Jump to content

User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from February 2017. 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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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.



Ulubatlı

In Turkey many of historians think so that there wasnt a real person named Ulubatlı..It is impossible to personify a solid soldier in the most tumultous time of a war...For example the president of an important turkish university--Yıldırım Beyazıt University-- has defended those opinions many times int its famous history chat program in television...President of Y.B. University and a history professor Erhan Afyoncu ...

In defense of deletion

My edit on the article EDonkey network was removing broken links/references. 216.169.239.29 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! The references you tried to remove seem to be working fine. Next time, you may want to see if other editors also see the links as dead or no longer working (or add {{dead link}} next to the URL so someone can verify). This way, we can confirm this and make sure it's not an issue on your end (such as the site being filtered or blocked, ISP or connectivity issue, those sorts of things...). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you let User talk:37.245.162.17 off with a light warning?

Oshwah User: 37.245.162.17's edit was very rude and offensive. I was thinking of writing a UW4 warning, or going to AiV. L3X1 Complaints Desk 03:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for this edit?? Really? Can it be translated as rude and/or offensive? Sure, of course. But it's definitely not at the level or severity that warrants an only warning to be given, and it definitely isn't serious or severe enough to warrant a report being filed at AIV to be blocked without a warning at all. The IP didn't end up making further edits; a Level 1 good faith warning is what should have been left, hence it was I left... since we're supposed to do so by default as much as possible. The IP didn't make further edits; a level 1 warning did exactly what it was intended to do. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

BuickCenturyDriver '16

Can you please revoke their talk page access? Every time that talk page is deleted under G5 it is recreated. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Spotted a problematic IP User

Found this IP User - 184.176.44.130 - who appears to have been unconstructive and very disruptive as well, from what has been written on their Talk Page. Figured you might be able to determine a course of action with them. GUtt01 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi GUtt01! Sorry it took me so long to get back to you! I've been busy with real life mumbo jumbo lately and have just recently have had time free up so that I can be active again. Looking at the contributions from this IP address, nobody has made any edits from it since the beginning of January. Since we take action only when it's needed and at the time that actually calls for it, I'm going to leave things be and call it good. There's no point of doing anything otherwise. However, if you do see vandalism or disruptive editing that's in progress, don't hesitate to let me know or (better yet) file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks for leaving me a message. Happy editing, dude! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted someone on this page, but an admin probably needs to deal with the account because it seems to be impersonating you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Already taken care of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Thank you. With users like Cshwah the best strategy is RBI, but my reaction to this was that. You guys handled that very very badly. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: User seems to be still active on their TP (now blanked) (again). Eagleash (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yanked TPA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that impersonator and for the heads up! I really appreciate it! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Kinda funny that your editnotice says "I will treat you with respect no matter what - you have my promise."... The way you treated me was far from respectful. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Can you restore User:ThePlatypusofDoom/ACE2016 thoughts? I might want to keep it, just as a record. (I'm not sure, though, if I might CSD tag it again, if I decide that I don't want to keep it. I'm indecisive that way.) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I will prove that I am better than Bot Oshwah and I have restored your page from the graveyard of deleted pages. IT'S ALIVE!!!!! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@K6ka: Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@K6ka: Pinging you again, as the first one didn't work. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Sorry for the late response; was busy earlier this week with work and off-wiki life ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah for letting me know that. And you look handsome BTW. Tusharthestudyfreak (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Photographic evidence doesn't lie. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah at work, reverting a vandal.
LOL!!! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The following accounts are  Confirmed to Bishzilla:
Linguisttalk|contribs 16:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget about MjolnirPants. Definitely a sock army going on here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Kyle Falconer

Hey, sorry for reverting you on Kyle Falconer. Your edit restored some vandalism and I reverted it as vandalism without noticing you were reasonably reverting other stuff. In any case, I found what appears to be the last good diff and restored that. —Non-Dropframe talk 23:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No apologies are needed, Non-dropframe! It looks like an IP made some edits before that user. I appreciate you for catching this, and for fixing the article. If I dun goof and your reversion fixes it, perfect. That's why we're both here! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Lowes Wikipedia Page

Hi Oshwah,

How are you?

I work for Lowes Menswear and I have been told to update our Wikipedia page.

I have never updated Wikipedia before so it is all a learning curve for me.

You reverted my edits back to the original page because you felt that my article "did not have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Lowes Menswear seemed less than neutral to me".

Is this because I have not cited from enough sources?

It is just hard as there is not much information about Lowes out there and the information that is out there that I can cite or that was previously cited was all the wrong information, so the only source I can get correct information from is our website.

Most of the information has been sourced from our managers here at our office as this information is not really out in the internet.

So what do I do then?

Thanks!

00:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Lowesaustralia15423 (talk) Tara 00:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Lowesaustralia15423 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lowesaustralia15423 - Welcome to Wikipedia. There are a few problems with your account and what you're trying to do. I'll list them for you so that you can fix them:
  • Your username represents a company, which is against our username policy. You need to request a username change or stop using this account and create a new one that represents yourself as an individual.
  • If you're being paid to edit this article, you need to disclose this per Wikipedia's policy. Refer to the policy page that I linked you for more information.
  • Your edits were problematic because they did not reflect a neutral point of view and was worded in a promotional manner (it read like an advertisement). All edits and article content must be neutrally worded and be as unbiased as possible.
Please take the time to correct these issues (starting from the top), and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for messaging me, and I hope you have a great day! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

More...

Here are some more socks to clean up... they're leaving quite the stench today! 172.58.41.13 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Swedenwish as a sockpuppet

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I had decided to be known that he will block Swedenwish because he didn't sockpuppet yet. I had been blocked by User:Materialscientist. You need to sockpuppet swedenwish and ciaerwinrise254162. You see I compared him to Synthelabobabe21. 112.198.98.12 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wales Scotland

Hi, you cannot remove Wales from this list and include Scotland without good reason either.

Wales was meant to compete in Eurovision in 1969 and S4C is a full and active member of the EBU. Either you include both or you don't include either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbonjela (talk • contribs) 10:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Jonbonjela - Wikipedia is not the place to express opinions or point of views. If you feel that there is an issue between yourself and another editor on the article, you need to open a discussion on the article's talk page and come to a consensus with one another and engage in proper dispute resolution practices. Removing content, reverting, and going back-and-fourth constitutes edit warring, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is why I reverted the changes recently made by everyone - because no discussion is taking place and one must occur. Please do so, and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Keyser Wikipedia

Hi there!! I apologize for being new to the Wikipedia community and perhaps not editing Johnny Keyser's page properly. Johnny was a former American Idol contestant in 2011 and 2012 but his Wiki has not been updated accurately since. In 2015 he began to construct an entirely new vision and brand and now goes by artist name "John.k". He is currently just weeks away from releasing his debut EP as John.k and because of this, his wiki needed to be updated. Additionally, the original information about his birthdate, birthplace, and upbringing were incorrect. I spent 2 hours last night sifting through the tons of information and creating a new wikipedia page for John. I was unable to add a photo, can you tell me why? I have listed the information below that needs changing, but if you have access to all of the edits I made last night can you please restore them? American Idol is very much in the past and should not be the first thing that we read when we come across John's wikipedia. It would be much appreciated.

Question: Can we change Johnny's name permanently to John.k as that is the artist name he goes by now? Question: How can I add a photo of Johnny to wikipedia?

Here is the updated information, with sources:

Collapsing page edit

Name: John.k Birth name: John Poulson Keyser Date of Birth: October 24, 1988 Genre: Alternative R&B / Soul / Pop Instruments: Vocals, Piano Website: musicbyjohnk.com

John Poulson "John.k" Keyser is an American singer-songwriter who was first discovered on Season 11 of American Idol when Jennifer Lopez told him, "You know you're gonna be a star, right?" and the show launched a season-long campaign around her reaction. Johnny Keyser transitioned his brand to John.k in early 2015 when he began working on his debut EP "John.k" scheduled to release in February 2017.

Personal life: 

John Poulson Keyser was born October 24, 1988 in Delray Beach FL to parents Cheryl Bleau and John Keyser Sr. He is of French, German, American Indian and English decent. John was raised in the Christian faith. At age three, his parents divorced and co-parented him in South Florida. John's mother Cheryl went on to remarry Pastor Dan Plourde of Calvary Jupiter FL. The two have 11 children together. John Keyser Sr. went on to move to Edwardsville, Indiana. John.k is a fourth generation musician and was focused on athletics growing up. He learned to sing and play piano at age 16 from his grandma, Donna "Bunny" Lavar, daughter of 1940s aspiring model, Linna Poulson and John Poulson (Bunny is nicknamed after her father's dear friend, jazz trumpeter Bunny Berigan). John.k graduated high school from Calvary Christian Academy in Fort Lauderdale FL and went on to study Marketing at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, where he currently resides.

Musical Career: In early 2015, John teamed up with manager and songwriter, Robert Zarrilli, and the duo incorporated themselves as KeyZar. Together, they began writing John.k's debut EP at Plush Studios in Winter Springs FL. They grew their team, including Plush Studios Vice President Ethan Curtis, producer Adam "FVCES" Piccoli and sound engineer Ian Gagnon. John and team went on to work with producer Ricky Remedy on power track, "Gold," set to release Spring 2017. John.k and team joined with dancer Marlee Hightower and publicist Erica Berman of Jane Layne Creative on passion project "My City Beautiful," a tribute to the lives lost in June 2016's Pulse Nightclub Shooting.

John recently signed on to open for X Factor USA Winner Alex and Sierra's West Coast "Take Me Tour", beginning February 2017.

American Idol: Keyser was first noticed when he auditioned for American Idol Season 11 in St. Louis, Missouri.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1678467/johnny-keyser-lauren-gray-wow-american-idol-panel.jhtml|title=Johnny Keyser, Lauren Gray Wow 'American Idol' Panel|author=Adam Graham|date=February 2, 2012|publisher=[[MTV]]|accessdate=June 19, 2012}}</ref> His rendition of Sam Cooke's "A Change is Gonna Come" and vocal prowess moved all three judges, with the show's season-long ad campaign built around Jennifer Lopez's exhortations "You Know You're Gonna Be A Star, Right?" and "Keep Singing...". Despite his a cappella version of Amos Lee's "Dreamin'" in the Hollywood rounds, he was cut from the competition. Although when he and three others were announced as possible wildcard entries into the Final 25, Keyser was touted as the likely inclusion,<ref>Annie Barrett, [http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/24/american-idol-johnny-keyser-top-13/ "'American Idol': Should Johnny Keyser be saved?"], ''Entertainment Weekly'', February 24, 2012</ref> but he was not chosen as the Wild Card to return on the show. Keyser came back for the twelfth season.

Sources: Alex and Sierra: http://alexandsierraofficial.com/

Alex and Sierra X Factor USA Audition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9JDrf1QBO4

American Idol Audition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vooKpoEfqg

Donna "Bunny" Poulson Lavar: http://bunnysgallery.com/about

Bunny Berigan: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bunny_Berigan

My City Beautiful (Orlando Tribute): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n51vgO5K0Rw

Plush Recording Studios: http://plushrecordingstudios.com/

Ricky Remedy: https://soundcloud.com/rickyremedy

Marlee Hightower: http://wod.ideas.technology/marlee-hightower-rising-star-americas-got-talent-studio-one-worldofdance-com/

Pulse Nightclub Shooting: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/mass-shooting-at-orlando-nightclub/

Jane Layne Creative: http://www.janelayne.com/

Calvary Church Jupiter: http://www.calvarychurchfl.com/

Calvary Christian Academy Fort Lauderdale: https://www.ccaeagles.org/

Thank you so very much!!

Musicbyjohnk (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

It's too early in the day for beer, so here's a cheeseburger instead. Waggie (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of my correction to a name || Simdega || Notable People

Hello,

Straight to the point, the name Dungdung is spelled without a space between the 2 "Dung". Meaning it is one surname/title. E.g. It is "Rezi Dungdung" and not "Rezi Dung Dung". It is Same for all Dungdung's and there are no alternate spellings.

Thanks and Regards, Sam Abhinav Kullu Local Tilga Village, Simdega, Jharkhand.

Please Clarify

Hello, I have a question regarding the page I have been editing, the YoWorld one. It's been a while since' I've contributed to Wikipedia, and I was one of the ones who helped create that page a few years back under another account, which for some reason no longer exists here. I came back to help edit it after I noticed two headings on the top of the page, one claiming that the page had been written as a manual, and that it should be fixed. In order to do that, I removed the parts that they referenced, and received the warnings. The sections I removed, if you read them yourself, were entirely in manual format. There was no way to fix those sections without removing them. If I am not allowed to remove them is there some other way to address the issue without being blocked from editing the page further? I am only wondering because if you look at the page... it clearly needs a face lift, and it's nearly impossible to do that. Help?

