You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from November 2016. Please do not modify this page.
These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes. If you need to respond to a discussion from here, please create a new discussion on my user talk page and with a link to the archived discussion here so I can easily follow, and we'll be able to pick up where we left off no problem.
Were you trying to send me a message? No worries. Just click here to go the correct page.
Hello Oshwah: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! – Linghost666If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 13:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Hi Linguist111! Thanks for the happy wishes! I hope you had a fun Halloween yourself! See you on the battlefield ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I would just go ahead and indef. this user. I saw that you contacted Ritchie333 about this, and they said that it was okay. Given all of the accounts that they've created and vandalized with, it shouldn't have been only 24 hour blocked in the first place... 2607:FB90:A516:E8EF:0:34:8628:9501 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah! Two SPAs have been adding/removing this from Zhongzhi Capital(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I restored the content several times as the removing editor did not leave an ES. A third autoconfirmed removed it w/ "fixed sentences" then left this message on my talk after I reverted. The Google translation of the Chinese article title is: Sequoia 73 private institutions by the Commission to carry out administrative regulatory measures (attached list) the article machine translation does not, to me, support what the ZC text is saying. How do I find someone who can read Chinese to make a proper assessment? Jim1138 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Jim1138 - That's a good question. I'm not sure where you'd go to ask for translation assistance, to be honest... is there an edit war going on there? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you noticed this, maybe not... but I just wanted to let you know that you blocked this IP for 1 week when the previous block was for 6 months. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:51C9:CE9A:55FC:7678 (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Cameron Newton slave family history. This got deleted originally, was recreated, and while I was tagging the article, got deleted again. But Twinkle somehow failed to register an edit conflict and recreated this article with the tag in place. If you could delete this, would be good. Thanks. Lourdes 02:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Lourdes - Weird. Oh well, you're all set. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Lourdes 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Your message said that I was not neutral in my edit, however, the original was inaccurate to the fictional storyline of the series with a number of incorrect points that were unsubstantiated. I only wished to correct these points and use correct scientific jargon as opposed to outright plagiarism which the previous editor used. As to the claim that my edits were non-neutral, I haven't a clue as to why my changing of terminologies from common names into scientific ones (such as 'goo' to 'viscous substance') as well as the correction of a point directly from a book in the series (All the Weyrs of Pern) is considered non-neutral. One of the conjectures in the aforementioned book is that a yellow goo is liquid helium (unlikely as helium is colorless and non-viscous, quite likely an oversight by the books author). I simply mentioned that it was 'surmised' to be liquid helium. I believe that is possibly the reason why my edit was auto-declined. However, 'I' did not surmise, the characters in the book surmised (incorrectly i might add). As mentioned, I was merely providing an impartial and scientifically correct assessment of the fictional work that is 'The Dragonriders of Pern'.
By the bye, I am new to editing Wikipedia and would like to know how to include an entry in the bibliography portion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.92.175.66 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
":" Henna page edit
Hi there!
I tried to edit the page Henna but my contribution was not accepted because there was no source and I did not discuss it first on the talk page but here is the issue, I can't add a source because I AM the source. There is not a lot of information about the Afghan culture on the internet so I have no sources and I need to edit this page for my English class so I desperately need your hep.
I see the script was ran twice [1]. The edits that added Done were a minute apart... are you sure you didn't click it twice, after the page refreshed? It refreshes very quickly (3 seconds or so) — MusikAnimaltalk 05:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
MusikAnimal - The script changed the correct user right, but it seemed to have added {{done}} to the bottom of the page. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Got it, should be fixed! This was because the script was never tested on a PERM page with 10+ requests, as that doesn't happen often :) Cheers — MusikAnimaltalk 05:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Oshwah! How are you man. Thanks for our conversation that we have together on IRC. I have been looking forward to our conversations. Its great that you are supportive man. I hope you enjoy being an admin on Wikipedia as I believe you have the qualities for the job. EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits) 13:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi EurovisionNim! Things are good. Busy, but good. Hey, no problem! Glad I get to run into once in awhile and catch up! Hope things are going well for you! Until we meet again.... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 19:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah thanks man. Yeah it is going very well, I mean, i have a lot of test coming up so it is so stressful to get them all organised. Mate, these marks DO count to uni, so I hope I do well. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits) 01:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
for manning up and apologising immediately on making a questionable admin decision. We need more of this sort of temperament. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333! I wanted to thank you for the barnstar and for the kind words. It's not easy for many (if not most) people to recognize where they went wrong, apologize for it, and try to make things right. I try to see every mistake as an opportunity to understand and learn from it. Nobody is perfect, but so long as you look into what happened and figure out why it did and what needs to happen in order to avoid making future mistakes, everything else falls into place naturally. Thanks again for the wikilove, Ritchie333. I very much appreciate it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
STOP!
Stop siding with homechallange, he is wrong with his edits. The info was right and correct. Put them back please and stop agreeing with him, he's is harassing and cyberbulling bulling me. 2600:1000:B015:8895:3CBE:8E58:F63C:529E (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
right please delete the source if you can — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meducool (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi those were real edits on Cranford historic advisory board
Thank you! I added several historic sites. Oldyorke (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't know why I didn't get a warning that I was creating the file. Meters (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It happened just the other day, too. Not sure how it manages to do so. Oh well, if it happens just let me know. No big deal :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
SPI case
Please close the SPI case that I've created here per the reasons I listed on that page. FeinohaTalk 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Feinoha - Done. I think a clerk is supposed to do that, but if anything I don't think they'll mind too much :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
General Motors Centre
Stop reverting the changes to the article. www.tributecommunitiescentre.com . The name change is official and is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.14.63 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Ivy Exec speedy deletion
Hello. I think a mistake has been made. I received a message objecting to my removal of the speedy deletion tag on Ivy Exec, saying I had removed it from a page I created myself. That is completely not true. It was created almost five years ago by a user named "Merlin102708", not by me. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:2195:7BAC:FA7:8123 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
If I may add my two cents to this, the CSD Tag in question was dropped by Light2021, who's currently at ANI anyway. As for the article in question, reliable sources was the one thing I never completed in Adoption school , so while I believe I see one source that seems to be okay, I could be mistaken. Pretty sure it's not G11 though, you're the pro here Osh, does the tag hold any grounds? I'm tempted to contest it myself if I'm honest. MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 01:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Matticusmadness - I declined both speedy reasons. Although it's written like an advertising, this can be improved (and it's not a blatant advertising such as spam). The article also seems to make a credible claim of significance, so I also declined the A7. If this article should be deleted, it'll need to go the PROD or AFD route. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Damn man! I just saw User:Sony_Ericson in the newusers log, clicked to his talk and you've already pinned a softblock to him! XD Here's a cookie for being so quick at this! MM(WhatIDo WHATIDO?)(Now THIS... I did.) 00:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Matticusmadness! Thanks for the cookie! Oh yeah, that's one page log I patrol frequently. I have that running and auto-refreshing pretty much all day. I'm good at being a quickdraw ;-). Thanks again for the cookie, man. I really appreciate it! ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Late reply
Sorry for the late reply but congrats on becoming an admin. FeinohaTalk 01:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey man! No apologies needed! Thanks! I'm happy to be serving the community as an admin, and I'll be happy to help with anything needed. Thanks again, man. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Please review your block of this user, who has been adding gross factual errors to multiple articles, for 31 hours. They have twice previously been blocked, most recently in April 2016 for one month, with apparently little effect. A longer block would be more appropriate, if not indef. General IzationTalk 04:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... good call. I'm going to keep watch on the user. If it continues after the unblock, then it will most definitely be re-imposed and extended. Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Our friend has resumed their ongoing vandalism without missing a beat. [2] As I mentioned, the last block was for one month. Please arrange an extended wiki-vacation for this editor. Personally, I can't see any reason for less than an indef, as all of their edits appear to be the introduction of disinformation. Thanks. General IzationTalk 21:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Congrats
So, I've been out of the loop here for a couple months, and as a result, I had no idea that you became an admin a couple months ago. So, congratulations on that! Also, thanks for protecting Rajai Davis. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
A guy saved by Jesus - Hey man! Good to talk to you again! Thanks for the congratulations; I barely passed, but oh well... I passed. Happy to be serving the community with the tools. And no problem! Happy to help! Hope things are going well for you, and of course - welcome back! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Oshwah, I think you may want to review this block. This user was trying to add information on Capital Steez. At first, I thought that the information that they were trying to add was wrong, but I found some sources that possibly indicate that this users' edits are at least somewhat notable. I wouldn't have blocked as a "Vandalism-only account", and I'm assuming good faith here about their edits. Unless if there are some edits that I'm missing here, it doesn't seem like obvious vandalism to me, anyways... They may just need some guidance on how to properly cite their edits and make sure that their sources are verifiable. Also, please also take a look at this discussion that I had with this editor. Yinf (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, Yinf. See these edits here: 1, 2, 3, and again: 4, 5, 6... this is clearly disruption, which is why I blocked for that reason. None of the edits he made were referenced and appeared to be vandalism/trolling :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean, it may be disruption, but I think this would be something worth discussing at the article's talkpage, rather than immediately blocking. From what I'm seeing here, they were trying to change his first name (Capital Steez is obviously a stage name of some sort) along with his death date from "the late hours of December 23, 2012 to "the early hours of December 24, 2012". Yes, his edits were severe BLP violations, but if they have a reliable source to verify their edits, then they may not be here just to disrupt...
