remarks constitute personal attacks, which is against Wikipedia's policy on civility, as well as item #4 of Wikipedia's five founding principles. I advised you earlier in this discussion that your attitude in regards to your intent on reverting Gagaluv1's edits regardless of the consequence was extremely concerning to me, and I warned you that continuing to edit war on this article and continue what you were doing would result in being blocked, and informed you that you've been given a final warning with all of this and that no more warnings would be forthcoming. I also told you that Wikipedia has a guideline on how to properly resolve disputes, and I advised you to read and understand these guidelines and follow them. In my observation, Gagaluv1 has willingly participated in this discussion when I asked them to, though he/she was under no obligation to do so. He/She has been civil, responded to your comments with legitimate explanations, questions, and concerns, and has done their best to work with you. You have not offered any explanation to your disagreement; no specific guidelines (such as from Wikipedia's manual of style or other places), no links to discussions or previously-established consensus that defines what an "extended play" is. The only thing that Gagaluv1 could offer is a link to the article itself, which is not a guideline, but an article. Although I do credit you for participating in this discussion as well, I don't feel that you've offered any explanation for your actions outside of incivility, and "that's the way it is". That's not fair on Gagaluv1 for you to do that. As Gagaluv1 stated briefly above, I don't believe that you're willing to work with him/her, and I believe that you lack proper explanation and rationale for your actions taken on the article. That's disappointing... I feel that you could be a great editor if you'd allow yourself to have an open mind and work well with others. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize if i ofended anyone, i said that i tried ti explain to he se and he she didnt listened; thats why i responded that way; OFC i Will colaboraré, the advice i told him ver was ti prevent her him for being blocked becwuse other editors Aldo reverter and warneed him ver, BEST ir luck ti everyone, lots of LOVE and thabk u Oswah for helping us! Xoxo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Gagaluv1 - I'm almost starting to feel like we're getting trolled here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize if i ofended anyone, i said that i tried ti explain to he se and he she didnt listened; thats why i responded that way; OFC i Will colaboraré, the advice i told him ver was ti prevent her him for being blocked becwuse other editors Aldo reverter and warneed him ver, BEST ir luck ti everyone, lots of LOVE and thabk u Oswah for helping us! Xoxo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling - Your last message above to Gagaluv1 telling them to "know how discography pages work and stop obsessing over things" and to "get a hobbie [sic]" was completely unacceptable. Your remarks constitute personal attacks, which is against Wikipedia's policy on civility, as well as item #4 of Wikipedia's five founding principles. I advised you earlier in this discussion that your attitude in regards to your intent on reverting Gagaluv1's edits regardless of the consequence was extremely concerning to me, and I warned you that continuing to edit war on this article and continue what you were doing would result in being blocked, and informed you that you've been given a final warning with all of this and that no more warnings would be forthcoming. I also told you that Wikipedia has a guideline on how to properly resolve disputes, and I advised you to read and understand these guidelines and follow them. In my observation, Gagaluv1 has willingly participated in this discussion when I asked them to, though he/she was under no obligation to do so. He/She has been civil, responded to your comments with legitimate explanations, questions, and concerns, and has done their best to work with you. You have not offered any explanation to your disagreement; no specific guidelines (such as from Wikipedia's manual of style or other places), no links to discussions or previously-established consensus that defines what an "extended play" is. The only thing that Gagaluv1 could offer is a link to the article itself, which is not a guideline, but an article. Although I do credit you for participating in this discussion as well, I don't feel that you've offered any explanation for your actions outside of incivility, and "that's the way it is". That's not fair on Gagaluv1 for you to do that. As Gagaluv1 stated briefly above, I don't believe that you're willing to work with him/her, and I believe that you lack proper explanation and rationale for your actions taken on the article. That's disappointing... I feel that you could be a great editor if you'd allow yourself to have an open mind and work well with others. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oshwah will you weigh in on this? I have a feeling Night Crawling is not capable of making a compromise.Gagaluv1 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is my last message towards you, the new versiona of songs arent considered different songs, and that section is not to include every miley song, its for songs on others peoples albums, thats why Right Qhwre I Bwlong isnt there. Know how discography pages work and stop obsessing over things, its weird. Every 5 edits u are reverting that edit, get a hobbie. they dont belong there and never will thats why more users never accepeted your edit or added them before. Keep doing what ur doing and you know what will happen, as other admins have told you before. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 12:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I Think you may be confused. These weren't compilations of old songs, they were new recordings never appearing on other releases. Of the four songs between the two releases, only one is a Miley song and again, it's a new version. This argument doesn't make sense.Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- These songs were released before on er own albums. This songs dont belong here. Period the section album appearances are for songs that were released on others people album. Thats why they dont belong here. Never said they arent official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, with all of these typos it's very hard to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that it's weird that these songs weren't added in 2017? I don't know, I guess no one cared to put them in the Miley Cyrus Discography article, but they clearly are real songs, and have been listed at the Spotify Singles article for a while nowGagaluv1 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Gagaluv1! I apologize for the delay responding here and providing input. No worries; we've all gotten sucked into the "edit warring" cycle (including myself). Don't worry about what you did and don't dwell in the past; let's look ahead to the future. :-) If anything, you've learned from this and you'll be a better and more experienced editor moving forward. One cannot truly grow without making mistakes. I would know; I'm not here and with all of the experience, community respect, and knowledge because I'm 100% perfect as a member of the community. Many admins and editors will vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes here. ;-) It's your actions (such as being willing to participate here, apologize, and acknowledge your mistakes) that speak louder than anything else, and I appreciate that very much. I fixed some indentation issues above; I'm going to go back, read the responses between you two above, and I'll chime in under your request for my input. Thanks again! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry GagaLuv1 for using qrong pronoms. The thing is that these songs are not "other" appareances since they apoñpwares first on her own albums. People when they will look there they qill go. Oh bad mood was never included in her albums and is originally by these Spotify Session. False. Qhy dis no one add fhem since 2017? Thats the reason. I hope everyrhing goes ok now! Love xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling, Gagaluv1 - So what's going on at the Miley Cyrus discography article? Why is it that I had to fully protect the article over this dispute? You both know that you could've been blocked for edit warring, ya know... Can you help me to understand what's going on so that I can help you two work things out? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden
Thanks for the lock - but when will you allow rollbackers and pending changes reviewers? Tvoz/talk 20:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Admins have both rollback and a CRASH badge. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- This should not be fully protected. There are just too many problems with the article in its current state. If extended confirmed editors are vandalizing the page, then they should be blocked, not make the article limited to admins. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is that multiple EC editors are, and there are signs that at least some of them are compromised. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's correct, and we've had more than one report of this happening that we're actively investigating. I understand everyone's frustration; it's certainly been quite an election and this is a big moment in history. However, above all else, I have to do what's best for the project and the integrity of the article and the Encyclopedia and keep that as a first priority... Even if it means that I become the brunt of any negative feedback that comes my way. It's the curse that comes with the responsibility. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- The issue is that multiple EC editors are, and there are signs that at least some of them are compromised. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- This should not be fully protected. There are just too many problems with the article in its current state. If extended confirmed editors are vandalizing the page, then they should be blocked, not make the article limited to admins. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Oshwah. I'm glad it's your name on the protection, and not mine ;) Accordingly, could you please reinstate indef move protection when you get a chance. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Look, Oshwah, I like you and I'm glad you're willing to take the brunt etc etc. But indefinite full protection is completely inappropriate. There are plenty of eyes on the article and problematic edits have lasted, like, 90 seconds. If it's possible to combine Pending Changes with EC (though I'm guessing not) that might make sense here, but if not then only EC is justified. I don't see the vandalism or edit warring that would justify full protection -- just good-faith edits which happen to be mistaken. Check out WP:PREEMPTIVE again. EEng 11:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi EEng! I appreciate your honest feedback with how this was handled. I would never discourage you from coming to me and telling me how you feel about how I handled certain situations with the user of administrator tools, and I thank you for doing so. :-)
- The reason I applied indefinite full protection wasn't to protect the article FOREVER, but to do so without a timer, so that lowering the protection could be discussed and implemented when the time was felt to be right. This eventually happened from the discussion that was later held at WP:AN, and I don't object to it at all. I originally applied full protection to the article for six hours due to the vandalism that was occurring and given the recent events that unfolded... I'm sure you understand that. ;-) I lowered the protection to ECP, but was questioned about this shortly and reminded that many extended-confirmed users were edit warring (or preparing to do so). We also had some extended-confirmed accounts that we believed to be compromised that engaged in serious disruption of this (and other similar) articles as well. Remember, too, that discretionary sanctions exist both for BLP articles (or "articles with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people"... I think you get it lol), as well as post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. This gives administrators loosened restrictions and the ability to take the proper actions needed to ensure a positive and collaborative editing environment.