MysteriousYo (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi MysteriousYo! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions and concerns. I'll be happy to help you and point you in the right direction. Some of your edits most likely confused other editors (including myself) because you haven't been leaving an edit summary explaining your changes. To give a few examples: You removed a lot of content here, as well as here, and removed a section here, but you did not explain why. I think that the lack of edit summaries is what led to the warnings and the confusion. You also continued to remove content after being warned as well (which obviously doesn't help - haha). I've removed the warning that I've left on your talk page, as I see now that you're trying to gain an understanding and simply just seem confused. I think that you just need to explain your changes using edit summaries, and you'll be okay. Also, you generally want to fix the issue in the article first, then remove the template once it's done. If you have any more questions or need help, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be happy to help you. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your instruction, Oshwah! I will be sure to follow that then from now on. Thank you! It's a bit tricky getting used to this after being gone for so long. Have a pleasant day! MysteriousYo (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
MysteriousYo - I feel ya, man. There's a lot to pick up and a lot has changed, too. Stop by any time you need help. I'll be happy to do so. Welcome back, and happy editing to you. :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No subject

Hello, i recently edited jamie green footballer page as it is actually me and my friend has put fabricated information on my page regarding where i reside etc so i was editing it yet you keep removing my truthful edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammie1989 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Jammie1989 - If you are who you're claiming to be, then you need to contact the Volunteer Response Team by clicking here. They have the tools and training necessary to verify your identity and assist you with your particular concerns. Failure to do this, and continuing to remove content from the article will make the process harder upon yourself instead of easier. Please follow my directions in order to receive the assistance you're looking for. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Rob Stewart (actor)

I was reverted back just as you did. Going to investigate this further. Home Lander (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Home Lander - Cool deal, man - go for it. If they have the wrong person, I guess that happens... but another concern was the lack of references with the edits in the first place. If someone changes a BLP to say that they're dead and don't supply a reference, that's a definite no-go for launch, Houston (lol). Just make sure that if anyone changes a living person to be dead (whether it be this "Rob Stewart", or a different "Rob Stewart") - that it's referenced with a reliable source. Thanks for the message - let me know if you need my help with anything. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I had actually grabbed this source - http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/toronto/rob-stewart-found-dead-1.3965360 - see the edit history, but am verifying now whether this is the same person or not. Home Lander (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Home Lander - Awesome. Thanks for finding a reference and for verifying that we're updating the right person. Much appreciated! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Home Lander - I think the correct person is Rob Stewart (filmmaker), by the way. That's who you're looking for :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
We edit conflicted, I found him just as you did. Home Lander (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Home Lander - HA! That happens a lot around here ;-). Also, I'd make sure to find more references or different news stories confirming this before you make the change to the article. We treat BLP articles with much more scrutiny than others - keep that in mind! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Well aware, I actually reverted a non-source entry at the start of all this. I've put in a null edit on this page for what it's worth, the correct one is admin-edit only at the moment so I won't be able to do anything with it. Home Lander (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Home Lander - Sounds like you're on the right track and doing the right things. No need for me to step in; I'll leave you to it then! Just message me here if you need any help. Cheers! And thanks again! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Home Lander (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Suppose I could ask you while I'm here, do you know how long someone should generally be on here before requesting Wikipedia:Rollback permission? I read up heavily on vandal patrol, general policy etc before joining and jumped in headfirst, and nobody else is reverting me so I'm assuming I've done a decent job. Home Lander (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Home Lander - You sure can! For me to grant rollback permissions to a user, that user needs to have a history of consistently and persistently reverting vandalism and properly warning users. On top of this, I also look for consistent and proper reports being filed at AIV that are accurate and correct, and result in the user being blocked. Once a good pattern of this is established and enough to where I know that you understand what rollback is for, what is and is not vandalism, and the demonstrated correct reversion of vandalism, I grant it away. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's my edit history for what it's worth, and then I activated the CSD tagging log or whatever it's called, in my user area. Home Lander (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the original article in question above may end up ultimately having to be protected also; see the IP edit that I reverted. Home Lander (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No title

Hi Dear I have changed the info that was not correct and i am his family, if you are trying to write some thing about him please make sure the info is correct. a lot of information of Bashir Makhtal is not correct and i always wanted to know where they getting the incorrect details about him.

Thanks Sadala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Bashir (talk • contribs)

Hi Free Bashir and thank you for messaging me with your concerns. Unfortunately, you cannot add content or information to Wikipedia articles citing personal or first-hand knowledge, personal relations or involvement, or even sources or references that you've written yourself. Anything like this constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Content must be properly cited and attributed to a reliable source. If you have any questions about Wikipedia's policy on no original research, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

John fiore update

Dude. This is John fiore and trying to update My bio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfiore007 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jfiore007, and thank you for your message. There are a few problems with the information you're trying to add. First, (assuming that you are who you claim to be) it represents a huge conflict of interest for someone to create or modify an article that's written about themselves; it's highly discouraged by the community, and these changes are usually reverted due to the fact that it's nearly impossible to edit and add content that's written in a neutral point-of-view. The content you added to the article wasn't referenced to a reliable source, which is the reason I reverted your changes. Original research (citing personal or first-hand knowledge, personal relations or involvement, or even sources or references that you've written yourself) is not allowed on Wikipedia - you cannot edit an article and state that "you're the source". If you are who you're claiming to be, then you need to contact the Volunteer Response Team by clicking here. They have the tools and training necessary to verify your identity and assist you with your particular concerns. If you have any questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello O. I hope that you are well and that your 2017 has gotten off to a good start. Two things to be aware of in regards to this edit. First, on a page like that the template needs to go inside the noinclude. Pages like ANI transclude to other pages and those page will show up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates if the template is outside the noinclude. Second, when there is a template already in place on the page all you have to do is update the expiry time like I did with this edit. Don't worry about this as it is not a big deal. I just wanted to let you know about it for future reference. Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 04:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD - Sorry for taking so long to get back to you regarding your message. Busy life is busy ;-). Wanted to thank you for the message and let you know that I appreciate the heads up. Totally didn't know about the ANI template and how there's an argument for modifying the top icon - that's cool to know! I'll make sure to take note of that for next time I need to protect that page from the world of trolls. Hopefully I won't forget by then... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome and, as I said, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a big deal. Always something new to learn around here :-) and then the mists of time an editing mean that we get a chance to learn them again. HeeHee. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct, MarnetteD: There's always something new to learn on Wikipedia. It's one of the many reasons as to why I've been here for so long... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Excelletor

Does this user seem like a troll to you? A report that I made at WP:AIV for this account has been sitting there for awhile. Can you take a look? Thanks. 172.58.40.190 (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked indef by Vanamonde93. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

68.175.106.4

68.175.106.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Was removing religion= from infoboxes leaving an ES of "rv deprecated infobox parameter". I asked the anon for a ref and the editing stopped. Is it a depreciated parameter or is someone funnin' me? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jim1138:. See Template:Infobox_royalty#Parameters, it says: This parameter is deprecated per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: Thanks. Herman Van Rompuy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Yves Leterme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (possibly others) use {{infobox officeholder}} which does not say "depreciated"; should it be? I think that's why I was confused. Jim1138 (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jim1138: The template documentation is often outdated, because no one bothers to keep it up to date. So yeah, the template documentation of {{infobox officeholder}} should probably be updated. I am not sure what the best way to do that is otherwise I would've done it myself. There is a difference between "depreciated" and "deprecated" BTW. Depreciation is lowering of the price or value. Something that is deprecated is no longer in use/outdated. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: That itsy-bitsy "i" doesn't really make any difference, does it? Just add a /doc to the template should take you to the document page. template:infobox officeholder/doc. Just add and delete a few "i"s somewhere? Hope I didn't cause too much work for you! Jim1138 (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jim1138: Oshwah will update the template documentation for us. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, what needs updating and where? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The template documentation of {{infobox officeholder}} should probably be updated, more specifically where it mentions the religion parameter. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

GuessWhosBackMofos

You blocked the user GuessWhosBackMofos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The template you posted on the talkpage says: "give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website", and the block log contains the words "Promotional username, soft block". How is that username promotional? How does that username give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website? Why doesn't the reason in the blocklog match the one in the template on the talkpage? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's weird. Looks like the wrong block reason was applied. I remember this user - it was a suspected sock puppet account, and the username represented a UPOL issue as well. I meant to place a UPOL block instead of a promo soft block. All fixed! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

you are an administrator,do you help with the articles for creation?L.S. inc. (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

L.S. inc. - I don't participate actively in the AFC processs, but I do assist with questions and occasionally accept or decline submissions as necessary if it involves other things that I'm involved with (usually recent changes patrolling). Did you have a question? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
That was my question 😁 L.S. inc. (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
HAH, fair enough :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Why was user:FoCuSandLeArN blocked? (just anather random question.)L.S. inc. (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@L.S. inc.: See here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

is user:Arpierson1993 blocked and if yes, what was he doing that led him to be banned?L.S. inc. (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@L.S. inc.: There is a difference between being blocked and banned, see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. If you want to see if someone is blocked you can look at their contribution page, in this case Special:Contributions/Arpierson1993. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Extend block

Judging by this edit, the IP you blocked for 31 hours is not interested in contributing seriously to this project. I'd recommend you consider to extend the block. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

One week now. --NeilN talk to me 17:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, NeilN, for taking care of that! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Afro-American or African-American?

I seem to remember somewhere on Wiki to use "African American". If there is one, would you please let me know what the policy page is? I didn't turn up one with a search. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm not aware of any such guideline, though I would go with "African American" as well. "Afro American" can be read as a stereotype referring to the hairstyle, and just doesn't sound encyclopedic, since it's just a contraction of "African American", anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jim1138! I don't know of a "policy" on the top of my head, but I'd imagine there is one. I'd also agree that using the term "African American" in this context is the most neutral, appropriate, and encyclopedic form of the word. Hope that helps! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't find that article. I think I made about 1,200 edits since I last edited/discussed it. The anon changed the link from "African American" to "Afro-American" or something like it. I have seen this several times in the last month. I asked about policy at the wp:village pump. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You bet! Always happy to help! If it need be mentioned... changing "African American" to "Afro-American" sounds like vandalism to me... lol :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Didn't you get bored blocking the unblockable Wikinger? :) UK Citizen 937 (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

DeAnn Kay Vaught's wikipedia page

I got a message saying you removed my edit. I am her daughter. I don't know how to source that or that i even needed to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.55.129 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, and thank you for leaving me a message! Sorry, but citing personal relation, knowledge, accounts or witness, or even citing sources, books, or work that you've created yourself - constitute original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Edits need to be referenced by a reliable source (especially on articles that are biographies of living people. If you have questions about this policy, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Loften High School in Gainesville FL.

I disagree with your opinion that my edit is non-substantial. My reasons are 1. The article prior to revision incorrectly indicated that Loften High School accepts students who are in a specific geographical region within the city of Gainesville, FL. Loften is currently an application-only magnet school. 2. The grammar of the prior version of the article is internally inconsistent--both suggesting that the student body is different from other high schools "Unlike other schools..." and then describing its student body as being drawn from a specific geographic area, just as other area high schools' student bodies are.

It looks like you've made a follow-up edit to the article here. This is a more approprate way to reflect these changes, rather than simply adding "not" to the article (such as what you did here, hence why I reverted and warned you). I'd also make sure to cite references with the changes you've made. Otherwise, your changes can be challenged and reverted. Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns. Happy editing -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard Hatch death -> Source

http://www.tmz.com/2017/02/07/battlestar-galactica-star-richard-hatch-dead/

Can you please re-add the information you deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.149.104 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You're editing the wrong "Richard Hatch", dude. The correct article is this one: Richard Hatch (actor) ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No subject

Hi i just created a page for The David Roche Foundation House Museum, it is not for profit Museum/ Art gallery available to the public and its has just been deleted ? what is wrong with it ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDRFadelaide (talk • contribs) 01:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi as we are a non profit house museum like the Johnston collection in Melbourne why is our page not allowed ? TDRFadelaide (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Maris Riekstins

Now, seriously. The imgage that is uploaded to the NATO website, NATO is NOT the real author of this image.I have take these pictures a long time ago, when i was still practicing photography and helping out my father. So tell, me what do I need to do, so you do not delete whatever i upload for the tenth time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.246.142 (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason I reverted your changes was due to the edit you made here, which I believed to be a test. You need to use the sandbox to make test edits, not the live article itself. So long as you do this, you'll be golden and should be absolutely fine! Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Memo Consultancy Overses Job. Service Provider

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk: (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thiago Motta

Hi there OSWAH, from Portugal,

you were right to revert me. I thought I had copy/pasted the last clean version because there was a glitch after the other user did what they did in the categories department beats me why (the order was scrambled, and they changed the correct "PEOPLE FROM SÃO BERNARDO DO CAMPO" to "PEOPLE FROM SÃO BERNARD", and the summary was completely misleading, they did not add anything), and lo behold, I only copy/pasted the categories and removed the text inadvertently.

Thanks for spotting, sorry for any inconvenience --193.137.135.2 (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, man! Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

gulf oman

looks like lost cause of trying to be heard there...going, going... JarrahTree 12:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree - I apologize for missing this message here. Did you need assistance with something? Are you referring to the Gulf of Oman article? I'm just confused with your message here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to be concerned with - when the message was sent you were in the process of dealing with a vandal there - apologies for a relatively redundant message JarrahTree 23:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit

Hello

In the section "personal life" of the Indian film actress Madhuri Dixit's page it is written about her affair with Sanjay Dutt. It is written as if it was a well acknowledged fact. But actually it was a media made up rumor which both the actors totally denied many times. It also says that Madhuri ended the relationship after Sanjay was arrested, but it was nothing of the sort as they never had anything more than friendship. This is why they continued to have mutual respect. Original scans of old interviews of both the actors, and others confirm it. The following blog has several scans of original interviews of both the actors' and others from those years.

https://madhurimania.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/madhuri-and-sanjay-affair/

With film actors lot of gossips float around, wikipedia cannot be a place of mentioning all those gossip. Specially this one is mentioned as if it was well confirmed by both the actors, which is totally the opposite. Such entry vilifies the dignity of a person and also compromises the authenticity of wikipedia.

So I would request you to help me to edit out this slanderous piece of info about the actress.

Analyst2017 (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

To start the proper discussion that you need to have, you need to begin a discussion here, on the article's talk page. Make sure to ping everyone involved so that all users can weigh in. I'll be happy to assist you there - we want to keep the discussion on the article's talk page so that everyone can see it and contribute. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Gulf of Oman

Hey Oshawa, how you doing? I really need your help. My friend has been blocked for trying to give a right info on wiki. Topic is gulf of Oman. I've resources of the international hydrographic organization that proves there is only gulf of Oman, there is nothing called sea of makran. We're here to correct what's wrong! Why are you blocking us and giving the ability for the other user to put false info about that topic? The using that put false information says its sea o makran with no international recognition. Is that fair for us as a Wikipedia users. I'm here asking for help as soon as possible. How it's possible for a user to add false information without recognitions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omani112233 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Halidj Makran (Gulf of Makran) is a Persian name for the Gulf of Oman. The fact that Gulf of Oman is the most recognizable name for the place doesn't mean that other names for it don't exist. They are the same thing, not different things. All it took was a very basic google search to verify this. For that matter, your "friend" was blocked for edit-warring and disruptive editing. These are appropriate and temporary blocks. When the block expires they may resume editing normally, however, continued disruption, edit-warring and personal insults will make their wikicareer very short. So please suggest to them that they modify their approach and visit the talk page before making controversial edits; consensus is not optional, it is required. Somebody also needs to tell your "friend" that bodies of water can have multiple borders with multiple nations and that it's entirely normal for them to have many names because of this. The Adriatic sea, for example, which borders Italy and one of my home countries (Croatia) is know to us as the Jadransko more and as Mare Adriatico to them (Italians). I'll tell you straight up; POV pushing combined with personal attacks tends to very quickly lead to indefinite suspension of editing privileges. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, looking at the article's edit history and the meatpuppetry that is occurring (possible sock puppetry as well), the fact that the disruption and edit warring is over a content-related dispute, and no discussion has been taking place on the article's talk page - I think it's time for some full protection. It looks to be the logical next step to combat the disruption as well as force everyone involved to discuss the dispute and come to a resolution. It's clear that disruption and edit warring would continue to occur until this protection was applied. Hopefully everyone will sort this out. Three days of full protection should hopefully be short enough. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
A fair compromise. It'll give both this editor and their friend the opportunity to learn about the Wikipedia process and getting consensus for contentious changes. Nicely done, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Mr rnddude - Awesome! Thanks for helping to mentor them and show them Wikikpedia's guidelines and how the different processes work! This will help them to understand and learn how everything works. Hopefully, they'll take your advice to heart and work with you to expand the project positively and sort the issue out with the community. Best of luck, dude! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

My Iris Marion Young article edit adding superfluous [young] after Iris Young died [young]

Great edit on your part to delete my edit. I was just curious as to turnaround time on this kind of thing.