Though, I will say that in the discussion I linked above to my talk page, I told him to look at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BLP in order to conform his edits per Wikipedia policy along with WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE so he could learn how to properly site his edits; but after that, he (seemingly) "did more research" and said that he understood the guidelines, but then went back to referencing Capital Steez's twitter account, which is obviously not an acceptable source to use, and if he would have read the guidelines that I pointed out to him, he also would have realized this. I then told him: "Feel free to change the page to how you originally had it", and what I meant by that was for him to revert back to his version WITH the citations that he had supposedly found, but instead, he continued to reference the twitter account (and FWIW, he didn't even site that at all...) as well as engaging in edit warring. Anyhow, thanks for taking a look into it... :-) Yinf (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Yinf! No problem; thanks for discussing your thoughts with me - I'm always happy to accept feedback and I always appreciate it when others come to me directly and give me a heads up if I manage to dun goof and do something by mistake. My initial thought was "disruption" and vandalism due to the fact that he was repeatedly changing a first name (then middle name?) to "Jamal" - something I've frequently seen with vandalism. Looking deeper, I also saw that he changed the death date of the article subject without a reference, and then later indicated that it was from a Twitter source. I also note your discussion with the user as well. To lean towards AGF (and taking your message into account as well, which offers a good explanation of everything) - I realize now that the edits aren't at the level of "blatant vandalism" but were disruptive to some extent. I've unblocked the user, as his edits didn't warrant an indefinite block as initially thought. Again, I appreciate you for messaging me with your thoughts - I'm always open to feedback, and anything I do should be scrutinized and I should be held accountable for mistakes (big or small), or any actions that seem to be improper, too excessive, or not long enough. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and you're always welcome to let me know if you have questions or need anything else. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I blocked the IP, clearly the same as the account I blocked for legal threats. Doug Wellertalk 14:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller - Awesome, thanks for doing that! Good call; yeah, no doubt... definitely appears to be the same person. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Recent vandals
Thank you for blocking Homiequanclubbangerz. He (and/or his friends) are also evidently using several other accounts which have vandalized the same article and other articles: Johhny rihno, Dabswag, IHC12345, Dankster2k16, Poopig, Timmmyturner, and KnowledgeBanana. All of those took part in the same spate of vandalism as the account you blocked, and at least one of them has also vandalized Hundred Years War, Austro-Prussian War and probably other articles with the same type of edits (adding nonsense about magical spellcasters fighting in historical battles etc). GBRV (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
IHC12345 is still adding nonsense to historical articles. GBRV (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Did you see this note? These accounts are clearly troll accounts used for nothing but vandalism. You blocked one of them but not the rest. GBRV (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
GBRV - I did. Sorry, just been busy with real life stuff. They're clearly engaging in the same vandalism, and they appear to be sock accounts. All blocked - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. GBRV (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
accidental discharge is the incorrect term to use - James Langevin wiki page
The term used in this article is incorrect... accidental discharge of a firearm vs negligent discharge.
Clearly described here is the act of a negligent firearm discharge: [1]
A negligent discharge occurs when a weapon is fired due to either operator error or a lack of attention to basic safety rules.
An accidental discharge occurs when something happens to cause the firearm to discharge without a negligent action of the user (such as dropping the firearm).
This case is clearly a negligent discharge based on the fact that the police are trained professionals that failed to follow the basic first rule of gun safety: always treat every firearm as if its loaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.163.40.79 (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
50.163.40.79 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
it aint vandalism people are making claims that asexuals are more oppressed than gay people due to the discourse on tumblr where straight ace people are claiming that they are more oppressed than gay/trans people. i deleted it because making claims like this is dangerous and trivializes the struggle of those dealing with homophobia and transphobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyneighbourhoodgay (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I've responded to the editor. Hopefully, the editor will stop adding unsourced content and their personal opinions to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Oshwah, Can this IP 72.159.148.102 be block on wikipedia?. This Ip is destroying a lot of wikipedia pages. The same IP also blanked an article featured on main space 2016 Chicago Cubs season. I don"t really understand its contributions to wikipedia. --Music Boy50 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Definitely making vandalism-only edits over the last few days. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
i think what i edited was right. As to the last 6 months i have been monitering his twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.165.119 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm working through some of the NPP backlog, and I came across this article. The author blanked it three times and in the edit summary as for it to be deleted [3]. You initially reverted with Huggle but then reverted two other times. I was wondering if there was any reason you didn't treat it as a G7? I was about to PROD it for being an essay that doesn't fit Wikipedia, but was wondering if there was any specific reason you kept it around. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
TonyBallioni - Good question. I probably just saw the blanking from with Huggle and didn't realize that he created it. What's strange is, Huggle usually warns you that you're about to revert an edit to a page made by the original creator, and I would have then known to CSD it per G7 as ... so, honestly... I don't know. That's very weird... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Would you recommend treating it as a G7 still or going about it through PROD. I'm not quite sure myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please warn or block this anonymous user!
This user, 72.131.30.158, is putting wrong info and then takes it back. It is annoying. Please block for at least 3 days. Royroxas2 (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. We need to assume good faith and remember that blocking, by policy, should be kept in the back pocket as a last resort whenever possible - never used as a punitive or first measure. If disruption gets worse, let me know and I'll take a further look. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 17:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
How?
Hello Oshwah, How can I joined a project on wikipedia or its not necessary?. --Music Boy50 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Music Boy50: It is not necessary to join a "wikiproject" in order to contribute to the project. If you would like to join one, most wiki projects have their protocol for joining listed on their project page. -- Dane2007talk 04:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dane2007: Thank you for your response. I appreciate --Music Boy(talk to me) 09:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Music Boy50 - Echoing Dane2007's response: Joining a Wikiproject is in no ways required in order to contribute. By default, you're encouraged to get out there and help in the ways you feel that Wikipedia needs it! However, it may interest you to join a Wikiproject if you find that it is working to improve the same things that you're interested in improving as well. A page containing information about Wikiprojects (as well as a list of all of them), for your convenience, is here. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 16:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your response. I will look into your words, Have a nice day--Music Boy(talk to me) 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
An SPA (likely COI) is removing well-sourced content from Robert Sepúlveda Jr.(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The content that is being removed is about his history in gay porn. I suspect that the SPA is someone attempting to manage his image. The SPA was previously blocked for 60 hours, but is back at it. Also added a number of images which were removed a copyright violations.
Video interviews seem to show Sepúlveda as not having a problem with his method of paying his way through college. Not sure what to do here. Leave it in, or take it out? Meow! Jim1138 (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jim1138! Sorry I'm so late to the party. I've been busy in my off-wiki life lately ;-). It looks like (at least for now) that the editing has stopped. However, if that changes, let me know and I'll step in. It looks like a lot of controversial removal and editing has taken place lately on that article... a lot. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 16:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
factsonlybaby claims to be Robert S. on his talk page. Apparently hasn't IDed himself to OTRS as suggested. FOB has uploaded several photos s/he claims as own work, but were deleted as being watermarked, or found on web. The ones I remember don't look like an iPhone image. I deleted the birthdate as unsourced. Seems like too much work for a marginally notable person. Looks like the bday was changed back to FOB's preference by an IP. I did find one source that indicated Sepúlveda was 33 in 2016. Jim1138 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Restore a page you had deleted
Hello i would like to recreate a page you had previously deleted due to lack of enough sorces. "Waweru Macharia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterxcdzca (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Peterxcdzca: You can recreate the page as long as you add more sources. If you're looking to have the original restored to a draft or user space for further work that could be possible per WP:REFUND, but make it clear and request where you'd like to restore it to please. -- Dane2007talk 04:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Peterxcdzca! Echoing what Dane2007 has said: You're certainly allowed to re-create an article that was deleted in the past. You'll just need to make sure that you read Wikipedia's deletion, neutral point of view, and verifiability policies to gain a good understanding of how things work before you do. I also recommend that you go through Wikipedia's five pillars, as well as The Wikipedia Adventure and Wikipedia's your first article tutorials as well. They will provide you with all the help that you should need in order to be successful with creating an article. Please let me know if you have questions about any of the pages I've linked you. Happy Friday! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 16:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Continued nonsense disruption
Hi! So we are having the nonsense disruption going on again on the Visa requirements for Australian citizens article. It's the same pattern, and IP addresses are 123.211.218.251, 1.128.97.33, 1.128.97.115. Could you please protect the page for a bit again. Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it has since stopped. Sorry I'm so late to the party; I've been busy in my off-wiki life ;-). If things continue, let me know and I'll take another look. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 17:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Can use some help
Oshwah, we could use some help at Talk:Rustum Roy -- another user is "assuming bad faith" and calling edits as vandalism despite your and my prior interaction and the fact that the user is restoring info to a page about a person with no references of any kind to back up the questioned material about that person.