- Now, I'm not throwing these policies and guidelines at you in order to say that I'm right and that you are wrong. I'm simply telling you what was going through my mind at the time. I was faced with a decision, and I went with what I felt would best protect the article and the project at that moment. I was questioned for lowering the protection, and I was obviously questioned for raising it back up. I guess I can't truly win in these situations. :-) I hope that my response helped to explain why I did what I did. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask them. I hope you're doing well, EEng, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. Oh, and to answer your (question?), yes it is possible to combine extended-confirmed protection (or any protection, for that matter) with pending changes protection, though the only reason you'd do so is if you'd have, say, semi-protection expire sooner than pending-changes protection, in which the pending-changes protection would take over after that protection expires. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your most thorough explanation, and I trust you remain well also. I don't understand your final comment, however. Seems to me if you combine ECP with PCP, you'd have the effect of PCP (i.e. changes are hidden from most readers until they're reviewed) but also only EC editors can edit at all. Anyway, I've since realized that PCP is really practical only for articles with very light editing traffic. EEng 07:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- EEng - Oh, sure, I can explain further: In the situation you mentioned above (ECP with PCP), you'd be right in a practical sense. Combining extended-confirmed protection and pending changes protection would be impractical, but it's technically possible ("technically possible" meaning that you can actually set protection that way and the MediaWiki Software won't stop you from doing so). If they expired at the same time, pending changes protection would be useless. The only effect that you'd see is extended-confirmed protection. It's only practical if a protection that restricted editing at all (like semi protection) was going to expire sooner than the pending changes protection expiration you'd set. This way, when semi expired, pending changes protection would take over, and allow editing but hide changes until they were reviewed. The only situations where I've set both PCP and another protection together was with semi protection. I'd set PCP to expire, say, in one month. Then I'd set semi to expire in a few days or a week. Then, the restriction would "lower" after semi expired, and when PCP would take over. I've been good, but busy... Work has kept me quite busy. Hope you're doing well. Stay healthy... these times are certainly quite crazy! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I still don't get it. If ECP and PCP are both in force at a given moment, why is it that
pending changes protection would be useless ... only effect that you'd see is extended-confirmed protection
? Why wouldn't you get the effect of both? EEng 08:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)- EEng - Because non-confirmed users and anonymous users would be restricted from editing the page in the first place with the extended-confirmed protection being applied. Hence there'd be no point in implementing PCP unless ECP was set to expire sooner. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, I forgot that PCP only "hides" the edits of unconfirmed editors. Odd that I let that slip my mind, since I did the table at Template:Protection_table. EEng 08:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- EEng - No worries; it happens to the best of us. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know. EEng 09:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- EEng - No worries; it happens to the best of us. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, I forgot that PCP only "hides" the edits of unconfirmed editors. Odd that I let that slip my mind, since I did the table at Template:Protection_table. EEng 08:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- EEng - Because non-confirmed users and anonymous users would be restricted from editing the page in the first place with the extended-confirmed protection being applied. Hence there'd be no point in implementing PCP unless ECP was set to expire sooner. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I still don't get it. If ECP and PCP are both in force at a given moment, why is it that
- EEng - Oh, sure, I can explain further: In the situation you mentioned above (ECP with PCP), you'd be right in a practical sense. Combining extended-confirmed protection and pending changes protection would be impractical, but it's technically possible ("technically possible" meaning that you can actually set protection that way and the MediaWiki Software won't stop you from doing so). If they expired at the same time, pending changes protection would be useless. The only effect that you'd see is extended-confirmed protection. It's only practical if a protection that restricted editing at all (like semi protection) was going to expire sooner than the pending changes protection expiration you'd set. This way, when semi expired, pending changes protection would take over, and allow editing but hide changes until they were reviewed. The only situations where I've set both PCP and another protection together was with semi protection. I'd set PCP to expire, say, in one month. Then I'd set semi to expire in a few days or a week. Then, the restriction would "lower" after semi expired, and when PCP would take over. I've been good, but busy... Work has kept me quite busy. Hope you're doing well. Stay healthy... these times are certainly quite crazy! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your most thorough explanation, and I trust you remain well also. I don't understand your final comment, however. Seems to me if you combine ECP with PCP, you'd have the effect of PCP (i.e. changes are hidden from most readers until they're reviewed) but also only EC editors can edit at all. Anyway, I've since realized that PCP is really practical only for articles with very light editing traffic. EEng 07:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Now, I'm not throwing these policies and guidelines at you in order to say that I'm right and that you are wrong. I'm simply telling you what was going through my mind at the time. I was faced with a decision, and I went with what I felt would best protect the article and the project at that moment. I was questioned for lowering the protection, and I was obviously questioned for raising it back up. I guess I can't truly win in these situations. :-) I hope that my response helped to explain why I did what I did. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask them. I hope you're doing well, EEng, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. Oh, and to answer your (question?), yes it is possible to combine extended-confirmed protection (or any protection, for that matter) with pending changes protection, though the only reason you'd do so is if you'd have, say, semi-protection expire sooner than pending-changes protection, in which the pending-changes protection would take over after that protection expires. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits
New here - why does the article title "Political positions of Joe Biden" now land on your recent edit rather than land in the main article page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:7CDF:24FD:85F7:E2C9:BFE3:428C (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- CRASH will be by soon. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there! I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Can you elaborate or provide a link? I thought at first you might have meant that your changes have become "pending" instead of live on the page (due to pending changes protection), but the page logs show that it's only been semi-protected. Any additional information you can add will help me to answer your question. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
No subject