I mean no harm. I just need a bit of confidence in Wikipedia, so it seems there's critical mass out there to keep things clean and up to day.

Thanks

No problem! We have a rule just for this sort of thing - making good faith attempts to improve or add content to articles isn't only just welcome, it's encouraged! Be bold! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why

This user is vandalising the page of feyli kurds i used slurs because im a feyli kurd and suddely saw that wikipedia is decribing us as lurs because the user descides that without citing trusted source

Deletion under A3

Hello Oshwah, you recently deleted the page Exhortation under CSD A3. However, WP:A3 clearly states that it does not apply to soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects, which is exactly what that page was. Please clarify. RedPanda25 21:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

RedPanda25 - First of all, I owe you a couple of apologies. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you regarding your message. I've been very busy lately with off-wiki life (work, mainly) and I haven't had a chance to follow-up with messages lately until project deadlines were met and other fun stuff were done. I also owe you an apology for the deletion of the page. I, for some reason, didn't notice that the page was a soft redirect to a sister project. Hence, you are correct - A3 does not apply to soft redirects to sister projects, and the page is not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. I have restored the article and removed the CSD tag with the reason for removal. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to assist you further. I appreciate you for bringing this matter to my attention so that I could fix it! I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is my update being deleted? The Home Depot Philanthropy

Hi there!

I work for the The Home Depot Foundation and am trying to updated the dated information. Why is it being deleted?

Taylormt91 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Taylormt91! Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I've been busy lately and am just now able to catch up with my messages. Your edit here, as well as your message above - have multiple issues or concerns. First, regarding the edit: The changes you made to the article removed content that was referenced by (what appears to be) reliable sources, and replaces it with content that wasn't referenced to any sources at all. If you're citing the fact that you work for this company and know about these changes you're making personally, this constitutes original research (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). All edits that contain content that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be referenced by a reliable source. Otherwise, your changes can be challenged and reverted. In this case, it was easy; you removed referenced content and replaced it with content that wasn't. My second concern: Are you being paid or compensated by the company for making edits to Wikipedia? If so, then you are required to properly disclose this per the Wikipedia terms of use. See the link I provided you in the previous sentence for how to do this. Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. If you're being paid to edit Wikipedia, you must understand and follow the policies and guidelines provided on that page. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to assist you further. Thanks again for taking the time to leave me a message. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Three-R-One

The reason I took the deletion template down is because it was originally put there due to no references, but since then references have been added. How do I settle this deletion case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consumingfire1 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Consumingfire1 - I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I've been busy with off-wiki life ;-). Did you still need assistance with this? Let me know. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No subject

I'm sorry for leaving information on the page. Google Earth Map Info lists One Devonshire as 442'. Is that good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.231.245 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit? If so, yes, you'll want to cite a reliable source that shows the measurement of the building to be the height that you're modifying the article to state. Please let me know if you have any more questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Gulf of Oman

Hey Oshwah, I really need your help. The users Vsmith and Bazonka are yet powerful in wikipedia, Changing the topic information into false information and without citations and without any organisation recognition and the topic is "Gulf of Oman", They said they'll be removing the citations and the reliable sources given after the protection times ends! Help and don't let such users destroy wikipedia trusted sources, We trust wikipedia and we don't want any players to get it! why don't you check the sources by yourself and protect the topic without ending? Please don't ignore this.

Hi Omani112233 - You need to discuss these concerns with both Vsmith and Bazonka on the article's talk page (if you're not doing this already - see that you're all in a discussion there now). If you feel this way, then you need to support this argument with evidence and reliable sources that meets Wikipedia's guidelines on sources and verifiability. This is information that most logical and reasonable editors will ask for in support of your argument - original research (i.e. "I personally know this to be true" or "I saw it with my own eyes") isn't sufficient proof to support your argument and isn't allowed on Wikipedia articles. I don't know Bozonka well, but I've interacted with Vsmith a few times and his responses from what I've seen have always been logical and reasonable. If you have any more questions or concerns, you're welcome to message me. However, it's usually best to bring concerns about content or other editors directly to them so that they can help you. Keep discussing the issue on the article's talk page, and most importantly... do not edit war. Resolve the dispute first before you edit the article. Happy editing and good luck to you! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd be very happy to discuss any edits or proposed changes with Omani112233 on Talk:Gulf of Oman or my own talk page. I am certainly not trying to insert false information, and if I've done so then it's in error. Please, let's discuss the relevant points. (I'm not sure I'm as powerful as you think I am though!) Regards, Bazonka (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Content assassins?

Can you (or talk page stalkers) please check out the revisions on this talk page? I think content assassins are needed. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz! Sorry for the delay getting back to you about this. I was busy over the last week with real life mumbo jumbo. Is this still an issue? It seems like no recent edits have been made on the IP's talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit (personal life)

Hi Thanks for the reply I have made the request in the talk section of the related page (Madhuri Dixit)

Regards

Analyst2017 (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Analyst2017 - Great! And you're welcome! Always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Training

Hello, Good day , I'd like to enroll in the CVU, I think that it is what is called. An anti vandalism program, I'm barely 3 months old and do not know my way around, kindly assist me? Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Quit messaging me

I do not Apreciate being spammed all the time so if you would quit messaging me and sharing ip adresses with me or WHATEVER it is your doing i would greatly apreciate it have a wonderful day

P.S. Thank you for your website because it helps me with school projects and i apreciate all the information but some of it is really irrelevant. i highly doubt the queen of saudi arabia is the Mrs.Butterworth syrup lady and i doubt she lives in a giant pancake again have a nice day 165.138.195.104 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)BisforBatman

(talk page stalker)I don't think a single message qualifies as spamming, let alone "all the time". Nor was there any sharing of IP addresses with you. I think you should read the message (which was a courtesy) more carefully and not be so touchy. If you're getting these notices regularly, then I suggest you read WP:5P and register for an account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Madhuri Dixit (personal life)

Hello Oshwah, thanks for the reply. I have made the request in the talk page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Madhuri_Dixit you advised me to "ping everyone involved so that all users can weigh in." But unfortunately I am not aware of who are involved and also I am not familiar with wiki editing, as a result couldn't do anything else, sorry about that. I only know that this particular content was not there even few years back. Thanks for your help. Analyst2017 (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Analyst2017

Hi Analyst2017! Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns. To ping another user and notify them about a discussion or response and include them, simply type {{ping|[USERNAME]}} within your message. So if I wanted to ping you, I could type "{{ping|Analyst2017}}" (followed by your message) to do so. To find out who you need to ping, you need to view the article's history to figure out the users that are either reverting your changes or making edits to the article that you disagree with. Simply navigate to the article and click on the "History" tab. This will show you a list of every change that's been made to the article, who made the change, and exactly what was changed. Locate the relevant change (or what we refer to as a "diff" - short for "difference") to figure out who you need to ping. You should also copy the URL to the diff so that you can show the user exactly what edits you're concerned about. More information is available on the help page regarding article history, which is located here. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to help you further if you need it. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Jusice can not rule againstthe Origins/genre

<IFwishe/weshes/weshis were horses bergers/givers would be ridinng/reding/reading/reeding there would be no nightmares'n dreams/dins/hyponosthetics figale metal lungu afraire lasssis farier Dispute oceans sastains dry on i times of rain:Create me a page on this one for afrimation of reverts/citation/and the Administatio Jurisdiction On by common.consensus 11:31)(UTC )12FEBR 2017>{Djs }

permissions

L.S.inc.requesting to receive permission to go to the user created log and post messages on some 300+ uncreated talk pages. L.S. inc. (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

L.S. inc. (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC) permission pending.............

  • L.S. inc. (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC) permission still pending.......................

(once they have edited something, of course.) L.S. inc. (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

L.S. inc. - Umm... why do you need this permission? That user right (mass message sender) is not handed out generally, and the needs and requirements for the rights are for very specific purposes... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I see,oshwah, mass message sending is for bots. thanks,anyway.L.S. inc. (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
L.S. inc. - No problem. Please do not hesitate to message me if you have any questions or need help. There are no stupid questions here! Only trolls, maybe... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

random chat

hey man, iv'e got more users than pages on my watchlist now. 😁 L.S. inc. (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

See my response above. Not sure what you're asking for and why you need it. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert ;)

I've rangeblocked an IPV6 range that was basically just all them. Let me know if they come back again and I'll deal. Thanks! - Alison ❤ 04:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Alison! Thanks for the message! It's good to talk to you again. Sweet deal; glad it's been dealt with and that you were able to determine the appropriate range. I'll definitely keep an eye out if the range block doesn't fully contain the issue. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Lao Consulting Group

Appears to have created an equally problematic new account (username wise) User:Lao Consulting--Cahk (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cahk - Yup, that username is no better. I soft blocked it so that the user can create a new account (hopefully this time it'll meet the guidelines - haha). Thanks for the heads up! Much appreciated! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Chuth Khay

Dear Oshwah, excuse me why didn't you tell me I vandalize Wikipedia ! And why did you remove my edits in "Khun Srun" ? (cur | prev) 04:49, 17 February 2017‎ Oshwah (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,372 bytes) (-959)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Domrey_sar (talk) (HG) (3.1.22)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Huggle) Best regards, Domrey sar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domrey sar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Domrey sar! My apologies; I didn't realize that you've made other edits to the article (which were also reverted) - I've restored those changes. The reversion was made due to this edit, which I mistakenly thought was unconstructive. I see now that it's definitely a good faith edit that probably just needs grammatical improvements; definitely not vandalism. I apologize for the confusion. I've restored your other edits and removed the warning I left. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for leaving me a message, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nsmutte

Thanks for blocking the socks. Could you also delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigurveig Jónsdóttir (which they created). 172.58.41.33 (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigurveig Jónsdóttir(2nd Nomination), but not the one above... 172.58.41.33 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
D'OH! Good call. Thanks for pointing that out. Alright, now it's  Done. LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey big hoss whyd u delete my page

I just wanted to spread the word of science You destroyed the name of timothy j science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieneluvr13 (talk • contribs) 01:38, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

hi

Dear oshwah,

kindly note open account for company information how to proceed need your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globallogistics (talk • contribs) 08:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Globallogistics, and welcome to Wikipedia! I believe that your question involves the notice that I left on your user talk page regarding your chosen username. Wikipedia's username policy does not allow the creation of usernames that represent a company or more than one person, cannot be promotional, and should represent an individual person. To fix this issue, you can either simply stop using this account, log out, and create a new one, or you can request your account be renamed to a different username that meets Wikipedia's policy. Please know that creating articles for advertising or promotional purposes is not allowed and can result in your account being blocked should you do so (especially under a username that does not meet Wikipedia's username policy). Please follow the directions outlined in the links I've provided you, and let me know if you have any questions about the policies and guidelines that I've linked you. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I wish you happy (and appropriate and positive) editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I've asked Twice now.....

I already reverted it back and asked user to take to talk and gain consensus on this and this. I'm not sure what to do at this point. I can't revert again without risking 3rr. Thoughts? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 09:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - Start the discussion on the article's talk page, ping the user, and explain your particular issue or concerns with the edits that the user is making. This will alert the editor about the discussion (since you pinged him), and show that you're trying to discuss the issue and (should he keep reverting and fail to engage in your talk page discussion) that he's continuously reverting in-place of engaging in proper dispute resolution (which is what you'll be doing properly with the attempted talk page discussion). You can also leave the editor a custom message on his user talk page pointing him to the talk page discussion and letting him know that the issue needs to be discussed and a consensus made before further reversions take place; he may not know about edit warring or about the general 3RR rule that we use to determine what constitutes as edit warring, so make sure to help him out.
A general thing you should know: So long as you're attempting to contact, communicate, and discuss the dispute - you'll generally be fine when it comes to the 3RR policy. Remember, it's the spirit of the rule and not the wording that's important here. 3RR is simply a blight-line rule that's used as a general "line" when making the determination that you're starting to cross into edit war territory and out of safe waters. Just don't break 3RR, take the initiative and start discussions/messages if he's not doing so, warn the user for edit warring when he does so or breaks 3RR and is clearly not communicating despite your attempts to do so, and report the issue to AN3 if he continues edit warring after being warned and a discussion attempted. If you do all the above, you'll have nothing to worry about. You won't accidentally cross the line and wind up blocked, and should you accidentally stray into the 3RR territory (it happens - nobody is perfect), an administrator is going to look at you favorably vs the other. He'll see that, sure, you broke 3RR... but you made repeated attempts to discuss the issue multiple times. The admin will look at the other editor, see that edit warring is clearly going on, but see no attempts to communicate or discuss the concerns. Who do you think is going to be blocked? Certainly not you. Edit warring is the repeated back-and-fourth reversion of edits in place of having a discussion.
Now, I should make myself clear: Don't break 3RR or think that I'm implying that breaking it is okay; it's certainly not. We know that; of course! Even if you think you're right, 3RR can put you in hot water. But... should accidents happen and you're taking the right resolution steps to resolve the issue, you're much less likely to get smacked for it. Can it still happen? Yeah. But you're less likely to. I hope this lengthy response helps answer your question, but also helps set you in the right direction and clarify how we make these judgment calls regarding edit warring and how we take action. Good luck dude! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the wrong information