Can you help out? Thank you ! 69.50.69.34 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@69.50.69.34: Restored the page to the stable version and issued a warning about the improperly referenced material and gaining consensus. -- Dane2007talk 04:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Me. Self-suspended. Thanks again, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sorry to see you go, man. Keep in touch :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
Hello Oswah and trust you are well? Could I please draw yo your attention the "edits" of Maxwell Radio DJ(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) on the Talk:Leonard Cohen page. They are inserting a "Tribute", which I have politely pointed-out is not the purpose of the Talk page, as the the page is for discussion of improving the article and not a social media page. All I have received is insults and now two/three reverts of my edits. You will know that I will not edit war, but feel that something should be done about the new(?) editor. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I regret the comments that were "insulting". As a fan of Cohen, it has been a hard day for me and something of a shock since he has been gone since 7 November. I am happy to discuss any problems David J Johnson has with my conduct and move towards a mutual solution. Maxwell Radio DJ (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I too am a long standing fan of Leonard Cohen, but it does not alter the fact that the Talk:Leonard Cohen is for improving the article and not for individuals "tributes". This appears to be a new editor or block evader, not familiar with this convention or reverting edits three times - making an edit war - or commenting on content - rather than insulting experienced editors. David J Johnson (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Maxwell Radio DJ banned by another admin. Thanks to all for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Phillip Potter
Article on Philip Potter.
Hi
I made the change to my father's biography as he sadly died on & November 2016.
Regards
Nicholas potter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.180.86 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you not read your messages? I have already informed you that my father died on Monday 7 November 2016, which is why the edit was made77.102.180.86 (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC). I am Philip Potter's son — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.180.86 (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Please cite a reliable, third party source that is verifiable. -- Dane2007talk 00:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry man, but this requires reliable sources because of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. You need to have references to support this. Please provide one. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim1138 - Damn, good question. If it's unnecessary or clearly not an improvement, revert with an edit summary and just give the IP a custom message asking what the deal is. If it gets bad, let me know. Keep me posted... and Happy Friday, Jim1138! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for correcting my mistake I had no idea that I had made that anyways thank you that would've been bad if someone saw that and couldn't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAGELBOSS15 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers
Hi Oshwah/TalkPageArchives,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Hi. Could you please protect the Visa requirements for Brazilian citizens and Visa requirements for Chilean citizens articles? I don't think it's connected with the sneaky vandalism that we discussed before but is equally persistent and odd, someone keeps changing a few numbers. I issued a stern warning but to no avail. Thanks! Also the vandal that we discussed before who is mostly active on Visa requirements for Australian citizens but also a few other articles, returned today after a week off but we'll see whether we see continued activity.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Added both of these requests to Requests for Page Protection as Oshwah hasn't been active in a bit and we might get a faster response that way. -- Dane2007talk 20:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah, I've come across a user that seems to be an obvious sock of Evlekis and per some polite chewings-out I've gotten over WP:DENY I figured I'd try this first. User McFaddon created page Charlotte Nast with random sentence "Oshwah is literally Goofy" embedded into an otherwise normal paragraph (see removal here). Also created page Maria Arpa repeatedly adding nonsense words ("She developed a mediation model for pork", "training dilating pupils", "oversaw the salted peanuts") and references Evlekis' perennial favourite subject Max Pumpkin. Note: If you'd rather I take this SPI then just say the word and I will. RA0808talkcontribs 23:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
RA0808 - Yeah, lets do an SPI (just so more sleepers can be found. Technically I'm involved, so.... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah well, Sro23 got it at SPI. {{{1}}} 01:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Hey Oshwah!! My girlfriend has made you a pie and I thought I deliver you the treat just for you. In addition, we are having the quiz night at my school and she is going to join my team, so we are going to have a lot of fun. If I have any funny videos I have taken, I will send them to you my friend!! EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits) 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, man! I will enjoy this pie like I'm a bewildered beast! Hope you're doing well! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Nirvana discography
Hi, earlier this month you were involved in notifying an IP user who was basically edit waring on the Nirvana discography page. You left a message on the user's talk page (User talk:181.230.46.29). However, he or she has returned to making the same edit(s) that are not as per the verifiable sources being quoted in the article. I have tried discusses this with the person but he or she takes no notice. Last time you said that if it continued to let you know. Perhaps the article could be changed for only auto confirmed users to edit ? Thanks, QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for unblocking me. I've never had that happen. This whole thing of admin accounts being compromised is pretty scary. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is. And you're very welcome! All fixed! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock
Is this going to appear on my permanent record? I've never been blocked before. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow I was blocked once in 2009. I do not remember that. Eh it doesn't matter if it's there. Thanks again for freeing me from WikiPrison! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
It does, but I've included an unblock record to say "Compromised admin account" - people will understand, and can contact me if they have questions about the block. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
yay. Its not funny after the first time. I managed to do [4]Pyrusca (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Applauds... LOL! How did you manage to do that? :-P ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning that up!
For your prompt help, here's a kitteh. It was nice to witness such quick action to help a lowly editor.
No problem! Always happy to help! Thanks for the kitten! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Re: Philippine Realty and Holdings Corporation
Hello, I would like to recreate a page you had previously deleted due to copyright infringement. I will edit the texts and make sure there is no replicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carizzachua (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Consider creating a draft first though :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Rajis nightclub is beingvtrollr d by someone by the name Larry man....k.c.dinneny was the actual booker after dobbs split without paying the employee's. New owneŕs failed to the point no one would play at the venue.Jonathan hall convinced kc to jump in and see what happens. Soon overcapacity gigs were the norm..because THERE was so many bands on any given night kc would book the shamrock ice thai and eventually rropened the hong kong cafe as well...to fin c.f. out more read rajis wik blacking out larry man
...kç steamrolled rajis not mr plagiarism mann
The person that created the page for Thomas P. Gordon raised in Wilmington, Was fired and since then has continually ruined my father legacy. This used to be an informative page that was nothing but all of his accomplishments that was turned into a page for his opponent to get a head. His opponent won, yet he page is still being ruined. I just want to know how to get it back to its previous state. It's not fair. I'm not as tech savvy and would appreciate it if there could be a lock on the page after all of his hard work from 1956+, is on there.
I'm Jennifer gordon and I can be reached at [Removed email addresses - OSHWAH]
Thank you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_P._Gordon
Also the guy doing it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grimaldi_(politician)
Most of his sources he made himself. If you contact minmetals with the number given, they don't know him. He was fired by Thomas Gordon and ever since has been a headache. His whole thing is lies and the parts I had put in with what he himself said on a video were deleted
I thought that Wikipedia was a reputable websoruce, therefore I've come to you for help, thank you again. People look at this an d believe half th things said me. It's really ridiculous and I need tech savvy help.
I'm not being biased but Tom Gordon has done very very good things in his career and they should be at knowledged. I'm not even able to add anything because I'm always trying to fix something else, which just isn't right. I would like to make this man that has been A service to his country and community for over 40 years, a good page for he could be remembered forever. Because he has done a lot of stuff, more than anyone else in Delaware has are you have to do is Google him. :). Please help me stop David Grimaldi, Matt Meyer, and other people from ruining his name. Thank you. thank you so much .
[Removed email addresses - OSHWAH]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.240.36 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
You need to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. It's very important that you know and understand this policy, as this situation is relevant to it. Apart from that, biographies of living people undergo much more scrutiny than most other articles, because of our need to keep information accurate and keep potentially libelous material out of Wikipedia. We're strict on this, even with details that may be small, because what may not seem like something negative or degrading to us may certainly come off that way to the article subject or others. Please review the policies and guidelines that I've linked you to, and let me know if you have any questions about them. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Grandfathered
Hey Oshwah,
Hope you're well. I was gone over the weekend, and it appears that a new permission appeared the stripped my right to patrol pages. I think I'm grandfathered in, so it said to go to an admin. So here I am.