He buddy let me know how can i make a Wikipedia page that fan be publicly seen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagpreet singh virdi (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jagpreet singh virdi! Before creating your first article, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial first. It will provide you with many important walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will familiarize you with our policies and guidelines, how Wikipedia works, how to navigate around the site, and how to find important locations and pages. 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. Should you wish to proceed anyways, there's an easy tutorial that will guide you. You can find it here. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them and help. :-) Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to join us! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Why are you lowering the protection on this article today of all days? Have you looked over the talk page? There are many editors contesting that he won the election and is the President-elect. It seems like today, of all days, you would maintain protection on this article. This article will be subject to disruption for the foreseeable future. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Liz - The article was fully protected due to vandalism by compromised extended confirmed account. I felt that the vandalism has passed and hence the reason for protecting it was no longer necessary. If you feel that it should remain fully protected due to possible edit warring, I can restore it. Shall I do so? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Liz - I went ahead and restored full protection with an updated reason. Quite frankly, I agree with you. I'm just trying to be thorough. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'll admit I didn't see the previous discussions on this issue (above this comment). Sorry to add to your burden of placing the protection. I've found that edit suggestions on talk pages of protected articles can show you what edits editors would make if they could do it on their own. And, right now, there are a lot of people that can't accept reality. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Liz - No worries! It's the right thing to do for the article and the encyclopedia. If it means that I take heat for it, oh well. That's the burden and the curse that comes with holding the mop. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'll admit I didn't see the previous discussions on this issue (above this comment). Sorry to add to your burden of placing the protection. I've found that edit suggestions on talk pages of protected articles can show you what edits editors would make if they could do it on their own. And, right now, there are a lot of people that can't accept reality. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Liz - I went ahead and restored full protection with an updated reason. Quite frankly, I agree with you. I'm just trying to be thorough. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- One thing I can do to possibly help is to temporarily remove the WP:1RR restriction from the article, leaving just the BRD restriction. That would free up our regular editors to revert unhelpful content without worrying about using up their 1 daily revert against the massive number of less-helpful edits, but it would still prohibit drive-by accounts from immediately reinstating their changes when those changes are undone. (FYI this isn't an idea I just came up with, I've been thinking about this for some time now especially in the context of articles about recent events.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
BilCat (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- BilCat - Received and replied. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Protection request
Hi, I believe it is time to re-protect the List of films impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. There have been multiple persistent edits by unregistered users in the past few days with un-sourced content and/or removal of content without any reasoning. Please help. Thanks. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Shawnqual! I've added pending-changes protection to this article for one month. If things continue after it expires, let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
About Joe Biden
Can you make the protection maybe expire on 15 January 2021? Or probably drop it to semiprotection I am kind of opposed to "indefinite" full-protection as it stops legit contributors from making good-faith edits. Sure there are DS imposed on the page, but I think indefinite full protection is a bit too much as it prevents most direct good-faith edits ever. Aasim (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Or better remove protection altogether, so that way we can tell the truth about Biden without ponces reverting and calling it vandalism! Spacewise (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — Spacewise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Hi Awesome Aasim - There's a discussion on AN regarding the protection of these articles where you can participate and voice your concerns. I've already expressed there that I'll be happy to update the protection to what's decided. I suggest participating there. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
AN
Sorry to drag you into drama, but I've started an WP:AN thread about the protection on the Joe Biden page. I think you did the right thing here, my hope is this discussion determines what an appropriate length of time of protection is, or some alternatives. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek - No biggie. :-) Just let me know what's decided and I can change it. I'll keep my name on the protection; no need to drag other admins into the mud. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
A quick look at an edit
Would you please take a look at this edit? I don't know if it should stick around in the edit history. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi BlackcurrantTea! It doesn't appear to fall into the threshold of being a serious BLP violation, so I'll go ahead and hold off. In the future, if you see anything that you feel might need rev del, you'll want to email them to me instead of posting them here publicly for anyone to read. Over 1000 editors have my user talk page on their watchlist - this means that they're notified as soon as anyone makes an edit to this page. If you post these kinds of requests here, you will trigger the Streisand effect (I'm sure you've heard of it), as editors will quickly run over and look at the content before it becomes restricted for them to see. No big deal; just keep this in mind for next time. :-) If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. :-D Have a great day, and happy editing! Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. If I thought it was a definite case for revdel, I would have emailed. Since it's an orphan article with low page views, and the edit was, well, not at all nice, but as you say, not over the threshold, and it had already been there for over a day, I posted here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- BlackcurrantTea - No worries, I understand and I don't fault you at all. Yeah, even in cases where you're not even sure, just go ahead and email them to me. "Better safe than sorry" is how I feel with these kinds of reports. ;-) I've had many editors report possible rev del issues here where they felt doubtful but figured they're report anyways. Well, they ended up being revisions that ABSOLUTELY 100% NEEDED REV DEL... lol. I look at the page views for the article the next day, and as I expected, a big jump was recorded just because the user reported the revision here publicly. I help many editors here, and as a consequence, these kinds of things happen. ;-) Anyways, as I said above, please don't hesitate to let me know if you see any more issues - I'll be happy to take a look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. If I thought it was a definite case for revdel, I would have emailed. Since it's an orphan article with low page views, and the edit was, well, not at all nice, but as you say, not over the threshold, and it had already been there for over a day, I posted here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Dougal Dankworth