I edited Indian Actor Sudeep Wikipedia page on two phases. One on His marital status and the other on His personal Life. The mistake iIfound on Number one was His marital status was not divorced. The couple is still thinking about their divorce. They have even skipped one of their session in court which is needed to be attended. And second one inthe personal life. They've edited like they were separated on September,11 and the court decided the alimony and all. It is not true. The case is on-going and the star couple is still thinking whether to separate or to stay together. Please consider my genuine information and let the edit hold long. Thank you. AradhanaSharon (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)AradhanaAradhanaSharon (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi AradhanaSharon! Thank you for leaving me a message and for explaining your rationale for removing the content. Let me take a look at the article and the references cited and see if they're reliable. Stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, AradhanaSharon! Thanks for letting me take another look at the content and the references. The references provided (1, 2, and 3) - are from different unrelated sources, are independent from the article subject, and seem to be reliable. I did make a change to the wording that described the article subject's agreement regarding custody of the child, but I don't see a problem with the content you're trying to remove. How do you believe this information is false? Do you have references stating otherwise? Can you provide these to me so that I can review them? Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
http://english.manoramaonline.com/entertainment/gossip/kichcha-sudeep-priya-patch-up-all-differences-for-daughter.html
https://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&source=android-browser&q=Sudeep+Priya&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PNumWOycGITy8AeLz7rICQ&gws_rd=ssl#gfe_rd=cr&gws_rd=ssl
Please go through those links I provided above and consider my edit.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AradhanaSharon (talk • contribs)
Hi again, AradhanaSharon! Thanks for providing the references that you were referring to. It seems to me that this reference is making a similar observation as stated in the article and by the other references, but may have information that you may be able to add to the article. This reference states: "Earlier, in September 2015, Sudeep announced that his marriage was coming to an end." - which seems to support what the other references are stating. You could add to the article that a report suggests that they may have been attempting to reconcile their differences, since the source also states, "It seems that the estranged couple are trying to reconcile for the sake of daughter Kumari Sanvi...", but you must understand that this source appears to word this in a manner that doesn't confirm this information to be reliable or true to any degree of certainty. In the end, it appears that the content in the article is referencing sources that support those statements. They should not be deleted. However, the source you provided may give you a direction to perform additional research and find references that confirm this information so that you can add it :-). Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for following-up with your messages and for discussing this with me. I very much appreciate your time and effort. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The couple skipped court hearings two times one on June 29,2016 and the other court hearing this year on January 9,2017 respectively. Please go through it once. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/sudeep-priya-divorce-couple-trying-save-their-marriage-711701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AradhanaSharon (talk • contribs)
I've reworded the content to no longer imply that the divorce has occurred, but simply that he announced (at the time in 2015) that he and his wife were going to begin the divorce process. This fixes any implication that may not be correct (since, you're right... none of the references state that the divorce is final and done), and it allows you to add the content that you believe is supported. Make sure that what you add is stated and directly supported by the sources you cite. We treat biographies of living people with a higher degree of scrutiny. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask me them. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank You Sir for your kindess and patience. I've a doubt. Do i have a chance to edit agian and make changes about the marital status of Actor Sudeep like this which you told me in the earlier message sir. Here it is " "Earlier, in September 2015, Sudeep announced that his marriage was coming to an end." I'll add to the article that a report suggests that they may have been attempting to reconcile their differences, since the source also states, "It seems that the estranged couple are trying to reconcile for the sake of daughter Kumari Sanvi...", with the links. do have a chance to agiain Sir? Thank You. AradhanaSharon (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
AradhanaSharon - HAHA! You can just refer to me as "Oshwah". "Sir" is much too formal for me :-). I'm not an authority figure or anything; I'm just an editor like yourself whose been here for awhile. That's all. Sure, you're certainly welcome to edit the article! I'm definitely in no position to tell you that you can't. You've explained your rationale and I feel that I've given you advice that will help you to modify the article in the manner that doesn't just delete the content (as you originally did), but reword the content in the manner that you feel reflects the references that are cited in-line. So, yeah! Go fourth! If you feel that it's an improvement, have at it! It's what we encourage around here! Everyone makes mistakes; I certainly have made many mistakes on here. What truly matters is how you respond to feedback and learn from them, and you did great! You left a message, and were willing and open to discuss the problem. Take my advice to heart, and let me know if you have any more questions. Other than that, I'll leave you to it. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What should I do to make the changes fixed on Mr.Sudeep's page. Why are you not fixing it. I'm showing enough proofs and moreover how could you write that He's divorced unless He is.. The divorce hasn't confirmed yet. Please show me the proofs regarding this as you show it as he is divorced. How could you say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AradhanaSharon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

AradhanaSharon - It appears that another editor (Editor5454) has an issue with the changes you are making to the article. You two need to engage in proper dispute resolution and create a discussion on the article's talk page so that you and Editor5454 can come to a consensus and agree on what should be edited or changed. Do not make any more edits to the article until you two have come to an agreement. Failing to do so and reverting one another in a back-and-fourth manner instead is edit warring, which is not allowed and can result in being blocked. The blight-line rule that you should follow is Wikipedia's three-revert rule - Don't break that rule! It'll only make things more difficult, not easier, to get the article updated. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'm here if help is needed. Good luck! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Referencing Help if possible!

Hi, Sorry for screwing up and not referencing my edits on All Time Low correctly. Is there a proper 'form' as such for citing the info I've got which is from the Band's Instagram page? More of my issue is what to title it - didn't want to resubmit with just a URL cite and nothing else.

Thank you! Jon Jonathanitb (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jonathanitb! Thanks for leaving me a message with your question. No apologies are needed; mistakes and small things like this are how we learn. It's normal; not a big deal at all! :-)... The pages you are looking for and that will answer your questions is Wikipedia's guidelines on citing references in-line, and what to look for when identifying reliable sources. These two pages will assist you with making sure that the source you're referencing is acceptable, and show you how to properly cite the source within the article. Please let me know if you have any more questions or if you need more assistance. I'll be happy to help you. Cheers! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply to me! So looking at identifying reliable sources, it seems that self-published content isn't acceptable most the time. I'm a little confused about the wording on self-published sources on 'themselves' - would my proposed update to Record Label and new Single track release fall as acceptable under this as it has been announced on their Instagram, Twitter and Band Website? Whilst the Fueled by Ramen signing is not explicitly mentioned on their band website, it is referenced through the page footer. In this case, how would you best suggest referencing the two changes? If I cite the website, I don't really have a 'title' as such to cite - unless I'm missing something. You can probably tell I'm pretty new to this but want to get it right!!. Many thanks :) Jonathanitb (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Jonathanitb! Yeah, that guideline can be a bit confusing and sound a bit ambiguous. In this context, self published sources refer to blogs, social media, forums - sites that anyone can simply put up a page and claim "yeah, I'm an expert!" and write whatever they want. Obviously, that's not reliable. I think that referencing the band website is fine. I'm iffy about social media; it's not being used in a context to prove a scientific fact or math theory, or how tall a mountain is or the melting point of a metal or element... haha (that's largely the concern that this section is trying to address)... but it is most likely written and maintained by that actual person. Can't really refute something that the actual person confirms himself. Instead of going down that path, have you been able to locate a source that is secondary? These sources reference primary sources, and are the ideal references you want to cite in articles (especially for biographies of living people - articles that we hold to higher scrutiny). If you do, you'll be golden and perfectly set to go. I don't think referencing the band site or official webpage is bad, but referencing social media (in general) is an iffy road and depending on what content you're trying to add, may or may not fly. I know... this area can be a bit confusing and "wtf"... I've been there myself many times. Believe me. But if you want to take the easy and best route, find a secondary source like a news article or something peer-reviewed, and avoid using social media as a reference if you can. It'll be more reliable and meet the various guidelines and policy no problem, and it'll be subject to much less scrutiny than a twitter or instagram post. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need more assistance. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything I can! Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for getting back to me, found a secondary source from the Alternative Press at http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/all_time_low_talk_dark_nostalgic_new_track_dirty_laundry_signing_to_fueled - they don't list their specific sources but from what I understand, this should be passable for the citations required? Both changes I wanted to make are listed in the first paragraph of their article. If this is good, let me know and I'll redo my edits, otherwise if it's problematic please do advise! Thanks again, and apologies for bugging over such a small thing! Jonathanitb (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Jonathanitb - YES! That's a much better source to use (rather than twitter and instagram). You're golden, dude! Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to help! And don't apologize!!! This is exactly how users grow and learn on Wikipedia. There's no harm in asking for help or making mistakes. It's how you learn from them is what's important! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Great, thank you so much for your help! Just submitted the edit now and corrected an error from a previous post. Assistance much appreciated :) :) Jonathanitb (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Always happy to help, Jonathanitb! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Locked articles with no NPOV

Who do I talk to about editing some locked articles that I've seen that are pro-bias and have no neutral POV? Samsong911 (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samsong911! If the article is protected, you can make an edit request on the article's talk page and explain what should be changed and why. Another editor (who presumably does have the ability to edit the article) can then decide whether or not to make them. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

EMERGENCY

oshwah,buddy, how is your watchlist? L.S. inc. (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

L.S. inc. - LOL... my watchlist is fine. Why do you ask? And what's the "EMERGENCY" about? o.0 ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, I believe the question was in reference to this thread at the VP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Content Change

I made no content change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.73.105 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your For Honor page is mildly inaccurate

In the article, you're always referring to all your characters as "her". Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.32.167 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No subject

Hi,,,,You just deleted the page I create Anders Hunstad,,,i deleted the note because I was sure i had written in the talk the reason why it should not be cancelled. I added references and my intention was to go on tomorrow since here it's 1.30 am. can you please restore the page? Elys75 (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Elys75! Sure, I'll be happy to help you out. I'm going to restore the article to Draft:Anders Hunstad. This will give you all the time you need to expand the article, and when you're ready to move it into the mainspace, someone will just need to approve it. You're all set! It's there and ready for you to continue editing. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you. Happy editing! And welcome! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much,,,,oops,,,i wrote you twice because i thought my message was under another topic. Is there something in particular I have to add to avoid problems?Elys75 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Elys75 - Read and understand Wikipedia:Notability (people), as well as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Those are the big ones. Since you claim him to be your boyfriend, there's a big problem - See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (in general, you should never edit or contribute to articles where you have a personal conflict of interest with the article subject). I restored the article because I'm a firm believer in giving the benefit of the doubt, but I'm going to be honest... I think you're going to run into issues. Nonetheless, I wish you good luck and happy editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I can tell you that everything I will add to this biography will be neutral, because my intention is to add to Wikipedia info about an artist that has many collaborations and still unfortunately doesnt have a link back to his own page on Wikipedia. As soon as I think I've finished you can tell me if can be approved or not :) Anyway thank you again for your helpElys75 (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Oshwah, so I just added references and external links,,,,can you please check if like this is ok and can go online? Elys75 (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, so I've added more references and changed layout of the page (ref list) is it enough to be approved? Thanks for the patience!Elys75 (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My page

Yes Hi I just wanted to talk to you about this message you left on my page "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Why create an account?. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)" Now i dont know if you wrote that or if you reported me but I did NOT use any inappropriate external links, I haven't even left linksof any kind. I just posted my first edit about three min. ago, and I don't know why your reporting me. Do you not like Yousef or? Please contact me

114.17.139.187 Redirecting articles.

114.17.139.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Redirecting articles. This is a repeating IP hopper and I think the articles need protection. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Ohhhh.... JOYYYY! Zombie proxy IP hopper might be back. Ohhh this was a funnn one to deal with. IP blocked. Thanks for the heads up. Please let me know if you see more IPs previously blocked as a zombie proxy making these edits. The IPs (LOTS OF THEM!) that we blocked are starting to expire; he might be trying to use them again.... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Will do. I really think that Wikipedia should implement a virtual reality for problem editors. An admin hits the switch on them and they appear to be editing the page, they can see their edits, but nobody else sees anything. Let them edit to their heart's content. Maybe a few reverts and warnings thrown in for appearance's sake. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Jim1138 - You should definitely check out Wikimedia Phabricator if you don't already. There are ideas and changes in development that will add very awesome blocking options that will someday be at our disposal. Really awesome. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wo, My son played a joke on his girlfriend by altering the notes,, He panicked when he saw the writing.. Good thing he didn't put everything real and just names. I think I'm turning him over to the mob to take carte of him!..LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.13.30 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Frogger

I reverted one edit at the end of this because I thought it broke the infobox, but reverted myself because the extra character actually didn't seem to be making a difference. Am I missing something? Home Lander (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing there is something at this point, but I'm missing it. Home Lander (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Home Lander! I don't think you're missing anything - I took a look at a few diffs end revisions on the article, and the infobox seems fine. Maybe I'm missing something? LOL Do you have a diff or edit revision URL from the article history where the infobox template was broken? Can you link me to it? I can use that to take a look and see what made it go out of whack. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I just figured based on his editing that he was deliberately breaking the infobox. Bad idea I guess! With or without the "s" it seems to be the same. Someone else reverted me again since then though, so I figured something had to be up with it. But if it is, I'm still missing it! Home Lander (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) {{Infobox video games}} is a redirect to {{Infobox video game}}, so nothing was changed. Probably just a test. Adam9007 (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, thank you stalker. ;) Home Lander (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Or I suppose he could have been trying to break the infobox, but didn't know about the redirect? Adam9007 (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that's possible. Whatever he was doing, nothing else was constructive and Oshwah blocked him before I opened this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Oshwah - while I'm here, I just noticed these two accounts that appear to be the same person. Guessing one should probably be blocked and he be directed to use only one of them? Home Lander (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Home Lander - Yeeeahhhh, almost the same username and making edits to the same article... that's definitely two accounts owned by the same person. However, this is fine as things are now. The last edit made on the Jose Monreal account was in March 2016, and the JoseSMonreal started editing in 2017. Neither accounts are blocked. From a glance, it looks like a simple case of an editor who stopped using an old account and began editing on a new one, which is perfectly fine to do. The use of multiple accounts becomes a problem when there's abuse (such as evading a block, performing "good hand, bad hand" edits, shilling or illegitimately swaying discussions or votes, or for deceptive or disruptive purposes). So long as this isn't happening, then there's nothing I need to do or worry about. Of course, if that changes, please let me know. Otherwise, I'd say leave things be and go from there :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I overlooked the gap in timing there. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Home Lander - Any time. Always happy to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just came across Students' Federation of India, where it looks like you reverted and then partially restored? They now added this, which looks like a copy>paste to me, or is at least unsourced. Home Lander (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Went ahead and reverted and warned them now, at least some of it came from here. Home Lander (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought my edit on Meteora was funny and constructive

Have a bit of fun sometimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.29.158 (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Why my article is deleted?

Hello Sir,

I want to share information about a heritage monument, why it is deleted again and again.

Edit change.

I was updating a manga/anime wikipedia page with brand new information about the series that hasn't been added yet and you've seemed to change it back. There are a lot of fans who can't read the japanese stories do to them not speaking or reading the language. I'm not sure why this information is being blocked for me to post. To some fans these wikipedia pages are the only way they can know what happens with these characters. Please allow me to share these new developments in the series with the fans. I always make a point to update manga/anime that hasn't been updated with new information for fans.