Thanks, Oshwah, for your response about my question on autobiographical information. I am getting pretty frustrated with this page (the first one I've tried to write)! It's about a living person, who really *should* be in Wikipedia, as he's fairly well-known in many circles for a number of different things. I know a few things firsthand, and have his autobiography, and am in touch with him so I can get first-person information. But although there is some information online, it's not enough to fill out a good, well-rounded article. To do that, I would have to use the autobiography, or ask him directly. How big a problem would this be? And I am talking about the personal things that are usually in the biographies, like birthdate, parents, spouses, children, education etc. I may be able to cobble together enough relating to his career without first person or other direct sources, but wouldn't it help to include the other information? Thanks for any feedback or suggestions! I've done a number of edits (mostly minor ones -- I'm one of those people who can glance at a piece of paper and immediately see a dropped or transposed letter!), but this is my first piece, and I think this person should be in Wikipedia, and I would like to do a good job without violating the Wikipedia protocols. Thanks!
(talk page stalker)@Ginger-lyn Summer:Don't ask him directly for his birthday, it has to be in a reliable source (other editors or readers want to know where you got that information). I don't know if you need to put his children, parents, etc, but it's probably in a source somewhere. If there is no information about this person's birthday online, he may not be notable. I'll do a search for sources covering this guy later, if I have the time. ThePlatypusofDoom(talk) 19:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Blockage of User Name
sir i am facing problem regarding user name Habib constructio pakistan (hcs) was name of my article i dont know why it dont atch user name policy i am not working for a company i just wrote the article for general public information. please unblock my name so that i can share it, i assure you i am not using it for publicityHabib Construction Pakaistan(HCS) (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the issue has been resolved. Gives Jianhui67 a fist bump - thanks, man! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Lemi
Sorry to have recreated, all happened in an instant. I was in edit mode and I just left the summary for why I couldn't see why the page was blanked. Apologies once more. Red monsterz (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Red monsterz - I saw the attack/harassment content you added to the article. It will not be re-created. This is your only warning. Do not harass or attack other users. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Just a quick thanks for your kind words and award over at my Talk page. Very much appreciated. DrChrissy(talk) 23:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah, the vandal I reported at AIV [5] was the latest of many incarnations of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal. Their edits often appear credible, but this is a long term block evader, who has accounted for dozens of protected articles. If you think a block is useless at this point, at least think about watchlisting the articles--they will return using numerous IPs. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay. I just took a look through the IP's 7 most recent edits, and they only seemed to be making terms wikilinks, or making small changes - I didn't see exactly where the disruption was in the IP's contributions. By the time I saw the report, looked through the contribs, asked for another admin's opinion, and moved on - I noticed that 5+ hours had passed since the IP last edited, which essentially makes blocking the IP moot. I'll try and keep an eye out next time; hopefully (if I don't find anything), another admin will be around to provide input if I'm the one who sees it first. Keep up the good work, and CREATE AN ACCOUNT ALREADY, DAMNIT!!! LOL ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 08:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
As you noted, I made a couple of changes to the article on Arnold Cook without citation. As I noted, I am his daughter, and I merely corrected errors that were made in the documents cited.
eg:
a typo in the reference from Hasluck - his PHD was awarded in 1961, not 1967
an error from ancestry.com - at the time of his death, he was maintaining two homes, one in Kardinya, and one in Nedlands. He died at his home in Nedlands, after walking home from his job at the University of Western Australia, Nedlands.
I was physically present - an eyewitness - to these events, and as his daughter, I would prefer the facts in the article to be correct.
Hi Leigh131, and welcome to Wikipedia! I understand that you're new here and that you don't understand the policies and guidelines yet - no worries, you'll learn them in time! Sorry Leigh131, but there are a couple of issues regarding the article you're trying to edit and content your're trying to add. The changes you made were not supported by a reliable source, which is what Wikipedia uses to verify what information is true and what is not. If the content is already supported by a reliable source, but is incorrect or doesn't match what the reference says... please let me know! I'll be more than happy to verify this and help you fix anything that is sourced but does not match what is in reference. Adding content based off of your personal relationship with the person, or any personal accounts or connection (i.e. "I know this person", or "I live here and I've seen it") constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Your personal relationship and involvement with the article subject can also be seen as a conflict of interest. Editing articles where you have a personal conflict of interest with the article subject is highly discouraged behavior, as it nearly eliminates your ability to edit the article to reflect a neutral point of view (another very important policy that Wikipedia articles must adhere to). The best advice I can give you is to not edit articles that you have personal ties with, and try and focus on a different article that interests you. This keeps Wikipedia and its content as neutral and encyclopedic as possible. Please review the policies I've linked you above, and let me know if you have any questions about them. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope that you become a long-term contributor here! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 09:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
edit to Arnold Cook article
Hi Oswah,
I replied to your message explaining that I had corrected errors originating in the references cited. I did click the save button, but can't see my message when I return to your talk page. Should I send you my explanation again?
Leigh Susan Cook
Leigh131 (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, were you correcting content that was already referenced by a reliable source, but doesn't match what the sources actually say? If that is the case, then feel free to fix those. No need to respond on your talk page again; you messaged me with your concerns here, which is plenty good enough :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 09:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
No, Leigh was just correcting false information that was caused by errors in the sources; there's no reason not to believe her, and Wikipedia does not intentionally put incorrect information in its articles. If I'd noticed the edit first, I would've just left it there and perhaps sent a note to the user gently asking for verification/email contact; this is a prime case of ignore all rules. I'm going to notify the original author of the article about this discussion; he might be able to help you more with your question about the image, as I can't because I'm blind myself. Graham87 14:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Graham87 - Ah okay. I didn't know if this was a case of someone adding original research or if they were correcting errors from a source already listed, which is why I told her to have at it if it was the latter. Thanks for stepping in and for helping to clarify and make things accurate for the project! Woot! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Buppe203
Thanks for the block of Buppe203. They created another account (Make B) according to logs, so could you block that one as well? Sro23 (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Oshwah, you probably know this already but the IP over at Racism in the Soviet Union is continuing blanking content. You might want to keep an eye out just in case they do it again. TIA. -- LuK3(Talk) 20:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
LuK3 - That's a big 10-4, my friend. I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for the heads up! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Salting your talk page
Salt
You are worth your salt. Literally. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen this one before K6ka. Very apropos and I agree completely :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI
Hi O. By the message you left on their talk page I'm guessing (and apologies if I am wrong) that you AGF'd this editor Username1650 (talk·contribs). I have no problem with that. I wanted to let you know they reposted the same question at RD/H. In the last week this troll has taken a slightly different tack by posting questions without "Joos" in the title but they are a sock or meat puppet of the problem person that has been active for months. If you feel they need more WP:ROPE that is okay as well. I just wanted to update you on what is occurring. Thanks for your time and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 23:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
MarnetteD - Aww crap... not this guy again... lol. I've had a grand ole' time blocking him over and over for the "Joos" trolling. Are there any diffs of this that you can provide that I can look into? Is that user posting them now? I must have missed something earlier when I took a look at the user... weird... Anyways, please let me know if there are diffs that I didn't see or if there are more users you need me to whack with the mop, and I'll jump on it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Here is one of them posted by Peter S. Greene (talk·contribs). There was another one about Eisenhower but I can't find it. It was deleted (I think) - it might be the posts by 106.166.229.58 (talk·contribs). In any event the questions fall into the "The allies were bad as well" - and the two I've seen have the words "I read somewhere that ,,," As I say I've seen these two (well three with today's post) but there may (or may not) have been others. As I finish this I see that this one has been blocked but this info may help you in sniffing out future versions of this pest. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 00:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
MarnetteD - Thanks for hitting me up with those users and diffs. It looks like an admin has already redacted the really bad stuff, which is exactly what I was concerned about (YAY!) - the user has been blocked, and I'll keep an eye on the IP and pay special attention to the reference desk on Huggle. Feel free to ping or message me if I need to smack someone with the mop handle and take care of anything. Hope you're enjoying your weekend! And, as always, I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much O. I recently got Netflix so I have been binging away on various series when I'm not editing. Keeps my happy and busy as the nights grow longer. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
MarnetteD - You bet! If you like Kevin Spacey and you're into political drama, definitely check out House of Cards - It's a great Netflix series (at least to me, it is)! ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As a long time fan of the original House of Cards (UK TV series) I've been looking forward to seeing KS's take on things :-) I am trying to keep from getting too many series going at the same time (to say nothing of all the amazing documentaries) but it is on the list. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
MarnetteD - Documentaries are awesome! My favorite documentaries are about nature (eusocial insects like bees and ants), and astronomy. Give Planet Earth a go if you haven't seen it before - it's a great series! ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for yet another recommendation :-) Dear Mr. Watterson is at the top of the list as C&H is a long, long time fave. MarnetteD|Talk 02:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
MarnetteD - Well, I'm gonna have to give that a look see! After (gulp) paying... yes, paying for television for a year with my (pukes in mouth) Comcast "deal", I cut the cord and my bill went from ~$230 a month to $69.99 a month just for internet. Television is stupid expensive, and all I cared about was NFL/sports and I watched nothing else. Feels liberating; 10/10 would recommend :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
IP editing year articles
124.106.250.251(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) adds and removes mostly photos from year articles. The anon seems to never leaves and ES and doesn't reply to talk on their talk page. The anon has been blocked a number of times but just switches IPs and continues on. I had to restore Alan Shepard several times before the anon gave up. Or at least I think the anon did. Checking... Suggestions? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The ASN and information with ISP comes back to a mobile provider in the Philippines; blocking the range 124.106.248.0/21 appears like it would do the trick, but I really want to avoid doing this unless I have to. It may cause more collateral damage than good, since it's a mobile ISP - they hand their IPs out dynamically to devices, and it will change as mobile devices. But on the other hand, this looks to have been going on for awhile now. Are all of these edits disruptive and blatant vandalism? Some appear to be good edits, while others leave me scratching my head. I see that the person has been asked to leave an edit summary - this is a situation where I really wish he would. Jim1138, can you help me examine these edits and let me know what your thoughts are as far as a "big picture perspective" goes? Are some or any of these edits good? Are they blatant vandalism? What the hell is he doing? A lot happens over 100 years (lol); I'm not 100% with identifying every change and knowing whats BS and what is not ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how disruptive it is. It seems that when I look at an edit, I often can't figure the why. Alan Shepard is one example.