is requesting unblocking at UTRS appeal #37014. As he is globally locked, his only avenue of appeal is UTRS. I read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajax Coleman/Archive, and your logic would be difficult to refute. Could you opine at the UTRS? The only route I see to unblocking would be to shuttle his requests between UTRS and WP:AN. And I don't think that would succeed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, never mind. 331dot gave them/him short shrift.09:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra - Cool deal; glad it's been taken care of. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
About the removal of Randeep Rai project Hero Gayab Mode ON
I removed that because Hero Gayab Mode On Trailer has released its appearing Abishek Nigam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.141.83 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there! Thanks for letting me know. If my revert was made in error, please accept my apologies and feel free to restore your changes. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Warner Media and more
You said to let you know if you missed blocking anyone.[1]. You missed this one. The entire /16 has been quiet this month except for that one edit on the 9th so perhaps you didn't "miss" him after all. I did not check the entire /12[2] but obviously that's too big to block. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Davidwr! Thanks for the message and for letting me know. For now, let's just keep an eye on this IP. If things go crazy, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. I wouldn't put much time into that range. A /12 on an IPv4 is absolutely massive... It's wider than the maximum range that we can block in one action. Again, if you see any craziness, let me know. :-) Thanks again for the FYI. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Thankfulness |
| I am giving you this because I think you are very thankful for all the work you’ve done on Wikipedia for the past thirteen years. Cupper52 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC) |
- Hi Cupper52! Thank you for the barnstar! You're absolutely correct - I'm extremely thankful to be part of this community over the 13+ years that I've been an editor here. It's been great to work with other people, come to resolutions to complex issues and problems, and keep Wikipedia clean of disruption. I appreciate the time that you took to write this to me, and I hope you have a great day! Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Broadway Blackthorn1234 Page Deletion
So I'm new here, forgive me if I screwed something up big-time, but I want to know why my page was deleted? I tried to look into the reason the page was deleted when I saw the message, but it was confusing. Can you explain it to me like I'm an idiot [mainly because I am, but also because a lot of things are confusing for me sometimes]? Broadway Blackthorn1234 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Broadway Blackthorn1234
- Hi Broadway Blackthorn1234! Welcome to Wikipedia! Your userpage was deleted because it consisted of content that was not primarily Wikipedia-focused. It appeared as if you were either writing about yourself or about someone else that you know. See this section of Wikipedia's policy on user pages for more information. If you have any questions or if you need help with anything, please let me know and I will be more than happy to do so. :-) You're not in trouble or anything - don't worry. We just have these rules in place to keep user pages on-focus and appropriate, and make sure that any disruption, spam, advertising, or other disallowed content on user pages are taken care of. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, that helped so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadway Blackthorn1234 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Broadway Blackthorn1234 - You bet. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to have you here with us! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, that helped so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadway Blackthorn1234 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Shawntheshipper
Hi. I think you forgot to block and tag User:Tayzarswifsson as another sockpuppet. Also, should User:Shawntheshipper have his block extended to indefinite for continues sockpuppetry?4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi 4thfile4thrank! Nope, I left that account unblocked because I concluded that it was likely this user, not confirmed. ;-) It's definitely going to be a sock, but I can't say so with enough certainty given the technical evidence I obtained. Yes, I would say that extending the block to an indefinite block wouldn't be a bad idea. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Can his block be extended to indef please? It hasn't been done yet. It is clear Shawntheshipper has continued to sock after being blocked for it. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- 4thfile4thrank - Sure, though the IP is already autoblocked. It won't make a difference whether I extend the block now or someone else does it while closing the SPI thread. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Can his block be extended to indef please? It hasn't been done yet. It is clear Shawntheshipper has continued to sock after being blocked for it. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
How to respond to an edit like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vasyl_Lomachenko&curid=14538175&diff=988102685&oldid=986396164&diffmode=source 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- 4thfile4thrank - I'd revert it stating that the edit wasn't necessary. Wikipedia is not a place to update website statuses and uptime. I've gone ahead and reverted the edit for you here. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @4thfile4thrank:(talk page stalker)Since there is a claim of malware, I replaced the link with
{{cite web|url=http://www.boxing-scoop.com/show_boxer.php?boxer_ID=8586|title=Vasyl Lomachenko's amateur boxing record|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180925104414/http://www.boxing-scoop.com/show_boxer.php?boxer_ID=8586|archivedate=2018-09-25|url-status=unfit}}. This gives a usable link without giving the possibly-contaminated one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- Davidwr - Perfect! Thanks for doing that! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @4thfile4thrank:(talk page stalker)Since there is a claim of malware, I replaced the link with
A barnstar for you
|
The Oversighter's Barnstar | |
| Thanks for being around so much to hide stuff --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
- DannyS712! Thank you for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! And you're very welcome! I appreciate all of the reports you send my way, and I'm always happy to take care of them! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Hi, could you help me fill in the references on Chills (YouTuber). They look weird! --SoothingRelaxation (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi SoothingRelaxation! Sure, I'll be happy to help! Have you used the {{cite web}} template before? This is what is commonly used for citing sources that point to web pages. You just put the template between the ref tags, and you're set to go! It's use is documented here, but in a nutshell, this is how you use it:
- For references with author credit
<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>
- For references without author credit
<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author=<!--Not stated--> |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>
- You just fill in the information after the equal signs. You can remove the pieces that you don't have information for. Here's an example:
Example
|
|---|
|
- Please let me know if you have any more questions or need help with anything else. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi.