The reason I reverted your edit was due to this change here, which seems to add a description of the character that's possibly based off of your point-of-view. Remember that edits must be neutral and free of any commentary, opinions, or bias. So long as your edits do not violate this policy, please feel free to make them. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
AH. I see so it was due to me switching the text around and not the updated information itself. The new info to me just read better when I switched the paragraphs. I'll make sure to leave it to just adding information and not editing previous work.
Sounds good to me! Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Trial (film)

Would you mind deleting this...? Thanks. 172.58.41.246 (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my edit

What the dogon tribe like to eat is an important part of their culture.

Twinkle

Hi Oshwah, there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep this confidential, so I'm posting it on your talk page. :)

I'm a newbie here (having joined only yesterday) and have so far been helping to improve articles and undo accidental edits, unexplained deletions, blatant vandalism, etc. I've read about Twinkle and I think it would be very useful in helping me do this task. However, I can't seem to find an option for it under "Gadgets" in my Preferences. My email has been confirmed but I think maybe the reason I can't turn on Twinkle is because I'm too new/have too few edits. I can't seem to find any policy on this though. Could you help me to understand why I can't use it yet, or help me to be able to use it if I can!

Thank you, Pinkshrimp (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pinkshrimp! I've seen you around Wikipedia reverting vandalism, and I have to say... I REALLY APPRECIATE IT!!!! Look in your preferences, under the 'Gadgets' tab... The option to enable Twinkle is located 6th from the bottom under the Browsing section. Let me know if you do not see it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sadly it's not there or on the page anywhere, even when I try searching with ctrl-F. :( Pinkshrimp (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinkshrimp - Really? .... Interesting.... Well, there is a way to enable it by adding the JavaScript to your vector.js page - see Wikipedia:Twinkle#Is_Twinkle_loading_unreliably.3F for the code. Give that a try; I'm curious to see what this does. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe it is because Pinkshrimp is not autoconfirmed. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry — I've just discovered in the docs that my account will have to be at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. That explains it! Thanks for you help though. Pinkshrimp (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Pinkshrimp - DatGuy is correct. Instead of waiting, I'll go ahead and mark your account as confirmed so that you can enable the tool. You're definitely not a vandal or a user that the wait period is meant to restrict. Try looking in your preferences now, and let me know if you can't see it. Remember to read the documentation before you use it! Let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything! Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Ahhhhhh... I assumed "autoconfirmed" just meant that my email address had been confirmed. Thanks for giving me the upgrade! Pinkshrimp (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Pinkshrimp, sounds like you're following in my footsteps. Thanks for showing that I'm not an anomaly for reading the hell out of the vandalism/cleanup side of things and then diving in right away head first. Anyway, wanted to recommend, if you haven't already, trying out WP:POPUPS. I used this a lot before I got Twinkle access - I waited the full four days (I think I tapped one admin to see if they could confirm me early, but they didn't respond in time), and still use it alongside Twinkle/rollback. It's great for just hovering over any given page or any revision of a page and have quick editing/revert options in front of you - I managed to trip a few editing tags before I was confirmed over how rapidly I was reverting edits with it. Home Lander (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Home Lander! I'll have a look. Pinkshrimp (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

George Steele - that was not a test.

That was a good faith edit. I wikilinked "Ray Steele" to Pete Sauer (his real name) and corrected WWF to WWWF which was correct for the 1960s era to which the article was referring. 95.148.20.23 (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

I would like to suggest that this unblock was a mistake: Stillpillow was indeed courteous, as s/he always is -- including when s/he is very courteously treating other editors like their concerns are trifling, or very courteously engaging in a slow edit war, or very courteously refusing to engage in constructive discussion on talk pages. Polite troublemakers are a much bigger problem then impolite troublemakers, and the fact that Steelpillow did not make any promise to improve his or her behavior before the unblock is troubling.

Of course I am involved with the dispute that led to the block originally; my point is not that you should do anything about it now (what's done is done) but that in the future you should consider requiring more than "knows enough about WP to address admins politely" before unblocking someone. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joel B. Lewis! Thanks for leaving me a message with your thoughts and your concerns regarding my decision to unblock this user. I unblocked this user because I felt that granting the unblock request would provide a greater benefit and a higher probability that the edit warring would stop as opposed to declining the request and making the user sit there feeling angry and upset, confused about why they were blocked, and feeling that the block that was placed upon them was unfair.
Look at it this way: Let's say that you're right. This editor continues to edit war they wind up blocked again and the situation escalates. Either way you look at it, this editor would have been blocked again after being unblocked now, or blocked again a day and a half later after their current block expires. I thought that I would grant this user the courtesy and unblock him/her and explain exactly why s/he was blocked and what s/he needs to do in the unblocking response. This user is not new; they know that they can't continue doing what they were doing. There's no need to make them raise their right hand and swear on the Bible that they'll stop. If there was a time and a place to diffuse the situation, explain what they need to do, and allow this user the chance to learn from this situation - this was the perfect opportunity.
Otherwise, had I declined and said "sorry, you get to sit and wait"... if it were a typical person... s/he'd probably be upset, continue to feel that s/he was targeted and that his/her block was unjustified, and wouldn't learn a thing about Wikipedia's policies. The user would surely continue disrupting and violating Wikipedia's policies as before.
If you look at which of the two choices that I could have made would most likely be successful in helping the editor move forward positively and stop the disruption that caused them to become blocked... if the editor is being cordial and they are here to contribute to the project... you should almost always choose option A. It will diffuse the situation, help educate the user, and give them them the opportunity to move forward and learn from what happened. This is why I decided to unblock the user, and I believe that doing so will have a much higher chance of being successful compared to declining the user's unblock request and leaving them feeling upset and confused over things.
I hope that my response was helpful and explained the rationale behind my decision well. Thanks again for leaving me a message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out. --JBL (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis - I really hope things work out. Keep me updated and let me know how things go. Thanks again for leaving me a message about this. I'm curious to see if the dispute ends up being resolved and if he took the response I gave him to heart. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Carswell source

Thanks for your message, Oswah, about my change to the Carswell page. Here is a reliable reference for you: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/douglas-carswell-tides-ukip-experts-science-mp-a7318461.html. Then there is this http://uk.businessinsider.com/ukip-douglas-carswell-twitter-tides-2016-9

Is that enough for you?

I'm sorry but I don't know how to make the addition of a reference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanwil (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Duncanwil! Thanks for leaving me a message! That reference seems to look fine to me! See this page; it'll show you exactly how to add it as a reference to the article; it's easy to do. If you still have questions after reading that guideline, let me know. I'll be more than happy to help you with adding the reference to the article. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I don't think you should have reverted my edit, the original page has no cited info and very questionable claims. If you think my edit was not constructive, I at least encourage you to make an edit yourself that adds construction to the original page, because it has very few sources and erroneous information. I was trying to remove text that was not cited, as the first step for someone more competent than me to add information on that topic with appropriate citations and objectivity. I will not be editing the page further, since my work and time has been erased, rather than built upon.

Thank you.

Hi there! Thank you for leaving me a message here. The edit that you made to the article here replaced the definition to say that it was "hatred towards women". While I now see that there are issues with the content in that article's lead section, replacing the definition to explicitly state that it is "hatred" doesn't appear to reflect a way to neutrally define the term. "Hatred" can be seen as a point of view, and is an ambiguous term; people have different ways to interpret what "hatred" is. While I think that there's definitely some improvement needed on the article, I believe that your modification did so in the wrong way. I apologize for the confusion regarding my reversion to the changes; I initially thought that this edit was blatantly removing content and changing the term to reflect a purposefully negative meaning. I see now that you were simply trying to remove content marked as needing a citation. Please let me know if you have any questions; otherwise, feel free to continue editing the article or undo the reversion I made to your changes. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Actor Sudeep martial status

Hi again.. "Sir" might be formal to You but You really do deserve a lot of respect for Your kindness and Patience. I really appreciate Your Work. Thank You so much for Your guidance Sir. I'm looking for a strong proof as Editor5454 is looking for sponsored sites to be cited. He isn't satisfied with the links I provided. Sir, if I give You Actor Sudeep's Personal Manager contact Number. Would You contact Him regarding this problem for confirmation? Please reply me Sir. He is a Superstar in India. It's quite common, people will have curiosity to know about celebrities personal lives. People believe Wikipedia. They trust Wikipedia. Information provided on Wikipedia is accurate and genuine is what people assume. So as if they read Actor Sudeep's biography on Wikipedia. They will fall into the belief that He's divorced but it hasn't happened. So please Sir, this is a matter of stature and fame. People discuss about actors. So please look up for the facts. Please look into this seriously. It's my request. I hope that you understand my concern. I'm not going to edit it again unless I provide you citation from certified sites,which you believe that the information provided on those is true. Thank you. AradhanaSharon (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Aradhana SharonAradhanaSharon (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @AradhanaSharon: Hello. Contacting the person himself is a bad idea. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, and that wouldn't be a secondary source. But if you find any other sources saying that he has not been divorced, you can ask Oshwah or me about it and we can check to see if the source is reliable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Opening Lead paragraph - The Lego Batman Movie: Which is correct?

Hi, I need some clarification on who is right in regards to the Lead Paragraphs for The Lego Batman Movie. I can't determine whose version is right in regards to information on Release Date. Myself and another user have changed this a few times; we aren't edit warring, but I have decided I need to determine who is right through the insight of a third party Wikipedian, and considering how I know of you from your efforts to stop vandalism by some disruptive IP Users, I figured you might be able to help.

Here is the version I set it up as, minus any references, since they should they're mainly for the article (this was before it was changed; some info was left alone when I wrote this out): The Lego Batman Movie premiered in Dublin, Ireland on January 29, 2017, and went into general release from 10 February, 2017. While Warner Bros. restricted the release in cinemas in North America to IMAX 2D, cinemas internationally showed the film in 3D, RealD 3D and IMAX 3D. The film has received positive reviews since its debut, praising its comedy and notable references of previous Batman media...

This is the version as it stands following the recent edit by the user in question - TropicAces :

The Lego Batman Movie premiered in Dublin, Ireland on January 29, 2017, and was released in the United States on February 10, 2017. Internationally, the film was released in in 3D, RealD 3D and IMAX 3D. The film has received positive reviews...

Which version is correct in your eyes, and for what reasons? I just want to know who is right in this. Please respond when you can. Thank you. GUtt01 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(cc: GUtt01) from what I've learned and been told by Admins, and what the Wikipedia "rules" say for openers, the opening section, like the infobox, should be a summarization of the article. This means, like the infobox, you only list release dates for the producing countries (US, technically Australia and Denmark because they have Lego-tie ins), and can give a brief mention of box office and critical reception. None of these should be expanded upon, because that is what the entire article as a whole is for. If every film page, especially wide-reaching blockbusters, mentioned each release for every country, especially non-American dates (the predominant producer of films), lead paragraphs would be way too long and the Release sections nullified. That's how I see it in relation to the "rules," at least. TropicAces (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)tropicAces
@TropicAces: I appreciate the input, but I like to hear from Oshwah on this, to see what they think. In terms of Release Date, I based the line "General release" upon reading the opening Lead for Wreck-It Ralph, mainly because I wished to state general release for a list of countries, but not mentioning which ones; the ref link I put in would allow Wikipedians to see which ones in general. But, like I said, I want to at least hear Oshwah's opinion on this. GUtt01 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

My page

Yes Hi I just wanted to talk to you about this message you left on my page "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Why create an account?. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)" Now i dont know if you wrote that or if you reported me but I did NOT use any inappropriate external links, I haven't even left linksof any kind. I just posted my first edit about three min. ago, and I don't know why your reporting me. Do you not like Yousef or? Please contact me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9200:95CE:AD3A:7CDD:49D8:EDF3 (talk)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your speedy action on the range block request! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Any time, Eggishorn! And thanks for the brew! You certainly know me well if you know to hand me one of these to express appreciation ;-). Happy editing, Eggishorn. Until we meet again... 14:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Baum's gay lifestyle

I'm writing regarding the Gregory Baum article, where you removed my edit regarding his gay lifestyle as unsourced. However, this information comes from his own autobiography, published in last November, that I did reference (maybe incorrectly, as a link to the book on amazon). This is new and important information about him, that he himself made public, in that book. I do not own the book myself, but the quotations are on the Internet from multiple sources and attributed to the book, such as here or here or here. Now I also previewed the book on google books, and could verify one of the quotations being actually in the book, look here. Please re-consider your removal. 95.105.250.239 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For potentially-controversial material such as this addition, the Wikipedia policy on biographies states these articles:must adhere strictly to...Wikipedia's three core content policies:...Verifiability (V). In this case, using an Amazon link to cite an autobiography is not in compliance with verifiability. If you can find a copy at a library or such and then use the Template:Cite book citation template to properly source the section, then it could probably be re-added. The key is that the editor adding information should be taking responsibility for making sure the source says what you think it might say and for providing the citation necessary for any other editor to see that for themselves. A series of second-hand quotes don't do that. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

memory fails me... master?

I threw User:Widr was installed MALWARE on Oshwanker MacBook Pro on the usernames list, but for some reason I can't remember who the master is. Meters (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meters! Good question... I deal with so many LTA/socks that I tend to forget which one is which. I guess it happens after you deal with hundreds and hundreds of them... Sigh... I think it might be this guy, but I may be wrong. Let me know what you find out; it would be good to know for sure which LTA is which again. lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I just happened to spot this here. I think you're right about this - some of the usernames entered in the master's sockpuppet case follow the same pattern as ones like these or all but the first one of these (explicit usernames at these links). Home Lander (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally a sorry hard step back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavs875 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL!!!!! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding removal of content from Indian Institute of Information Technology, Srirangam

I have been maintaining this page since its creation.The article is basically about the institute I study in.The authorities wanted me to remove the content that was controversial.I have re-formatted and removed the unnecessary or controversial content which i had added at some point of time in the past.I apologize that i didn't add the reason for the removal of content.The Article has the best and updated information and i will continue to maintain it in the future.I request you not restore it again after update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karankhajuria22 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Karankhajuria22: Please read WP:COI and WP:OWN --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just 2 let you know

About my current edit... It says the correct title is that so I reverted it to that, since the restrictions can't let me change the real article title.

2601:240:C480:62E0:D9E2:C947:8A55:BCA0 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)A guy.