1984this edit adding Lisa Brüggemann an Olympic gymnast another. Brüggemann seems to be non-notable. I don't know why she rates an article let alone a mention in 1984. Sarah Meier (figure skater) won an Olympic gold. It seems most of 124's additions on 1984 are athletes.
To analyze the anon's editing to get statistical significance would be too much focus for my brain... Jim1138 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems to have figured out that when s/he removes something, I revert it with "unexplained removal" Jim1138 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, Jim1138. I took a look at the diffs you provided, the Alan Shepard article, and I went through a good group of the edits made from this IP range. I don't think that the edits made on Alan Shepard have anything to do with the above range or the IPs you brought to my attention; the latest disruption was made by 12.1.191.194, which comes back to someone using AT&T in the United States - a completely different ISP and located nowhere near where this range is from (The Philippines). The additions made to these "year" articles look to be completely genuine and in good faith (at least the ones I went through and looked at). If this editor is adding non-notable people that have articles on Wikipedia, that's not his/her fault... we just need to either CSD, PROD, or AFD the articles that meet the criterion as they're discovered. Some of the deletions are strange and a few of them have me scratching my head, but I didn't find any that were blatant vandalism.
I can draw a few conclusions based off what I'm seeing (and please let me know if any of them are not correct!): I think you may have accidentally mixed up two unrelated IPs and mistakenly believed that the vandalism on Alan Shepard involves this range. I'm not completely sure as to why two IPs on this range was blocked. I'm pinging Wtmitchell and Graham87, who have each blocked an IP in this range. I'm hoping they both can offer some explanation or insight that I may be missing. Either some of the edits by this range are vandalism and I just didn't happen to find them (I didn't look through every edit by this range - just enough to get a general idea of what it was doing), or we may have missed an AGF opportunity over edits that should have been identified as such. The lack of edit summaries make things a bit more difficult to read through (and I agree that this person really needs to be leaving them), but this in itself isn't a "block" situation. It's just bad form. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to IPs 124.106.xxx.xxx removing Alan Shepard's photo on 1923.
2016-10-05 03:50 2 I leave request (124.106.252.222) not to remove significant photos & Welcome (re 1906 article)
I really question this editor's ability to prioritize who goes on the page. Athletes yes, emperors & moon-walkers no. Also, doesn't listen, leave edit summaries, engage in consensus discussion, etc. Perhaps not a range block but a wp:deny action. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim1138 - AHA! Thanks for clarifying what you meant with Alan Shepard - that threw me off. It is quite strange, but this falls into content-related issues, not vandalism. It won't be easy to discuss your concerns with the user because dynamic IP addresses. I'm honestly not familiar with how we prioritize or include/not include deaths and births (if such a guideline exists). Naturally, I think that the death and birth of a person can be included if they're notable enough to have a Wikipedia article... but then again, that could be lots of people. Where is the line? - that was not meant to be a rhetorical question... I actually don't know. In regards to taking administrative action, that's out. The edits look to be made in good faith, and I don't have any reason or justification to do anything at all. Is it the best kind of editing we'd see on articles that are going toward FA? Is he doing everything right? Certainly not. Else, he'd be leaving edit summaries to begin with :-P. But is it disruptive or against policy? My experience and observations tell me 'no', it is not. It's one of the fun and exciting grey areas that I love sailing across </scarcasm> LOL. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm familiar with this user from when I had the year articles on my watchlist (I tok them off because they were getting too hectic). Another problem with their edits is that they sometimes add non-free images, but from my perspective (as someone whose blind and can't see images), a lot of their edits seem OK. Whether they deserve a rangeblock ... I don't know. Graham87 05:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Graham87 - Nah. I'm holding back from any kind of blocking at this time. I agree that adding non-free images is problematic. That's a given. But if they're not vandalizing or causing blatant or intentional disruption, then I see no justification for action. We'll just need to watch and make sure that no previous issues seen before are repeated. And if they are, (try to) talk to the editor about it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I suppose lots of this kind of thing is where policy originates... I could write a script to go through year pages and remove and add random (but pertinent) images. Might improve the year article statistics, annoy everybody, and get that policy written? ;o) Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought someone might give a break to the folks who are still having to do reverts on that article. The stuff about a similar-named baseball "expert" has been going on there for over 9 years. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs - Oh no worries, man. Nothing against you at all, and you're always welcome to file a request if you think protection on a page will be beneficial. Don't take it personally if I end up declining for one reason or another; I'm just required by policy regarding when and when not to protect pages and all that jazz, haha. If the disruption starts getting heavy or it starts occurring at a high rate of frequency, let me know and I'll take a look and throw on the lock ;-). Hope you're having a good day, and happy editing. See you around - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on how you define things. The troll was indef'd (possibly banned, I don't recall) in 2007, and I was amazed that he's still at it in 2016. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. And oh yeah, people are persistent... lol ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, he's making the very same edit he kept making 9 years ago. I don't think I've seen anyone that persistent or obsessed or whatever it is. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if that's his life priority, then that man could use some "Life Priorities 101" lessons... lol. But seriously though, that is beyond stupid to a level I can't comprehend. lol ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I could tell you the whole sordid story if you want, but I've already fed the troll too much. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Oshwah. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Was looking at the Larry Hunter page and noticed that information about his birth, birthplace, and death were obviously inaccurate (he is still alive, and it would be very notable if he died at 136 years old). However, couldn't undo the edit because of intermediate changes. Thus did a manual change, but didn't have any reference to cite - would assume the original date had references. Note that I am not sure the 1948 date is right either, but it was the one there before the mal-edit.208.102.135.174 (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Grant Cutler's Draft
Hello,
I'm trying to populate Grant Cutler's page with his own information, not have it redirect to Gayngs. He isn't an active member of Gayngs, but he is a noteworthy composer in his own right. I can't move the Draft I created because this page with his name exists.
Hi Aerocreative! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you're here to help expand and improve the project! Sure, I'll be more than happy to help you. What you want to do is finish the draft and then have it approved and moved to replace the redirect. In the meantime, the redirect should be left as-is until the article you're working on is finished and approved. This way, a blank page isn't just left sitting there with nothing in it. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Welcome to Wikipedia! I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Oswah,
First of all, I'm sorry if this isn't the right way to respond!
How should I get my draft approved?
Thanks!