As you can see, the user gagaluv1 has another edit warring going on. As i told you, he seems to have a fixation with all of my edits and he was the one trolling you telling you he learned a lesson. I don't know why you felt like I was the "bad child" here. Because if i was i wouldn't be writing you this to understad the situation. I don't know what to do with this user, it's so frustating and you thinking i was the bad one was dissapointing. I hope this clears up the confussion. thank u in advance!--Night Crawling (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Also, the protteciton on the article is open and as you could see i didn't even went to do any changes to what caused an edit warring because i listened to you. B<PS, eing so nice to him made her thinking he has now a privilage to edit what he wants because he knows you can block people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling - Your viewpoint and attitude with this whole dispute (as you expressed in the discussion above) is why I may have left you feeling this way. It's never my intention to do so, but you need to look at things in my shoes: If you were trying to help settle a dispute between two individuals, how would you feel in this situation? If User A's attitude was apologetic and the user expressed willingness to work with the other user and actually tried to do so, and if User B's attitude was made clear when they stated that they would revert User A's edits no matter the cost, then made personal attacks toward User A for no good reason when that user was trying to work with User B peacefully, who would you feel is in the right? Who would you feel more compelled to help? User A? Or User B?
- Also, please know that we don't grant "immunity" just because a user is the one who reports an issue. Per this section of Wikipedia's essay on not shooting yourself in the foot, all users in a discussion can be scrutinized, and can be blocked and sanctioned - even the reporting user. I've asked Gagaluv1 to start a discussion on the articl'es talk page. Please participate and work with Gagaluv1 when he/she does so. Thank you - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Redirects cleanup request
Hi, Oshwah, I haven't talked to you for a long time. I see you do not let your mop idle. 
I hope you're doing well and all yours are well, too.
Today I come to ask you for help with deciding about unnecessary redirects. I made a little mistake when handling the request at WP:VP/T:
As a result, I left unnecessary redirects behind me:
both pointing at Talk:John Brennan (CIA officer)/Archive 1.
Do you think they are OK, or should I mark them to {{db}}? And which speedy deletion criterion would apply here?
Best regards, and happy editing! --CiaPan (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi CiaPan! It's good to talk to you again! I hope things are going well for you, and that you're staying safe in these crazy times. ;-) I'm in an area where COVID impact is low, but cases are still on the rise as winter hits full-swing here. Nah, I don't see anything wrong with those redirects. I think you can just leave them without worry that anything is going to happen. There isn't a speedy deletion criterion that this would fall into; you'd have to list them at the redirects for discussion noticeboard. In the worse case scenario, I can just kill em, but I don't think it's necessary. Let me know if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Glad to hear that you're doing well. Stay safe and be well! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, so I think I'll leave them as they are. IMHO they are useless, but they certainly don't make any harm. Thank you for your extensive reply. --CiaPan (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. It's not that good with Covid-19 here – there's above a half million cases total (WHO map says it's almost 594 thousands, Johns Hopkins Univ map gives a number of 619) and about 8500 deaths. But I hope everything is going to end well. Keep warm and keep smiling!
CiaPan (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- CiaPan - Dang! Keep safe! That's a lot of cases! You bet; and I certainly will! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Shawntheshipper
Should his talk page access be revoked for this? 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 23:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- 4thfile4thrank - Nah, just let the user vent. If he/she is really that upset because they were caught abusing multiple accounts, and if he/she is really leaving, then I'm not that concerned. The user is just being a diva. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
?
Check Miley Cyrus discocgraphy talk page and see gagaluv1 violent message. He literally called me damaged. But then i supose i am the bad guy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I told him he was an obssesive person and that is not n isult. being damaged is. he literally just called me that in fornt of everybody at the talk apge
- "What is your damage" is another way of saying "What is your problem". It's not calling you damaged in any way - and I would think twice before complaining to an administrator about an article you're edit-warring on. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiley_Cyrus_discography&type=revision&diff=988245069&oldid=988244547 Check this. He told me to stop or he will block me like he has that right. That goes against wikipedia guidelines. he is not an admn Sorry, but I know that damaged is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- That diff shows him basically retracting that threat. And even if he didn't, you're still edit-warring on that page. Administrators can and will block for it, and don't care who has the higher ground (on the grounds that neither party does). While he's not an admin, Oshwah is, and you're honestly not helping your case a whit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I know Oshwah. Thats why i talked to him as a college. tahnk u. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Night Crawling - Gagaluv1 has pinged you in a discussion on the article's talk page. You should know, since you provided a diff from that discussion above. I personally wouldn't have chosen the word "damage" in the sentence he wrote, but I agree with Jéské Couriano that he probably meant to say, "What is your problem?". While he removed the threat of you being blocked and replaced it with other words, he didn't do anything wrong. He didn't that that he was going to block you, he stated that you would be blocked if it continues, which is true - continued edit warring will lead to being blocked. Can you please respond to Gagaluv1 on the talk page and work with him peacefully? If there's a reason that the song shouldn't be labeled as a single, please provide a link to the relevant policy, guideline, or consensus that explains this. You have yet to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I know Oshwah. Thats why i talked to him as a college. tahnk u. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- That diff shows him basically retracting that threat. And even if he didn't, you're still edit-warring on that page. Administrators can and will block for it, and don't care who has the higher ground (on the grounds that neither party does). While he's not an admin, Oshwah is, and you're honestly not helping your case a whit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiley_Cyrus_discography&type=revision&diff=988245069&oldid=988244547 Check this. He told me to stop or he will block me like he has that right. That goes against wikipedia guidelines. he is not an admn Sorry, but I know that damaged is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion
Hey there, I've been watching the horrifying edit warring on Miley Cyrus discography and never intented to get in there until that situation stoped. I keep seeing the same 2 users Night Crawling and Gagaluv1 both after talking with you they seem both as equally non interesed on stoping the war. The page right now is a mess. All of the edits there are from them. I've seen the discussion and yet there is one user that he is not very good grammaly and other is good at explaining I don't think there is a bad one there. They should be globally blocked forever or the discography page will be now a low class article since nobody even cares to edit there. All edits should be restored before both users started warring. Thank you and nice to meet you and keep up with the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMG4323 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC) I decided to do the rollback before both users started a war, but I am in no position to talk with them or take actions. It's up to admins, now. Greetings.--OMG4323 (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi OMG4323! Thank you for the message and for expressing your thoughts and opinions. These users are far from being blocked indefinitely. I believe that they're both good contributors who are a net-positive to the project; they're just conflicting with one another over a dispute is all. They've both been clearly warned that continued edit warring would result in being blocked. I've just responded to the discussion above and asked Night Crawling to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. If he reverts your edit or if any reverts between them continue, I'll be partially-blocking that user from the article for an extended period of time for edit warring. You're absolutely right; their dispute has been quite disruptive and has left the article history a mess. Don't worry though - I'm keeping an eye on thing, and I assure you that it will stop one way or another. It's up to them as far as how it will be stopped. Either they'll work things out, choose to step away and come back sometime down the road, or they'll continue violating policy and be blocked for doing so. Either way, it's not going to continue. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to talk to you about them. :-) Thanks again, be safe, and be well! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khalil Berro
Hi Oshwah. Since you were the admin that dealt with this SPI, perhaps you could take a look at Talk:Khalil Berro because another SPA has showed up who might be a WP:DUCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Marchjuly! Sure, I'll take a look at it today. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Khalil Berro
User:Wikicat202 looks like another sock. Should I add it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khalil Berro or open a new one? DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- DuncanHill - Let's just open a new one. Add your evidence and I'll take a look at it. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, just off out to the shops, will address on return. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like I was beaten to it! DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- DuncanHill - Oh well, at least it was taken care of. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look Oshwah. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Marchjuly - You bet; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look Oshwah. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- DuncanHill - Oh well, at least it was taken care of. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like I was beaten to it! DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, just off out to the shops, will address on return. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
New User:Khalil Berro sock
It's Wikicat202.Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies. My dumb ass just noticed what was literally immediately above this message. GPL93 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- GPL93 - HA! No worries; I do that all the time. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Just checking in
Hello Oshwah,
Just checking in to see how you are doing. I've been busy with real life and have not been editing much. I would like to know how everything is going with you during these difficult times. Interstellarity (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interstellarity! How've you been?!! It's always good to talk to you! Things have been busy for me, but I have no true complaints. COVID cases are rising everywhere, but I'm lucky to be living in a place where the infection rate is relatively low. Yeah, no kidding... I mean, I never truely imagined that we'd be having to wear masks and stay away from one another, but on the other hand, I'm not crazy surprised either. There are many fictional movies and books that depict times like this, where people are wearing hazmat suits when they go out, or having to outside in the morning to scoop frozen oxygen from the sidewalk and throw it in the fire so that they could breathe... Old innocent me thought this would never happen. Boy was I wrong! How are you doing? Are you in a relatively safe location? How's life been for you? What have you been up to? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am doing well as well. I live in Massachusetts which is not a red state although some of the towns are red. I feel pretty safe despite all the COVID craziness. Life has been running very smoothly for me and I have no concerns on or off Wikipedia. Like you, I never thought an event like this would shake the world so much that we have to adjust our daily routine. I'm glad you are doing OK and hope that a vaccine comes out very soon. I'd be interested to know what you think the future of COVID and the world is going to look like in the coming months and years. Best, Interstellarity (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interstellarity - I'm glad to hear that your life is running smoothy despite the craziness these days. Mine has been mostly running smoothly as well. :-) Well, that question really comes in two parts if you think about it: How long is COVID itself going to impact us in the future? And how will society and daily life will be impacted before things return to normal? Honestly, my thoughts regarding both questions depend on whether or this virus is going to mutate and whether or not we're going to have to keep playing "catch up" as far as vaccines and mutations go. If it mutates every year like the cold does, this virus (and hence how we're impacted as a global society) will be with us for a very long time. If it doesn't mutate and if we get a vaccine out that is widely available to be administered, I think that it'll still be a few years until things fully return to what they were in 2019. Either way, depending on whether or not this virus mutates and how soon we get a vaccine out the door before it does will gauge how long it'll stay with us... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know. Even if a vaccine is out to the general public, it could be years before things get back to normal again because any vaccine that comes out to the general public can cause more harm than good if it is not properly tested. I hope that we can all take care of ourselves and hope that things will get better again. Interstellarity (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interstellarity - Many people (IMO) need to take this more seriously than they do - at least from what I've observed in my country (which is the United States). We'd curb this virus significantly if people would follow the recommendations of the CDC and the WHO. It's going to take more than just a vaccine to end this virus... There are obviously people out there who are against vaccines in general (which I think is absolutely ridiculous), and others who straight-up think that this COVID outbreak is fake or a conspiracy. Wat?!! Okay then... When this is all said and done and when the virus is completely stopped, I just hope that we learn from this globally and that we implement much better policies and safeguards for the next time this should happen again... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with you. I think if everyone followed the rules, our country wouldn't even be in the top 10 countries with the most cases. I feel it is important to follow the rules to make it easier for scientists to create a vaccine that will provide immunity to the virus. Some people think the country's leader has something to do with it. It's not the leader's fault people are not following the rules. All they can do is enforce the rules. Interstellarity (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interstellarity - Many people (IMO) need to take this more seriously than they do - at least from what I've observed in my country (which is the United States). We'd curb this virus significantly if people would follow the recommendations of the CDC and the WHO. It's going to take more than just a vaccine to end this virus... There are obviously people out there who are against vaccines in general (which I think is absolutely ridiculous), and others who straight-up think that this COVID outbreak is fake or a conspiracy. Wat?!! Okay then... When this is all said and done and when the virus is completely stopped, I just hope that we learn from this globally and that we implement much better policies and safeguards for the next time this should happen again... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know. Even if a vaccine is out to the general public, it could be years before things get back to normal again because any vaccine that comes out to the general public can cause more harm than good if it is not properly tested. I hope that we can all take care of ourselves and hope that things will get better again. Interstellarity (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interstellarity - I'm glad to hear that your life is running smoothy despite the craziness these days. Mine has been mostly running smoothly as well. :-) Well, that question really comes in two parts if you think about it: How long is COVID itself going to impact us in the future? And how will society and daily life will be impacted before things return to normal? Honestly, my thoughts regarding both questions depend on whether or this virus is going to mutate and whether or not we're going to have to keep playing "catch up" as far as vaccines and mutations go. If it mutates every year like the cold does, this virus (and hence how we're impacted as a global society) will be with us for a very long time. If it doesn't mutate and if we get a vaccine out that is widely available to be administered, I think that it'll still be a few years until things fully return to what they were in 2019. Either way, depending on whether or not this virus mutates and how soon we get a vaccine out the door before it does will gauge how long it'll stay with us... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am doing well as well. I live in Massachusetts which is not a red state although some of the towns are red. I feel pretty safe despite all the COVID craziness. Life has been running very smoothly for me and I have no concerns on or off Wikipedia. Like you, I never thought an event like this would shake the world so much that we have to adjust our daily routine. I'm glad you are doing OK and hope that a vaccine comes out very soon. I'd be interested to know what you think the future of COVID and the world is going to look like in the coming months and years. Best, Interstellarity (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
ANI request
Hi Oshwah, was hoping that you could take a look at the issue I've put at the bottom of ANI. The user has continued the behavior I posted about, and this has been sitting at the bottom of ANI for several hours now. Cheers. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Etzedek24! Thanks for the message. Drmies has just indefinitely blocked the user. :-) Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand with anything you need. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I hope you have a great day! Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Paul Sinha page
Hi Oshwah, someone is persistently vandalizing Paul Sinha's page. The person keeps claiming he is dead. I work with Paul and all of this is rubbish but as Paul has a public profile this is getting noticed and it is distressing for some people reading about it as it keeps coming up in google searches and google hasn't updated the page to reflect that Paul didn't die on 10th November 2020. Having said that, the vandal has been very active in the last hour and keeps posting that Paul is dead and I keep having to undo it. The poster has now been personally abusive to me. I saw that you protected Paul's page this week, I don't know if I'm able to do that or if someone with more privileges can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyCarter (talk • contribs) 11:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment) Hi SallyCarter. Only an administrator can protect a page as explained in Wikipedia:Protection policy, but non-administrators can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In this case, however, an another administrator has already blocked the IP that was making those edits; so, I don't think page protection will be necessary unless the disruption of the page starts up again.For reference, normally a connection to the subject of an article like you've described above means that you'd be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to anything written about Sinha on any Wikipedia page and thus it would be best for you to avoid directly editing any content about him as much as possible. However, it was obvious that the IP was being disruptive and adding content that was a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy; so, if another editor shows up again and starts to try and add the same content, then feel free to remove it per WP:COIADVICE and WP:BLPREMOVE; just make sure to leave an neutrally worded edit summary explaining why. If the other editor keeps re-adding it, then seek administrator assistance asap. Moreover, if an editor is leaving offensive edit summaries like this IP was, also seek administrator assistance asap. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Marchjuly - Thanks for explaining the process and for helping the user while I was offline. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi SallyCarter! I've added semi protection to the article for one week. If any more issues arise during the protection, please let me know and I'll be happ to take a look. ;-) Thanks for the message, and I hope you have a great weekend! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah. Better363783 (talk · contribs) is possibly a sock, compared [3] to others.[4] 115.164.172.252 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's certainly possible. Have you filed a report at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations noticeboard? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you lend me a hand by filling in the references for me? Plus, I think you should check this game out, it's kinda cool! --SoothingRelaxation (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, there are still 14 more references to fill in. :D --SoothingRelaxation (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)