FYI I did start a discussion about this here Talk:My Name Is Joe Thomas. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

you should know

The Book of Lucifer(this is not the true light of Lucifer but a paled comparison, know your Gnosis)[edit] LaVay your idea of Lucifer is basely solely on ego yet that is not the true light of GOD, you do realize that the true light of GOD which is the truth has no darkness within it, Lucifer cannot be darkness if he truly bears this light. You along with your acolytes have turned this symbol of the light bearer in on itself, as well as with Baphomet, this to me is unacceptable, therefore this book of Lucifer is not at all about Lucifer rather skewed by motives of the flesh, this must be said, Lucifer is not evil, not a demon, not a crown prince of Hell, and not should not at all be affialted with Satan who also is not a goat with cloven hooves but the archon of the Demiurge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.95.35 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is it that the voices in their heads always seem to have such intermittent reception and garbled transmissions? Is Satan on T-Mobile or something? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

By Dampf you are busy, so I shouldn't bother you...

but I really hate it when an isolated bit of vandalism is noted and the rest of the series of vandalism is overlooked. You spotted and noted the edit to William Ewart Gladstone. But then didn't look for "a dump taken by Dr Samuel Johnson" or "boat_club = No main college boathouse but they sometimes row over port meadow".

I wish there was a tool that would easily bring up the associated previous edits *and* edits following soon thereafter. (e.g. "Famous former students of the school include Samuel Johnson, Andrew Flintoff, Stephen Sykes and Peter Capaldi." I checked the PDF, no such mentioned. (and so this was moderately sophisticated maliciousness - it took them 10 minutes!))

Do you know of one? Shenme (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shenme! Oh joy... the other edits must have happened before I jumped on and started patrolling this afternoon. I don't personally know of one, but I do typically will do two things when I revert vandalism: I'll open the contributions page for the user, and I'll check out the article's history to make sure nothing was missed. Looks like this was an instance where this didn't happen for one reason or another. I left the IP a final warning, given the fact that the user did this on multiple pages. I appreciate you for undoing the vandalism on the other pages and for the heads up. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cambridgeshire edit

I feel this person is a notable person from Cambridgeshire as she was selected best Army Cadet in 2016 by the Army Cadet Force, which is cadets from the whole country being tested to see who comes out on top, I believe that is being notable as you are chosen from over 20,000 cadets in the country. Shrewsbury Edits (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Somehow you instantly removed a massive edit I made to a page about me

Dear Sir, My pseudonym is Chill Nye. The Wikipedia page in question, Operation Chemotherapy, concerns me and my friends. I'm not sure what kind of detection bot you have removing stuff, but it needs work. The idea that edits I make to a page that is partially about me are instantly removed is extremely upsetting and I request that my edits be reinstated as soon as possible. Regards, Chill Nye the Science Guy71.45.21.139 (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your Message

This makes no sense. "Climate change causes more dry years, more wet years, and also more average years."

This is the statement I was outlining here. How could there be more wet years, more dry years and more average years? If you think this is admissible on Wikipedia you have incredibly low intellectual standards.

It was common knowlege

About that "disruptive" edit you claim. The change is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the topic. Also, it was a very minor change. I did nothing to change the overall article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcomer64 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits I did not make

Hi Oshwah, I personally did not make any changes to the Gladstone page or the Catholic school one. I will try and work out how it might have happened. Thanks,

Setantii

Account Hacked

Hi Oshwah, Have just seen all the messages between you and my account. It seems like I have been hacked.

Setantii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setantii (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Setantii - What account are you referring to exactly? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting and protecting.

Why are you reverting and pp'ing pages with clear and egregious mistakes. It's idiotic.

In wiki links to aircraft types, spellibg consistency within articles and removing random mid sentence capitals aren't exactly vandalism. Yet these clean ups are being reverted over and over to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Its stupid.

Catosmoke - What articles are you referring to exactly? Depending on the persistent disruption or issue occurring on the article, it's perfectly acceptable to revert the problematic edit(s) and protect the article under the protection policy as seen fit. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=No._2_Squadron_RAF&action=history

Sorting out capitalisation

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alan_Arnett_McLeod

Linking to correct aircraft type

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Neoptolemus

Cinsistency of spelling. All other homeric names are latinised versions and hector isn't even Cinsustency in this article.

These articles were protected due to disruptive editing and at an elevated rate and persistent frequency that justified the need for its implementation. This was done in order to disallow the persistent disruption from continuing. The protection on these pages will expire in a few days. Please let me know if you have any more questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, Catosmoke is a User:Orchomen sockpuppet, I think, because here they are justifying edits by blocked sockpuppets (which were reverted by you). Sro23 (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sro23 - While suspicions may be strong, I don't have evidence to prove this beyond comfort (mostly because I haven't looked yet... haha). I appreciate the response; has this user made edits and reversions that establish a clear connection to the sock master account? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, see the archived cases at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen and you'll see their behavior is pretty much the same as all of those blocked accounts. Their bogus complaining is just a bunch of trolling. This is all a clear case of WP:DENY. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
See also User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen, where we've been keeping track of all of the sockpuppets. Username is pretty similar to some of the other ones there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

who declared Zambia a christian nation???????

i dont understand why you deleted a fact of history which Chiluba played a part in??????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.220.255.242 (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Liverpool Boys High School

I appreciate your reverting an unexplained removal of text at Liverpool Boys High School, however, the text was wholly unsourced drivel about a very minor issue at the school and had no place on Wikipedia. I intended to do a proper edit with edit summary to explain but just hit the wrong button. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   10:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Velella - I realized that after returning to the article and re-reading what I added back. I was about to undo my edit, but you had already taken care of it! Thanks for doing that, and thanks for the message! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

89th Academy Awards

The day I take Wikipedia to court I hope it puts people like you to bed for life. You do not get to change the English language to serve political and social purposes. Even if 99% of people believe in a word called "transgender" at some point in the future it does not verify the legitimacy of the word nor the sentiment behind the "creation" of it. I'm sure you will delete this off your page as soon as it is posted. The intolerance of individuals like minded to you is why film and every other form of substance in the United States will ultimately meet its end. If Moonlight truly does win Best Picture, this way of thinking and acting has directly destroyed an industry.

It is not a netural point of view and you can block temporary in Wikipedia. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 10:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

ODEON updates

Hi, I am part of the ODEON Guest Relations Management Team, and we have been having complaints from our guests about incorrect information on wikipedia! Although we advise all our guests to get the information from our website, sometimes they find other sources! Therefore I have updated it-all the information is on www.odeon.co.uk for UK cinemas or www.odeoncinemas.ie for Irish cinemas. Feel free to add these links if that helps. We simply want the information to be up to date and accurate (as, I'm sure, do you). I'm not really on wikipedia much, so feel free to email akeen@odeonuk.com with any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.203.120 (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are being paid or compensated for these edits, then you must follow the requirements outlined in the page that I've linked you. Failure to do so is against our terms of use. Please review this page and verify that this does not apply to you. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi Oshwah. I'm not sure whether the IP has seen your post, but they've continued to make some major edits to Odeon Cinemas. I've reverted some of these and have left a message on the IP's user talk about COI, but if any of those things were a bit bitey, then please feel free to revert. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Marchjuly - Thanks for the follow-up and for letting me know. It looks like the editing has stopped for now, so I'm going to hold off and leave things be for now. If this changes, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again for keeping in touch about this. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Oshwah. The IP has been back editing the Odeon article and some other apparently related articles. I've started a discussion at WP:COIN#IP COI editing on Odeon Cinemas, etc just for reference. I also asked Diannaa about this and she had removed some copyvios from the IP had added. Diannaa added some "COI" template to the articles and also added a "Userbox COI" to the IP's user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

WhiteLightning1438 looks like another sock

WhiteLightning1438 (talk · contribs) is busy edit-warring for 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs). --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. Blocked already. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ronz - Thanks for the heads up. I've been keeping an eye out all day for sock puppets of this guy. If you see any more of this, do let me know and I'll be happy to... take care of it. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A favour

Would you please be so kind and blank this. I suspect it is a personal attack against a living individual, deleted by the the same user in the hope of retaining the actual record of his name in the history of this entry. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Poeticbent - This looks to be typical high school vandalism to me. The content has been reverted, so I think we're good. Let me know if you see any more disruption and if I need to do anything, and I'll be happy to take a look at it. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits revoked.

Oshwah, You have revoked an edit that I posted pertaining to Hinchinbrook Island. I understand that you are unaware of how Wikipedia is being manipulated, so, I shall steer you in the right direction. My edits on the Hinchinbrook Island page pertain to THE editor before me using key words that link to a webpage of a Marina that DOES not exist. The keywords are 'Port Hinchinbrook Marina.' The reason they have linked to a webpage of an establishment that does not exist is because it has a blog on it that gives advice on hiking the trail. I have my own blog called 'Ultimate guide to hiking Hinchinbrook Island.' And it is the most read blog on the trail, however, seeing as they edited the information on Wikipedia and stacked the article with the keyword 'Port Hinchinbrook.' Which I remind you does not exist, all of the traffic from Wikipedia is going to a webpage that represents a project that is dead but also directing them to Hinchinbrook Island cruises through another website that represents a business that also does not exist. When you search that webpage you will find that there is a website address there to a ferry service that also does not exist. 'Hinchinbrook Wilderness Safari's.' When you click on this website, it will take you to another ferry business that does exist, that being 'Hinchinbrook Island Cruises.' The same people that own Hinchinbrook Island Cruises also own the Cardwell taxi also displayed on the Port Hinchinbrook Marina page. I have edited all of the Port Hinchinbrook out of the description because it does not exist. Secondly, the Marina is not an all tidal safe access point to Hinchinbrook Island because it has NO water in it after half tide out. The fact is, this has been set up to attract business to a ferry company who now has competition due to an overhaul by our state government (QLD) Who recognised that Hinchinbrook Island cruise had at every turn monopolised the transfers to the island and raised prices. They recognised that this is not in the best interest of regional tourism and so issued a second permit of which we won in a tender process. So, we operate out of Lucinda at the south end of the island because that port has water and because it is easier, more convenient for hikers of the Thorsborne trail to leave from there and return there at a reasonable hour as we are not restricted by tide as Cardwell is. Hinchinbrook island cruises has done nothing but harass and con good people out of money based on lies that are written on Wikipedia. You need to be aware as well, that another blogger frank ties it all up in a nice little bundle by naming WIKIPEDIA and PORT HINCHINBROOK as the best websites! And there is the bridge between you and 'Hinchinbrook Island Cruises.' Oh, by the way, they used Hinchinbrook Island ferries on Wikipedia Hinchinbrook Island articicle which goes straight to Hinchinbrook Island cruises... Please reply as I wish to expose this for what it is. You are being rorted and so are the people paying for transfers to the island.

Regards John Absolute North Charters PS, checkout our website www.absolutenorthcharters.com.au Passions of Hinchinbrook (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Passions of Hinchinbrook - The content that you added to the article did not reference any sources, and appeared to be based off of original research (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). I highly recommend that you take time and read through Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability, and the citing of reliable sources in-line with your contributions. We cannot accept content that is referenced from one's "personal experience", "personal knowledge" or first-hand accounts or experience as it doesn't allow one to verify the information added, nor does it base content off of sources that are independent and peer-reviewed. If you have any questions or additional concerns, you're more than welcome to message me and talk. I'll be more than happy to assist you with Wikipedia's policies and help you to understand any confusion. Thank you for messaging me with your concerns, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Geoffrey_Regan

Thanks for your interest. Regarding this edit, he was my father, so I'm adding his death date. Please let me know what evidence (!) / citation you might need.

Thanks, Andrew Regan

Forget it then: if a reference in his own University Alumni magazine - showing his middle initial and year of entry to the university, and from the same year his website mysteriously shut down - isn't enough to corroborate my claim, and nobody else discovers any further proof of death, then obviously he's still alive after all, and will live forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aregan76 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Aregan76 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Aregan76 - I understand that this may be frustrating to you, and perhaps even confusing as to why we cannot accept the source that you provided as proof that this person is no longer alive. Remember that Wikipedia seeks to include content based on fact and not based on "truth". You must understand that Wikipedia's policies regarding how we scrutinize articles that are biographies of living people - require the use of reliable sources when modifying or adding the content that you wish to include. We must keep biographies of living people under higher scrutiny due to the risk that content added (especially negative or contentious) could potentially be libelous if we're not sure that it is true. The use of sources that are reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject help with the verifiability of content that is added, and assure that we don't violate policy. Please let me know if you have any more questions, or if I can assist you in any way. I'll be more than happy to do so. I appreciate your message and your understanding, and I hope you have a great rest of your day :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Salvery in Islam

Hi Oswah, You restored text that says "slaves in the pre-modern Islamic world belonged to all national backgrounds, and were slaves only by virtue of being born into a slave-family."

All national backgrounds? There were slaves from every state? What are your sources to support this claim?

And the second part is contradicted in the very same introduction. Slaves also included prisoners of war. So this is false. Please restore my edit. Thank you. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

FloridaArmy - I think I accidentally reverted your changes instead of someone else's. I apologize for the mistake and the confusion; I don't see any issues at all with your changes. Eperoton - Thanks for fixing the mistake. Much appreciated. Please let me know if either one of you have any questions or concerns. Thanks again for the heads up, and I apologize for the mix-up. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

deletion

why was my wikipedia page on thelegend27 deleted?When i reviwed it it did not violoate anything.WikipediaMemester27 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

WikipediaMemester27 - See this criterion under Wikipedia's speedy deletion guidelines. This will help you to understand what content will qualify for speedy deletion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Prasanna Dange

You missed most of the copyvio :). Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Gone! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Accidentally posted this twice because of my poor connexion and the edit conflict. Adam9007 (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 - No worries; we all do it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I say my connexion's poor: it actually works fine most of the time, but for some reason it sometimes just drops, usually when I actually need it :). Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

re: TruthRevealer69

Hey Oshwah. I just seen that you blocked the above editor for 24 hours due to edit warring. The 3RR case filed against Truthrevealer69 was repealed by the reporter because I had already opened an case against them at WP:ANI. Truthrevealer69 is WP:NOTHERE, and several editors that have been reverting the damage done by this editor seem to think so as well. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as the editor has been blocked, can you close the case at WP:ANI, please? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

your recent edits on biography of David Petrovsky

Hi Oshwah,

Thank you for your interest in the article on David Petrovsky. I would like to ask what was not constructive in the information that was put in, and what citations do you want in the paragraph describing his family/relatives?