Aerocreative (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't be sorry, Aerocreative - you're new here. You'll learn how things work in no time at all! Check out Wikipedia's articles for creation page for more information on how this process works. In a nutshell, when you're ready to have your draft reviewed, you'll leave {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft. Someone will review it and either decline and leave you feedback regarding what you need to do in order to get the draft up to par with the relevant policies and guidelines, or accept it and move the article for you. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers! -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
IP edit warring after being asked to take to talk page
This IP continues to remove content after being asked to take it to the talk page. You can see here that I have told them several times to take it to the talk page and stop removing content. They continue to remove a link and the word pay per view and replacing it with PPV. I am at my wit's end as they just continue to ignore me telling to take it to the talk and stop warring over it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 02:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing - You're fine, don't fret the 3RR - just don't revert any more so that you don't dig yourself into a hole... but do note that edit summaries are not a proper way to seek dispute resolution. It looks like this editor has added this content three times - once with IP 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:4482:4ECA:E330:7C42, and twice with IP 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:C4DA:9AEF:42:39AA. Start a talk page discussion, and leave a message on the IP's talk page explaining the disagreement and linking him to the discussion on the article's talk page. If the user continues despite your message, let me know. Just don't keep reverting. This dispute looks content-related, which will dig you into a hole if administrators see this or if someone throws you into the edit warring noticeboard. If you follow my advice, you'll be properly following the dispute resolution process and have evidence to show that you tried to discuss the problem, and the user did not participate and kept reverting. I know... it's frustrating. I've been there :-). But do be careful; 3RR, as much as you feel that you're in the right, has no discrimination outside the exceptions listed. It can bite you in the butt if you don't make attempts on your end to resolve the dispute. I'm here if you need any help or if you have questions. Feel free to message me on my talk page any time you need it. Good luck - keep me updated with how it goes! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing - Oh joy... Whelp, he was warned. That IP is now blocked for edit warring. Keep an eye on the article for me and let me know if the user returns and edits it under another IP, and I'll take care of it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I know and they changed it and removed the content again,w which no I did not revert, they then responded with this on the Sting talk page.Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 03:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing - Wow, nice guy. Personal attacks... yeah, not a good strategy to use in resolving the dispute lol. Just ignore his personal attacks and stick to the dispute at hand. Cite relevant policies and guidelines and try and help the user out. If he still goes off, then let it go and move on. Don't let people's silly accusations and comments get to you. He's technically in violation and can be blocked for block evasion, but I'll sit back for now - I'm hoping the dispute discussion will go well, but I'm not placing any bets on it. Still doesn't hurt to try. The article is protected, and it did exactly what I wanted - stop the disruption and (if anything) drive a discussion on the article's talk page. It's your call if you want to respond to him, but I encourage you to at least try. Worst case scenario, you explain the dispute and citing the relevant policies and guidelines, and it's on the talk page for others to see and provide input to. Let me know if you need anything, and I'll be happy to help. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No subject
Hi Oshwah I'm still waiting for you to reprimand Marchjuly for calling me a name. They called me an "angry mastodon" I would appreciate you acting unbiased and professional in this situation. Or I will have to consider you as an biased editor who picks sides and seek help from other editors. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I responded to your reply on your talk page. You need to calm down dude, and show me exactly what you're referring to. Can you provide diffs, please? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 08:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Letting you know that I think we resolved this; if he gets upset again, I hope he'll bother me about it as well as you, but in case I'm at work or something, there are pointers in my long post on his talk to what I think were factors that editors weren't thinking of. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, having noticed your rev delete at Vestron Video I was wondering if you could do the same with three of the four recent IP edit summaries at Les fils du vent. Thank you 331dot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi 331dot! The edit summaries were rev del'd at Vestron Video because that IP was making serious threats towards an editor. The edit summaries at Les fils du vent, while quite uncivil, aren't grossly insulting or degrading. However, I've blocked the IP for disruptive editing, since the edit summaries left are unacceptable and the user was beginning to edit war. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to help you out. It's good to talk to you again, by the way! Hope you're having a good day! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm well, thank you. Thanks for your attention and I'm glad it was someone who knows more about this sort of thing than I do. After a few years here I still find myself learning things. :) 331dot (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
331dot - We all learn eventually, man. No worries. I've been contributing for almost 10 years, and I'm still learning and finding out about Wikipedia stuff I had no idea was a thing. If you never stop learning something new and making mistakes, you're doing it right. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing is a renowned vandal and WP:OWN abuser who has already has run-ins with other users.[7] Best not to be taken seriously. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:48B7:54E6:693F:BF42 (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Blocked IP jumping IPs to avoid block. Still making personal attacks. References above are the same User and location which IPs from those references were blocked as well, IP continues to block evasion by jumping IPs.Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 03:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Serial WP:OWN abuser still making WP:OWN abusing edits. I guess I'm the only Sky Broadband user in the world right? And Sky assigns dynamic IPs (Google it) - there's no "jumping" going on as they randomly reassign every so often.
Essentially, WarMachineWildThing continues to show his usual lack of maturity and causes major problems within the wrestling section! 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:48B7:54E6:693F:BF42 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention, the IP has been edit-warring and has attempted to remove this thread from this page and hide it from Oshwah. —Gestrid (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope, the IP has had his 100% constructive edits reverted for no reason by WarMachineWildThing, a renowned WP:OWN abuser. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:48B7:54E6:693F:BF42 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Same continued harrassing comments and targeting me, same responses everytime. Removing this section twice.Same IP avoiding block.Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 03:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Same continued WP:OWN abuse, same vandalism every time. Ruined the wrestling section on Wikipedia more than twice. Same pathetic claims of "avoiding block" - not my fault if you're not knowledgable enough to understand what a dynamic IP is. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:48B7:54E6:693F:BF42 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The article has been protected for a week. To the IP editor: Not only have you continued to edit war, but you spilled this over to talk pages as well. This is the reason behind my block; I could have made it longer, since you were previously blocked for this just recently, but I will keep it at 24 hours. WarMachineWildThing, please also remember that since this appears to be content-related, you're not exempt from 3RR either. You also violated this policy, too, and you could have been blocked for this as well. However, I am not doing so because I trust that you were doing this in good faith with the belief that you were reverting disruptive content; it isn't. It looks like content that has issues or needs to be referenced if being challenged, which it clearly appears to be. Please, please be careful in the future. Before you do anything else, you really need to take a second and just re-read the list of exceptions to 3RR... just as a quick refresher for yourself. I think you just need to refresh your memory with this list and make sure that your reverts do not violate 3RR or are a clear exception to it. I just don't want to see you get blocked over this. Will you do that for me? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
They were putting duplicate information into the article along with a link to a Google search for an image. I was removing the duplicate information, which is easy to see as it is in another section already, they started the reverts and attacks on me and that's what gave it away it was the same blocked IP from last night. This is what they do its the same person,same location, same harrassing comments, they continue to get blocked, jump IP, get caught them turn it around on me. This person did the same thing for weeks and months then turned thier attention to NeilN after he blocked them several times on several different IPs. Now they are back on a dynamic IP doing it all over again, harrass, get blocked, jump, repeat. You feel I need blocked please do, but removing duplicate information that keeps being reinserted into an article I was told did not violate 3RR as It was the same information reworded which makes it duplicate information. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 04:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually I'd like to be blocked as well. I removed duplicate information that was being inserted over and over. You say I violated 3RR by doing that then please block me as I am not above the rules. Yes I am asking to be blocked for 3RR if I truly violated it by removing duplicate information from a blocked IP that was avoiding block, there is clear proof it is the same person that it has been for months, but if I truly violated 3RR then I ask to be blocked for the same 24 hr period. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 04:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing - Stop it, lol. You're not getting blocked. Doing so would be against policy if anything, as you've clearly stopped and have been receptive and understanding of the feedback I am giving you, and you're not currently engaging in disruption. I would be blocking you punitively, which is something I am absolutely not allowed to do. Blocks are to be made in a preventative measure in order to stop continued disruption from occurring any more. So not only do I think that it's not necessary in my judgment to block you, I wouldn't be allowed to do so at this time if I felt otherwise :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing - You're clearly overwhelmed and at whits end over all of this. I understand your frustration... I really really do. Take a break for a little bit, cool yourself down, and come talk to me when you're feeling better. Will you do that for me? I remember you from back when you first created your account. I think I was the one who welcomed you and first interacted with you! I'm here to help you, WarMachineWildThing. I don't want to see something as stupid and silly as an IP's harassment toward you as a reason you'd choose to leave Wikipedia. I don't want to see you go. :-( ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I'm pretty sure you did welcome me, your helpfulness was my reasons behind voting Yes for you to be an Admin but this is the only course of action, ANI is pointless for an IP jumper, they'll just get another IP and do it again, I can't go to ANI for every IP and 5 months of this and they still are doing it.......yeah I don't see any other choice but to leave.Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 05:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Alas, the wiki software doesn't let us 'ignore' users as such; this exposes us to notifications, talk page messages, and edits from vandals. These vandals get blocked on the spot, but their Internet provider (ISP) allocates an IP to them in a fashion which makes it easy for the user to re-connect with a new IP, and makes it hard to block them without blocking the whole ISP from wiki entirely. Here, I would propose to check for collateral damage and, if it's not too large, block the whole provider. I have opened a section here at ANI; obtaining a list of IPs blocked so far would be useful. --Gryllida (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you?