"His son - Alexey Petrovsky (1929-2010), received PH.D. in Geological and Mineralogical sciences, became an academician of Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.[citation needed] Grandson, Michael A. Petrovsky, received PH.D. in Physics and Mathematics, great-grandchildren: Maria Petrovskaya and Alexey Petrovsky.[citation needed]",

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Петровский Михаил Алексеевич (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Deaths in 2017 page protection

I appreciate the effort to prevent the edit warring from furthering, but this level of protection seems to lock out many of the frequent constructive editors that keep that article updated with the daily passings. Rusted AutoParts 03:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I went to the editor and left him a message as to why his edit was undid. He ignored it. I am not proud of my "fucktard" remark, it came from a place of frustration with his continued addingmof the content and real life problems in my life (IRL I'm dealing with my fathers funeral. It's stressful, but has zero impact on this site). My or others editors failure to discuss it (though I know the editor would just ignore the discussion anyway like they ignored my talk messages) shouldn't prevent other editors from keeping the article maintained daily. Rusted AutoParts 03:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rusted AutoParts. Thank you for leaving me a message with your thoughts. The reason behind my decision to fully protect the article was to address the root of the issue, which was the fact that edit warring and the use of edit summaries and comments in-line with the article -- were all occurring in-place of having a discussion on the article's talk page, and by everyone involved. Who is right and who is wrong, who is being reported at ANI and who is reporting it, who started the edit war and who did it more frequently - are all irrelevant. If a content-related dispute is occurring and you feel that Islandersa is being disruptive of that his edits are not correct or are problematic, then that's what a talk page discussion is for. Come to a consensus with everyone involved and determine what the correct outcome should be. But engaging in the conduct that I saw isn't going to resolve the dispute nor does it constitute proper dispute resolution (in fact, it prevents it!). I believed that the level-headed and fair thing to do (as opposed to dishing out blocks, which I think would be over the top and unhelpful) was to protect the article until this discussion came to an outcome. This is what led me to the decision I made. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to assist you further. I wish you all good luck, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Rusted AutoParts - On a side note, I must point out to you that your edit summary here - is absolutely unacceptable conduct and is a completely blockable offense... especially given your block log and the fact that you've been blocked for this multiple times before. I was messaged by two other admins regarding this edit summary and was highly encouraged to block you for this. I'm not going to do that, as it happened a day ago and I think it really wouldn't accomplish anything at this point; just drive more frustration and upset you... which is obviously what I don't want to do :-). However, I am giving you an only warning regarding your edit summary and your conduct. Any further violations of Wikipedia's civility policy, or any engagement in personal attacks toward other editors - will result in a block. Please, please keep your conduct positive towards others, and focused toward the content in dispute. I really don't want to pull out the block button... seriously... help me out, man. Please? :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
But the thing is there's a guideline that specifically prohibits the edit they continued making. WP:NOTINHERITED. A person added to the list cannot be notable solely based off familial relations. I expressed that to the editor. The response was re-adding it, without giving any indication they disagreed with the guideline. Me and Vycl exceeded the 3RR mark, but there was several other editors (who might not have seen the edit summaries) going by the guideline and removing Islandersa's edit. Islandersa's lack of response on their talk page or leaving any comment in their edit summaries in any of their readditions of the content made it clear to me they weren't willing or interested in discussing the issue, they just wanted to annoy. I also didn't feel it necessary to need to discuss whether it should be added specifically because of WP:NOTINHERITED. If Islandersa disagrees with that guideline, they should have made that disagreement known in any of the 14 times they readded it. I already acknowledged my edit summary remark was unacceptable as it was a combo of frustration with the situation as well as real life problems (which have zero impact here, I know). But the article itself needs to be updated daily. I'm not saying this because I want to get around the page being blocked, but my fellow editors who also work to make sure it's kept up to date should have the ability to continue doing so as they were not involved with the situation. We may not have gone about it right but we are going by guidelines, and Islandersa has simply displayed no desire to discuss anything with us. Rusted AutoParts 04:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Rusted AutoParts - I'm happy to hear that you acknowledge the edit summary as unacceptable. If you know me well, I'm not the type that likes to lecture on about something that someone acknowledges themselves was not a cool thing to do; The warning above still applies, but I'll leave it at that and move on. Cool deal.
I both acknowledge and understand your argument in response. I've participated in hundreds of AFD discussions, and I'm quite familiar with the fact that notability isn't inherited. You'd be surprised as to how many editors simply don't understand that. "Oh, I happen to be a cousin of this notable person".... HE NEEDS AN ARTICLE!!! Yeah, it's silly when you think about it, really. Anyways.... just start a talk page discussion as instructed on the ANI and come to a consensus. One one is reached (that doesn't require that everyone involved agrees 100% by the way!) and the discussion over the dispute is closed, the page can be unprotected and Voilà! You're 100% golden and you can edit as before (just.... don't edit like you all were doing before... you know.... lol). That's all you need to do. If you have more questions or need help, you know where to find me ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
May I just also point out, as someone who regularly edits at the page in question, that the main other participant in the perceived edit war does not provide any edit summaries and has shown no likelihood of contributing to a Talk page discusson on the matter - it appears to be blind revert editing, whereas my colleague Rusted AutoParts does at least provide a rationale in his edit summaries. The level of edit war protection has severely impeded the purpose of the page, to be honest, as its very existence as a credible article relies so heavily on regular updating. Thanks for listening to these added observations. Ref (chew)(do) 04:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Refsworldlee - You bet :-). That's part of my responsibility, to be quite frank. I'm not going to just apply blocks, throw protection on this, delete that, rev del this... then walk away and just expect that nobody is going to have questions or need to ask for help. That's cray cray! This is why I decided to put the brakes on everyone involved and get them all discussing it instead of dishing out blocks. It wouldn't have accomplished much had I done otherwise! There's no need to worry about the edit war; acknowledge it as something in the past, and look toward the future. Get a discussion and an agreement whipped out, and you'll be all set. I appreciate everyone here for discussing their concerns here and in such a calm and cordial manner. It really shows how you're all here to make positive contributions... sometimes our goals and passions clash and result in not-so-great things as a result. We're human... *shrugs*... it happens. Look forward, collaborate, and learn positively from this. It's how you gain knowledge and become a long-term experienced editor. I didn't get here in the 10 years that I've been on Wikipedia because everything went really great and I never messed up once. I've made plenty... PLENTY of mistakes ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of good order, could you revisit this talk page and correct your vandalism warning wikilink, which currently says Deaths in 2007. That should read Deaths in 2017, as that is the actual page where the edit war has been conducted, not on the one ten years earlier. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Psychosocial (song)

Can you semi-protect the page to persistent disruptive edit by Special:Contributions/85.173.121.75. 123.136.106.160 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi protection isn't needed. But if this user continues making disruptive edits, let me know and I can take care of it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know how to say this in ANI

But while I disagreed with your view on the editor in question, I really do appreciate how you are one of the editors around here who is most willing to assume good faith. Always a pleasure to run into you, even if we tend to work in different areas :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - I very much appreciate your thoughtful message and for your kind words - thank you. While I'm quite a prolific vandal fighter and block many accounts and IP addresses for their various shenanigans and tomfooleries pretty quick, I will always try my best to give the benefit of the doubt in cases that aren't 100% blatant or obvious, or when there's a chance that the user may just be misguided. It's the right thing to do if anything :-). I hope you're having a good day, and I hope that I run into you again soon. Until we meet again :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
One last bit of cleanup on this. The comment here is a clear BLP vio b/c of the youtube video. I could go either way on request rev del, but thought I would post it. I do think it should be blanked at the very least, but will leave to your adminstarial discretion. [1] TonyBallioni (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni - Thanks for letting me know about this. All taken care of! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem, always a pleasure doing business with you late at night. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Likewise! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah

Are you telling me that there is a reliable source for the false information that you have on the subject of Hinchinbrook Island? There is no Port Hinchinbrook, nor is there a Hinchinbrook Island wilderness safari business. Yet you print it. Passions of Hinchinbrook (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Frederick Chiluba

on the corruption of Frederick Chiluba, you seem to concentrate on allegations that failed to be proven in courts. Hence his aquittal!! The point I raised, which was questioned by several people here in Zambia (Andrew Sardanis, former Meridian BIAO Chairman) how does a British Judge preside over matters pertaining to Zambian property when he should have been handling matters of alleged corruption-acquired properties in Europe and great Britain (where he has jurisdition)?? Are you saying Zambian Judges are not competent enough?? The chief prosecutor of Chiluba Mutembo Nchito was on 12th August 2016 officially dismissed by the Republican President as Director of Public Prosecutions for misconduct after a tribunal proved their case. He is the same man who failed to prosecute Chiluba after all those years. He failed to prove all those allegations against Chiluba.

So please let us Zambians give our father of Democracy, our second President the honor that is due to him!! Not false allegations that were construed against him by disgruntled individuals. A THIEF IS ONLY A THIEF WHEN HE IS PROVEN TO HAVE STOLEN, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, IN A COURT OF LAW-Chiluba was NEVER, NEVER convicted of any crime!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Judge Peter Smith has since encountered several reprimands from the British judiciary including many recusals and reprimands by the Lord Chief Justice for his unconventional work-so his credibility on the Chiluba matter is highly questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.220.255.242 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Doubts....

Hi Oshwah, I have two question if you can help me..the first one is that I've noticed that one user, who is not an administrator,and i saw has "level vandalism: 4", just deleted some information from the page i did, like birthday date, place of birth, info in the General information and some external link,i hope nothing else because I dont remember. .. what do I have to do? The second is: are the references enough to go online? Thanks for your help!!!!Elys75 (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Elys75! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions. What article are you referring to? Is it Draft:Anders Hunstad? I see that JJMC89 removed some external links and unreferenced content from the article here. This removal of content was legitimate. This is due to the policies and guidelines that we have in place for this kind of article. If the article is a biography of a living person, content (especially if negative or contentious) must be referenced by a reliable source. These guidelines will provide you with the information that you're looking for as far as Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living people, the sources that you need to locate, as well as which sources are seen as acceptable to be used - definitely give these pages a read and make sure that you understand them. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask me them. I'll be more than happy to help you further. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the page I refer is that draft. I dont understand the corrections: i saw other Biographies and there is no "reliable source" for birth date or birth city. Then has been delayed associated acts that are the band where he works. Also has been removed the link to the Wikipedia Sarke page and the links to two official website (SOT and One Prayer Project ) and i dont understand why. Sorry for this answers and thanks again for your help!!! 

Elys75 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • sorry for this questions ..not answers (at the end of the message)..ops..sorry :) Elys75 (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Username policy?

Guess someone indicated I might be in violation of username policy? Sorry if that was something I skimmed over, but thought I actually looked pretty closely at recommendations, not wanting to make actual name, but be clear about role in which I'm contributing to Wikipedia. Now that I search for said policy, I'm not finding anything specific to Wikipedia, but general articles on such policies. Please advise, as I'd really like to NOT be in violation. Thank you! CGPwiki (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CGPwiki! Thanks for leaving me a message! I don't see anything that would make me believe your username to be a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. I don't think you have anything to worry about ;-). By the way... Welcome!!! We're glad to have you here, and we hope that you take off your jacket and stay awhile! If you have any more questions or concerns, or if you need help with anything, please do not hesitate to message me with anything you need. I'll be happy to assist you. It's a pleasure to meet you, and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much! CGPwiki (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
CGPwiki - I sincerely apologize in advance for this follow-up response, but I didn't catch something regarding your username until after I had replied to you above. It looks like you created the article Center for Global Policy, which was later deleted. Obviously, this shows that your username is an initialism for this article, which appears to be of a company or organization. Unfortunately, usernames cannot represent organizations or companies; they must represent individual people. Not to worry though! Just request a username change by visiting Wikipedia:Changing username. Make sure that your requested username complies with Wikipedia's username policy ;-). Take care of this, and you'll be all set. No big deal; just get this done as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, please accept my apologies for not catching this earlier and pointing you toward the right direction the first time. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Oshwah...Thanks! CGPwiki (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good luck! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
All taken care of...thanks again! Kellerke (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you blocked this user?

Hey I have reported User:GoldenGuy23 at WP:ANI for adding unreliable sources. You closed the report by saying Reported user has been blocked for one week for continued addition of unreferenced content. But I look at the editor's edit history and it appears that there no tag saying he been blocked from editing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You need to check the block log[2] on that user, and in this case:

16:03, January 30, 2017 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) blocked GoldenGuy23 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Persistent addition of unsourced content)

Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Well... it doesn't :-) Oshwah's message implies a new block was imposed. --NeilN talk to me 14:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
TheAmazingPeanuts, Eggishorn, NeilN: Welllll shittttt..... That was... my bad. You all are certainly within your right to ask me how I managed to misread the user's block log and mistake a 7-day block made back in January for one that is current... but I really don't have an answer for you other than, "I derped". Sorry for the confusion everybody, and thanks for letting me know. ANI case re-opened. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You might want to turn on the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" gadget. Very handy as it allows you to instantly see the status of a user or all the currently blocked users on a history page. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It's actually funny that you mention that, because I use a .js script version of that gadget (I made some customizations with color and what links that it crosses out and which ones that it doesn't). I had it disabled and was doing some testing with come changes I made to it lately; I guess I just got used to having it off. But to your point, I use that script and I think it's very very handy :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

ishwarya menon WIkipage

Dear Oshwah

Am the official Representative of Actress Ishwarya Menon

She wants to Give the original information and some of the information are wrongly please take a look on it

Regards Sudarsan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudarlla (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:103.199.16.111

Oshwah, could you share your thoughts on this IP. It left a message on my talk page (duplicated on its own talk page) regarding National Anthem of South Ossetia. The IP correctly points out that the infobox is duplicated, but the IP's behavior does seem to mimic the behavior of other IPs as mentioned by User:Boomer Vial. Home Lander (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

We just edit-clashed as I was trying to do the same thing you did. Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Wild at Heart episodes

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wild_at_Heart_episodes&action=history

There was no source for the erroneous 18th date in the first place, and the episode aired on the 8th. It was a correction of a simple typo. Reverted. --76.17.14.121 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Extremely High Frequency

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency

I disagree. I don't have any skin in the game, and did take a neutral point of view. You're going to have to be specific what you mean, which words you don't like. Making a blanket statement and reverting an edit is not constructive. Octopenslayer (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

answer to Oshwah

Dear Oshwah: My explanation was indeed adequate, namely: "To continue keeping the article up on Wikipedia is pointless, since Miller does not meet the Wikipedia criteria. Please officially remove. DEC"