As it is now clear this is the same person I have been targeted by for almost 5 months now, their comments about something that happened months ago with a blocked IP who kept going IPs and same continued harrassing attacks gave them away, same accusations, comments, location, and as my talk page has now been targeted by them again, can there be a protect put in place on it? Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me
WarMachineWildThing - Yes. I have semi-protected your talk page for the same duration of the IP editor's block - 24 hours. While he is clearly being uncivil and disruptive, I do not want to restrict the editor's ability to discuss the dispute with you after his block time expires. This is why I have protected your talk page for the duration that I have done so. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you. I'll be happy to help. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Please read the history of my talk page, this IP has done this for months. There is no civil discussion with them, this will get worse like before when NeilN blocked them on multiple IPs. This will be the 3rd time my talk had to be protected because of this IP. They never learn. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 04:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WarMachineWildThing - I wasn't aware as to how long you've been putting up with this. I'm sorry to see it go on this long. Lets do this for now: I'll leave things be for now since your talk page is semi'd, no need to change that. After it expires, if the user messages you on your talk page and you feel that it is harassment or purely just to troll you, no not respond to it. Don't even revert them. Just ignore them completely and let them sit there in your talk page until you archive it down the line. Just report any continued violations of policy to either AIV, AN3, or ANI - and be done with it. If you feel that it's clear that the user doesn't wish to positively discuss the dispute, there's no point in wasting your time trying. Just keep trying to reach out on the article's talk page and let someone else handle if it the edits become repeated. This will keep you out of trouble, and let you continue to contribute within policy. And, of course, if you need to reach out to me for anything, please do! I'm always happy to mentor and give advice. I will never say no to helping you if you ask. Just remember that :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It's true that the IP will likely get bored of harassing you if you don't respond. —Gestrid (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Just checked the protection log for WarMachine's talk page. It's now been protected four times, counting this one, in the past three months. I alsocheckedthehistory of their talk page. There's no doubt that it's all because of the same user. —Gestrid (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Gestrid - Oh, it totally is. I was only aware of the content dispute on the article. I've just now become aware of the history and extent of this IP user's long-term harassment towards WarMachineWildThing. WarMachineWildThing, my advice above still stands -- Just ignore his edits on your talk page, let them sit, and report the issue to the relevant noticeboards. It'll save you stress, and WP:DENY if anything :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Because of how they operate any IP I revert could be them, I never know till they start in with the harassment. Hard to avoid when you don't know how they will pop up next. This is how it always starts they do something that they know is not correct and they wait, if I'm not the one who catches it then they do it again till I do. Its the same person everytime which is clear because they always bring up the events from 5 months ago, they always call me an OWNISH editor, and they some how get it turned around on me to where I get heat, because the way they do it makes them look in the right when they are not. So not editting is my only recourse at this point, 5 months I have delt with this, they always come back, they never get bored. I also ask to be blocked for the 24hr period if I truly violated 3RR by removing duplicate information placed by a blocked IP who is nothing but a troll. So if I truly violated then I should be blocked as well. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 04:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
IP tagging users with admin only templates.
Hey man, sorry to bother. I might be wrong but it seems as if User 71.237.141.40 is slapping block templates on other users talk pages. See here. Unless there is something I'm missing, I'm pretty sure this is not acceptable procedure? Cheers. Robvanvee 06:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Although, upon closer inspection, the edit may have been made in good faith. Their other edits include some anti-vandalism work, so they probably just thought, "Hey, the admin forgot to template this page. I'll go ahead and do it for them." —Gestrid (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
No doubt it was in good faith Gestrid, just thought I'd bring it to an admins attention. Often felt like slapping that tag on someones talk page myself! Robvanvee 09:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
WikiEdu professor question
Hi, I am a professor in the WikiEdu program. One of my students @Agantyud had her user talkpage edited by you. Isn't this inappopriate. Correct me if I am wrong, but even as an administrator, you cannot delete content on someone else's user page.
What is a "rolling back spam"? Was this a bot? Or you? Please reply.
(cur | prev) 13:13, 16 November 2016 Oshwah (talk | contribs) m . . (2,291 bytes) (-1,329) . . (Rolling back spam) (undo | thank)
(talk page stalker)@SheridanFord:Zy87 (talk·contribs) had originally posted the message to Agantyud's talk page. It appears that Zy87 was running an unauthorized bot, spamming editor's talk pages with external links. These edits violated the Wikipedia guidelines on spam and the Bot policy. As such, all of that account's edits were reverted per the "Removing prohibited material" exception in the talk page guidelines. Good luck with your course! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yeah, all bots need to be approved by the Bot Approvals Group, and I don't think this particular bot would've been approved, anyway. (No, I'm not a member of the Group, but I'm speaking from some experience.) By the way, this is what Oshwah had removed. The invite may have been approved by that user's university, but the bot was not approved by Wikipedia. —Gestrid (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Nirvana discography
Hi, please can you reply this time. earlier this month you were involved in notifying an IP user who was basically edit waring on the Nirvana discography page. You left a message on the user's talk page (User talk:181.230.46.29). However, he or she has returned to making the same edit(s) that are not as per the verifiable sources being quoted in the article. I have tried discusses this with the person but he or she takes no notice. Last time you said that if it continued to let you know. Perhaps the article could be changed for only auto confirmed users to edit ? Thanks, QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Does this file qualify for speedy under {{Db-f1}} (redundant) it seems an 'identical' file was created at the same time at File:JosephFrancisAlaskeyIII.gif. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Eagleash! Sorry, I was inactive over the Thanksgiving holiday. Was off seeing family. Looks like the image was deleted. Sorry I was late to the party. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
No worries. As you say it has been deleted anyways. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but we don't do thanksgiving this side of the Atlantic...:) Eagleash (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Eagleash - HA! That's nice... one less holiday to have to buy things and take time off work and all that for. Consider yourself lucky (I'm a Grinch when it comes to holidays, if you can't tell :-P) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep, retailers over here try to push Halloween (the US version not the old Brit type), Black Friday and Cyber Monday... appeals to a certain element but overall not too successful. I suppose they'll get around to thanksgiving eventually, like they have with St. Patrick's Day. Eagleash (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I had noticed that you blocked this IP for 31 hours, but the previous block was for 6 months. (And after the last 6 months, they went straight back to vandalizing)... I just wanted to let you know in case if it was by accident. Cheers. 2601:1C0:10B:47F0:98B2:9AB9:DBB4:4D2F (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like this IP was reblocked. Yup, I probably didn't catch that. My bad :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
They have a new target
They have chosen a new target, it's the same IP user again. I've watched their edits today to make sure, You can see their tell tale sign of accusing another user of Vandalism to get an edit war started [here], this started earlier today. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 04:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) They've been blocked for now, and the page has been semi-protected for one week. I've also watchlisted the new target's talk page. Thank you! —Gestrid (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing - If you see any more IP's harassing you, etc let me know and I'll take care of it. I also noticed that your user page wasn't move protected (meaning anyone could move your user page in order to troll you) - I went ahead and fixed that for you. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Here's a turkey for you to carve! —Gestrid (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Gestrid - Yay! Turkey to carve! 24 hours later: Ugh... no more turkey! Too much turkey! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
My Edit - Nicholas Roche
Hi Oshwah,
I did not edit Nicholas Roche's wikipedia page so I am interested in what was added to his page from my IP address.
Kind Regards
83.70.48.6 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you used to be 83.70.48.43, then that IP address made this edit on July 30th of this year. The IP address you used when you posted here does not have any edits made to the Nicolas Roche page at all. —Gestrid (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Just in case you didn't get enough at Thanksgiving! Hope you had a good holiday! -- Dane2007talk 04:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Oshwah, there have been two recent RFCs about articles titled 1…100. The first one closed with strong consensus that those titles shouldn't harbor the year articles any longer. The second one is debating the future title of articles about the affected years. Meanwhile, some editors (including me) have started the technical work necessary to update templates and clarify any potential inconsistencies; as a testbed, years 1…9 have been moved to AD 1…AD 9 and titles 1…9 are now (temporarily?) disambig pages. The second RFC has been pending closure for a while and new comments have dried down, however nobody has yet risen to the challenge of closing it. With your boundless wisdom, would you possibly volunteer? — JFGtalk 14:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG! Woah, that's a big vote! I'll have to read through it before I can make an answer. lol ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
If you think that's a big vote, you should be glad you weren't picked for the panel of Talk:New York/July 2016 move request a few months ago… — JFGtalk 01:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
JFG - LOL I bet it was! I'll need to carefully read through this page and gather if a consensus was reached or not, what the decision is, the process of closing this properly, etc. It may be closed by someone else by then, but if it isn't, I don't mind closing. It will just take me awhile; I want to go slow and do this carefully and do it right! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. We all know there is no deadline. If after reading the debate, you do decide to prepare a closing statement, perhaps say a word on the page to that effect, to avoid duplicate efforts. Cheers, — JFGtalk 18:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
New User
@Oshwah: Hi Oshwah, Im new in Wikipedia, but I'll ask u a question when can I become an admin like U? I would like to be an admin as my dream. RF (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@RacheyFlies: Welcome to Wikipedia! While we appreciate the enthusiasm, Please see WP:ANOT for information about what adminship is not. It is highly frowned upon if you joined Wikipedia for the sole intention of becoming an admin. However, if not, we welcome your contributions! -- Dane2007talk 04:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Not to sound discouraging, RacheyFlies, but it takes years before you should even consider applying to be an administrator. (Even if people start mistaking you for an administrator, like people did with Oshwah before he became an administrator earlier this year, you should still wait a little bit.) Keep in mind that Oshwah has been a registered user on Wikipedia for nearly ten years and, as I said, he only just recently became an administrator. —Gestrid (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
To me, while awaiting for a year, maybe I can be a rollbacker after I reach 200 edits and will also reported some bad or distruptive users to WP:UAA or WP:AIV. How about that? RF (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a good start, RacheyFlies. Dane2007, any more comments that may help RacheyFiles? —Gestrid (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I would definitely suggest studying the core policies, specifically verifiability, notability, Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Once you've established a solid reputation and knowledge of those policies, the teahouse is a great place to help other new users who may not be familiar with those policies. As you explore you will undoubtedly find more policies and helpful guidelines and branch out from there. I know that's how I got started :). -- Dane2007talk 04:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dane2007: On a separate, slightly humorous note, we both have been misspelling this user's name. It's RacheyFlies, not RacheyFiles. RacheyFlies, I apologize for that. —Gestrid (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gestrid: Oh my goodness, thank you for pointing that out Gestrid and my apologies RacheyFlies. -- Dane2007talk 04:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
RacheyFlies - I'm going to echo everyone else above me, as they all provided fair, honest, and good advice. I've been on Wikipedia for 9 years, and I just became an administrator in August. You not only have to demonstrate your knowledge and involvement with Wikipedia over many years, but you also have to gain the respect of the community, as it requires community consensus. Those who join Wikipedia with the intent on being an administrator will fail; those who join Wikipedia to contribute positively and in the long-term will see administration come naturally. Good administrators lead, but they also serve and use their tools for the good of the community. I don't want to discourage you either, but I hope my response has given you a good perspective in which administrators are chosen. It's not a "join and get admin powers" sort of thing. Not at all. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Requesting Assistance with Wikiedu Page
Oshwah, my name is Heidi and I am a student editor. I am having trouble finding additional content and sources. Any suggestions? Thank youHCCCJOHNKE (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hello, HCCCJOHNKE. I'm not Oshwah, but I (among others keeping an eye on this page) will try to help you as much as I can. I'm going to attempt to get another user, Plantdrew, to help out here since I'm not familiar with the guidelines we have related to plants. Plantdrew is the one that added the WikiProject Plants categorization to your article's talk page, so they are already at least somewhat familiar with the article. —Gestrid (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi HCCCJOHNKE! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions! Sorry for the delay getting back to you - I was away for Thanksgiving. I'll be happy to try to answer them as best as I can. I'm not familiar with the Student Education program on Wikipedia and any possible course or education requirements or assignments that may come with it, but locating sources to help expand or write an article is simple to do. Just make sure to read Wikipedia's guidelines on locating and using reliable sources, when you need to cite sources, and Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. These policies and guidelines will provide you with all of the information and and assistance you need. If you have any additional questions about the policies and guidelines that I've linked you to here, please don't hesitate to respond and ask. I'll be more than happy to assist you further. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh fun, it could be a number of them... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
From an unhappy customer
My edit was falsely taken down on Swiss Army Man Article, and I would like it put back. It was purely constructive and logistical, and vital to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.160.88.127 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
its true why you remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.S. inc. (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
why you remove " A hysterical channel on youtube where the craziest couple on youtube pull pranks on each other " ?
L.S. inc. (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
sorry for not sighning as i forgot.
L.S. inc. (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
why r there users like 67.384.575?
it's confusing.
L.S. inc. (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
is my user page okay?
L.S. inc. (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
how do you get "stars"?
L.S. inc. (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
L.S., that's a lot of questions. May I suggest you read the manual first? Drmies (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Done - User blocked and page deleted. If you see any more, fling them my way and I'll take care of it. Thanks for letting me know! And (as I usually say to you) create an account already DAMNIT!!!! LOL ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
You can also [REDACTED - OSHWAH] if you want to chat with us... We're sitting here talking about all this live, and you're not here to enjoy the party :-( ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, you accidentally (probably an accident) blocked 2600:1:F451:BBD:4C19:10D2:C33:AA47(talk·contribs·WHOIS) indefinitely. And just curious, but why did you redact the IRC link? If you redacted it for the reason that I think you may have (since they keep coming to your talkpage too) then you may also want to rev-del it. 2601:1C0:10D:D9B2:1DA7:647C:D7FB:348C (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not an accident. See this. I left the link on your (previous IP) talk page LOL. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe full protection for an entire week may be excessive. I don't see that much evidence of an out-of-control edit war with multiple parties. Surely warnings or blocks to the offending parties, or even semi-protection, would be more appropriate? Cheers. —Torchiesttalkedits 14:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Torchiest - Sigh... It's not a protection level that I personally enjoy setting on an article, just because of the fact that there's at least a few editors that don't deserve to be restricted from editing an article like that, you know? However, due to the content-related issues that are in progress, the repeated reverting by IP addresses and confirmed/extended users alike (although it's definitely not "out-of-control" as you put it - I agree that it isn't), as well as the fact that the article topic is currently under discretionary sanctions re: American politics 2, I felt that implementing full protection upon the article for one week was an appropriate way to handle the issue (especially given the fact that this is a topic under WP:AC/DS). This will help everyone verify that they're discussing their disputes and coming to a consensus with one another, as well as keep content in this topic area within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Everyone is welcome to make edit requests with non-controversial changes (or changes that are the result of community consensus) in the meantime. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns regarding the rationale behind my decision to apply full protection to the article. I'll be happy to answer any questions and address any further concerns. Thanks for leaving me a message with your thoughts -- I always appreciate the openness and the feedback from others :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you are going to fully protect it, then how about reviewing the suggested edits on the article talk page from hard working, good faith editors who are trying to keep the article current. If you are going to fully protect it then show the rest of us who work hard on articles that you will help us keep the article current. Please review the talk page and add in the newest cabinet members as they are announced or change the protection level to auto-confirmed users. thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Oshwahl (@Octoberwoodland:). I have reviewed the changes to the page over the past few days. I do not believe that this high-profile, fast-moving article qualifies for full page protection at this point. It does Wikipedia far more damage to have a static out of date page than one where cosmetic changes are happening every so often. I have dropped the protection down to pending changes 1. My understanding is that this wasn't an Arbitration Enforcement action, but if I am mistaken, let me know and I'll be happy to revert. If it wasn't an AE action, I would prefer that you obtain consensus at one of the noticeboards before reinstituting full protection.Happy to discuss this further if you would like. NW(Talk) 03:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare - No discussion necessary. If you feel that a lower level of protection compared to the status quo (on any page) is an improvement, by all means... please do not feel bad about lowering it. Thanks for providing a second pair of eyes and for lowering based on your judgment. I always side with "the lower, the better" :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! NW(Talk) 04:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare - You bet, dude! Thanks for the second pair of eyes and for adjusting the protection to the appropriate level you saw fit. I'm always happy to have a second pair of eyes override my admin decisions if it's for the benefit of the project :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone and glad this got sorted out. —Torchiesttalkedits 01:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Question
what do you mean "neutral point of veiw"?
L.S. inc. (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
However, as others have pointed out to you, you probably don't need to create the draft talk page unless you need to discuss the draft with other editors. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 00:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
LEAF where you stand
Hello! I wanted to make sure that I did NOT violate WP:3RR regarding LEAF where you stand. I frankly see Trinidad's edits as disruptive and borderline vandalism as they are purely WP:PROMO but I didn't want to violate policy so I stopped reverting. Just wanted to make sure I did things right. If you have any advice or criticism I am all ears (well eyes, but you know what I mean). --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Zackmann08 - Nope. You reverted one change, and then added some tags. And then you reverted again, but not a third time. Just don't perform any more reversions until either something happens or a discussion is had and consensus is met and you'll be fine. While the content does appear to be promotional, it's still a content-related dispute which is not covered as a 3RR exception. You stopped right at the correct time ;-). Let me know if disruption continues, and I'll be happy to jump in. Cheers! -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Where should I report copyvio diffs like this? Is it necesaary to report them at all? Zupotachyon (talk ⋅ contribs) Ping me with {{SUBST:reply to|Zupotachyon}} 21:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Zupotachyon! There are many things you can do, and depending on the situation. When you see copyvio content added to an existing article, revert it and warn the user. There are templates here that you can use in order to help you with doing that. There are also noticeboards for copyright issues if you have concerns but aren't completely sure and want to report an article to have it looked at. These noticeboards are listed here. If you see a new article that was created and contains nothing but copyvio content, tag the page for speedy deletion under G12. Please let me know if you have any more questions regarding how to deal with copyright violations. I'll be more than happy to answer them :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers! I assume that copyvio diffs are revdel'd like the one above, but what happens if there are intermediate edits between the copyvio being introduced and someone noticing? Zupotachyon (talk ⋅ contribs) Ping me with {{SUBST:reply to|Zupotachyon}} 02:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from November 2016. Please do not modify this page.
Done were a minute apart... are you sure you didn't click it twice, after the page refreshed? It refreshes very quickly (3 seconds or so) — MusikAnimal talk 05:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
— JFG talk 01:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)