The article has been rejected multiple times in the last couple of days. There is no point it staying on Wikipedia. It's continued existence is annoying to Miller, so I removed its content. The article's popping up on Wikipedia the other day was a surprise for him. I have spent time editing it and cleaning it up, but your colleagues say over and over that Miller is simply not notable enough. That's fine, since he never asked to have the article created. The intended "surprise" has sadly turned into an exercise in humiliation, which Miller does not need at this moment in his life. Please expedite removal. I don't wish to chat. I wish only that the article cease to exist, per Miller's request, since the article does not meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements re: notability. Best regards. CEDoyleelmocollins (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The article is currently being discussed for deletion, as the brightly colored tags at the top of the page indicate quite clearly. Blanking the contents of the page accomplishes nothing beyond being a disruption. Either the discussion will result in the article being deleted, in which case you have accomplished nothing, or the discussion will result in the keeping of the article, in which case you have accomplished nothing. In the meantime, other editors must undo your content removal so that new participants to the deletion discussion can, you know, actually see what is being proposed for deletion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: I totally agree that blanking the article during the deletion discussion is not useful. However, do you agree that the OP's behavior is entirely understandable in the circumstances? Many new editors make mistakes of this nature, and we should not treat them as the lowest of the low. Just my opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@MPS1992: I fail to see how the OP has been treated as "the lowest of the low." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Oshwah and Company:
I apologize that I don't understand the ins and outs of Wikipedia, as this response probably shows because I cannot figure out how else to include it. I'm just a visitor, not a full time adept. In my ignorance I took all the negative feedback seriously. Three or four of your people commented on the article in wholely negative terms, and I had no way to understand that there might be a positive outcome. One of you mentioned a brightly colored symbol at the top of the article, but I did not and do not see such a symbol. Then again, Wikipedia is complicated and I would not know what the symbol meant in any case. Of course, it may be that the article will be deleted, but I did not understand that it was a process. I just wanted to accommodate Miller's wishes, who is just as ignorant as I am about the process. In any case, the article is as good as it can get, and now it is up to you all to proceed through your process. I will not be "riding herd" on the article now that I underatand this, and I'll check in next week. All beat regards Doyleelmocollins (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)DEC
It's alright, learning means tripping up sometimes. Below this comment is a green bar titled "notices" with a little blue link on the right hand side that says "show". Click on "show" to see what I am referring to at the top of Thomas Kent Miller. Also, regarding talk pages: You should indent your replies by appending a number of colons ( : ) to each new line of your comment which is equal to the number of colons appended to the lines of the comment you are replying to plus one. So when you see a comment that starts with five colons ( ::::: ), make sure you start each line of your reply with six colons. That's how we know who you are responding to.
Click on this link for an example of how we use this to thread conversations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
notices

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on this matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

Not being disruptive

Not being disruptive it is true. They are called that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.24.165 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Australian Classification Board

You kill children by reverting my edits at this article! 37.8.156.252 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"Oshwah the Baby-Killer" has a bit of a ring, doesn't it? Now you know what to call yourself if you ever join the WWE as a heel. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Everaldo Coelho for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Everaldo Coelho is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everaldo Coelho (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I don't agree with you. This article has zero notability and no credible references, furthermore image is rather selfie than appropriate Wikipedia image.

Christoph Waltz Social Media

Please can you remove Christoph Waltz pages twitter etc. because he is not on social he likes to keep his privacy life out of the public eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinai1824 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Reinai1824 - Looks like the information isn't currently there, or it's been removed. Let me know if this is not true or if I missed it somehow. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Profanity

I don't wanna be you chat buddy, but I have reverted your Huggle-prompted revert. If you have anything to say, do so on the appropriate talk page. Byebye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.10.113 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Gillian Ryan

G Ryan is a genderqueer athlete, and their name and pronouns on this page are incorrect.

http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2017/02/column-transphobia-must-not-be-tolerated-within-sports-media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.41 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to disruptive editing comment

I'm done disrupting, it was in response to the irresponsible defamation by Omarjuvera on the Whisky A Go-Go's wikipedia page, which set out to hurt the business, and should have been noticed by Wikipedia. My editing on Punk Bunny and Electric Carlos was completely true anyway based on experience.

2605:E000:99C9:F100:F4BB:7AA1:B812:DDEB (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: Birmingham Mail Edit Message

Hi,

The edit note stated " (updated circulation figures released today)".

The new figures were released today for circulations, and that was the data inputted and updated - with reference.

I would be interested to know how you would describe that change, and if you are happy with out of date information being publicly shown rather than the new correct data.

Thanks.


UPDATE - No reply... what is the point of removing correct information from wikipedia, sending an automated message stating you are happy to discuss, then ignore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.93.135 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay responding to your message. I've been busy with real-life lately. Thanks for letting me know what your edit intended to do. It just appeared that you removed content, and I was puzzled as to why. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks again for messaging me! Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I just joined wiki and I think that since everyone with an account can edit it might become somewhere that people just come to so they can chat and they might put bad words. I think this should be fixed.It might be but I don't know since I am new. From: SOMEONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjawarrior124 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

1.222.82.86

Time to revoke talk page access you reckon? Adam9007 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I posted this, then realised I've been a complete idiot . Adam9007 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
HA! Oh well... what can ya do? :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Engage my brain, and stop and think before making comments? :). Adam9007 (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Nah! It happens. No big deal ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI

By the way, there are still some revisions that may need revdelling? Adam9007 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh great... this nice gentleman decided to make a come back.  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. And the first one probably needs revdelling too. Adam9007 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Whoops! You're right! I missed one!  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

whale extinction

Hey man leave up my post for tonight. I heard a rumor and I am having a few professor friends of mine check it out. Leave up my article for a few hours that is it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasWhiteeee (talk • contribs) 06:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Atp masters,500,250

Hi! I only removed the finals from 2009 because i wanted to add the players that won tournaments from 1990. Antonio111222333 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Antonio111222333 - Ah okay. Thanks for leaving me a message and for letting me know. In the future, you'll want to leave edit summaries with your edits describing exactly what you're changing in the article and why. This will make it easy for other editors to understand what you're doing, and avoid confusion like this :-). Please let me know if you have any questions about edit summaries. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

baklava

Where do you base your argument to remove my correction? It is WELL known that the byzantine "βάχλα" (vahla) was the base for what became baklava. Do we have to quote books or historians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.24.93 (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edit here didn't reference a reliable source to support the changes you made, and was worded as if it was based off of unreferenced speculation or rumors, which isn't content that is considered encyclopedic (especially if you're the one who is making these speculations). I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's policy pages on no original research and editing in a neutral point of view. These will answer your questions and help you to understand why I removed what you added to the article. If you have questions about these policies, please do not hesitate to respond and ask. Thank you for the message and I appreciate your understanding. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Deaths in 2017

Just to let you know that having spent a lot of time keeping up with all the change at Deaths in 2017 I have now removed the protection so it can be updated per WP:IAR, I have added a warning that users will be blocked if they change the Leah Adler entry without further discussion. I appreciate you were the blocking admin but there was just to much for me to keep up with. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi MilborneOne! Sounds good to me! Thanks for the assistance, and thanks for letting me know! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Read before revert

In this dif [3], you reverted my edit saying that it was "unreferenced speculation". If you had compared my edit with the former ([4]), you would have seen that what I did was to water it down from "Trump apparently confused" to "it has been supposed that Trump confused". You brought back the former. No offence, but this is not very good patrolling. (The note has now been deleted entirely by another user.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.136.80 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for the message and for the clarification. Looks like the best solution is to manually re-word and fix the wording to be more clear and concise, and worded in a less speculative manner. No offense taken; you're welcome to share feedback and thoughts with me (as you did). The revert I made didn't resolve the underlying problem and was based off a mistaken assumption that this was an addition of speculative content, not a modification of it. Thanks again. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Generation Snowflake edit

I am not sure why you removed my edit. Certainly vandalism wasn't my intent. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I won't press the matter, my intention was to show, with a GIF A. generation snowflake can be used to describe a person with thin skin, also known as a cupcake. and, B. Most generation Snowflakes feel as though they have been left in the rain. Hence, the cupcake in the rain. If you removed the edit for not posting credit to the origin of the GIF. and consider that to be plagiarism, I can certainly understand that, and I apologize for not doing so, this is my first edit.68.190.125.145 (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The insertion of this external URL appeared to be vandalism at the time that I reverted it (especially given the fact that you reverted the article back twice after I had removed it). I appreciate your message and apologize if I confused your intentions or mistook them entirely. In short, Wikipedia does not render external URLs of images to articles (like the edits you made to Generation Snowflake here). They must be uploaded by an autoconfirmed user account and within proper copyright and licensing guidelines (which you can read here) before they can be added to an article and used. You can read more information about images and proper use by clicking here. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

An AfC about Oshwah

People on IRC think that there should be an article named Oshwah, and I finally made it. It's on Nodraft:Oshwah. (Of course it's completely joking.) --Gyakusyuu no Amanojaku (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

HA! Well if you think that I'm that "notable" (lol)... I can assure you that I'm not :-P. The page did make me laugh, though ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Since the nodraft has legacy section, it must be seen as an implied death threat!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Activision

Hello I noticed that you took down my biased criticism. I do understand that but I would like to see some sort of controversy regarding Activision's system in the game Call of Duty since it has been spoken by thousands of people and Youtubers. Would there be anyway of me putting this fact on there and not regard it of biased criticism? The article by the way is Activison, not Activision/Blizzard or any of it's employee's. (Harambeard (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC))

Juan of those days...

Augh, I keep edit-conflicting with you on this... sorry about that! I'm stepping away for everyone's good! Hoping all's well - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Julietdeltalima! No apologies or stepping away necessary! It happens... no big deal ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

White Helmets page

Hi there, you reverted my removal of a paragraph on this page (my grounds being that it was a paragraph about another organisation). I have explained my rationale a bit on the talk page. If you are still unconvinced, I'm happy to engage further on the issue. If you do feel my edit was justified, though, could you possibly revert it, please? Thanks! IbnBattuta2000 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnBattuta2000 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi IbnBattuta2000! Thanks for leaving me a message and taking time to explain the edit. I've reverted my change, and your original change is now restored. Thanks again for the explanation, and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Oshwah, much appreciated. Just noticed your experience here - I wonder whether you could offer any advice for the situation? I'm new to Wikipedia myself. A concerted disinformation campaign has been raised against the organisation in question, as described on page 54 of this report. This is not to make an accusation against the people who have been editing the Wikipedia page. Certainly, though, the directions they are taking and the sources they are quoting are directly in line with the talking points of that campaign. On the 8th of February, the page was protected in order to try to resolve the dispute, and it seemed as though we had managed to come to a neutral conclusion - until Sunday night, there had only been a couple of edits. All of a sudden, though - coinciding with the Oscar won by the White Helmets documentary and just before the resulting increase in public interest with the organisation - a large number of edits were made again, repeating the same points that have been refuted in the past and expanding the criticism section to be completely out of proportion to the number of references cited (some of which are duds). In fact, having just gone through it again, much of it was just a more aggressive or an exact duplication of points already in the criticism section.
I am looking into making a complaint on Wikipedia, and haven't yet partly because I haven't had time, and partly because I'm not sure where to take the complaint. Any and all advice would be much appreciated!
Thanks again
IbnBattuta2000 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
IbnBattuta2000 - Wikipedia's policies and guidelines discourage all users from editing articles where they have a personal conflict of interest with the article subject. This is due to the fact that it compromises the integrity of the article content; it's nearly impossible for the user in conflict to reflect neutral interests and changes with the edits they make to it. You should instead focus on expanding and improving articles that interest you, but where you don't have a personal conflict of interest with. Regardless of who each editor is, their background, or their status on Wikipedia - all edits to Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view. If, for example, there is a dispute between Company A and Company B and this dispute is well referenced and by reliable sources, the content should fairly discuss all viewpoints represented and in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, and with these viewpoints cited. Again, you should stop editing this article if you have a conflict of interest with it (it appears that you probably do) and spend time elsewhere. Biased and non-netutral content that is added by accounts or users that reflect a particular point of view will be easily caught and removed - let neutral contributors do this. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the policies and guidelines I discussed with you here. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah, thanks for the answer. I do not have a conflict of interest, but I am interested in the broader issues for which this organisation and this page have become a flashpoint (Syria, Russia, processes of misinformation in and around the media across the world). Having said that, I would much rather not be involved in the editing of the page, and fortunately others are showing interest in it now, too. However, when I first looked at the article at the end of January, it had been quietly changed over the course of months to reflect a point of view that was even less neutral than the ones to which I have recently referred. It seems to me, therefore, that it is possible, with determination and persistence, for non-neutral agendas to slip under the net of Wikipedia's regular editors. This is particularly troubling in this day and age, when everybody seems to firmly believe that someone is lying (which suggests that some people, at least, probably are), and neutral sources of information like wikipedia are more important than ever.
Either way, though, your answer focuses on a suspicion of me as an editor, and not on the question of complaint for which I absolutely believe that there is cause regarding this article. As I understand it, all methods of complaint on wikipedia involve calling in adjudicators of some sort, which is exactly what I want. Close analysis of the large edits that Flemingi posted on Sunday show that he copied and pasted his old tracts from before the dispute had been resolved. This is particularly obvious because the resolution had come about by tempering the arguments he made - but keeping them included - so that on Monday morning everything in the criticism section was essentially written twice with the difference between the two versions being that one stated the information much less neutrally than the other.
I understand the policy that all viewpoints should be represented, and that policy is the one I most want to see enforced, because it also talks about due and undue weight. I would do an analysis of the references cited if I had more time, except that given your last response I will just come off as a biased editor for dedicating the time to it. An editor with a name like ZinedineZidane has given a basic look; I wish many others would do the same, and look deeper.
TL;DR I want Wikipedia editors to look into the article, and the references, properly - I want them to shine a bright light on the issue. How do I bring attention to this need?

IbnBattuta2000 (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning

I have not even edited Titian, let alone been involved in an edit war there. What was the purpose of that warning? Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Justeditingtoday. I referenced the wrong article in the warning (I fixed this). I noticed edit warring occurring between you and another editor at Murder of Kristen French. Remember that you need to take discussions and disputes to the article's talk page. Reverting the article in a back-fourth-manner like this is not allowed and continuing to do so can result in your account being blocked. If you have any more questions about Wikipedia's edit warring policy, please let me know. Thanks for the message, and apologies for the confusion on your talk page. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Please look at the actual edits. Caligal1 removed referenced content without reason. I reverted it. They added a fake reference and I reverted it. That is not edit warring. Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Justeditingtoday - Yeah, I'm definitely taking your side on this one. I thought this leaned more toward a "content-related" issue, which wouldn't count as exempt from 3RR, but now that I look at it again, I'm definitely not in a position to put you in the wrong here. Thanks for the messages; I'll keep an eye on the user. If it continues, I'll block the account. Thanks, and please accept my apologies. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that user is honestly trying to edit the article they just don't seem to know what they are doing. I don't think there is necessarily malice involved. Please don't be too quick with a block. Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Justeditingtoday - Ah trust me, I'm usually criticized for being too lenient, not for being too strict. Blocking isn't something I enjoy having to whip out on people... unless they're vandals or trolls!!! Then I don't feel bad at all for blocking ;-). The editor appears to have stopped, so I'm just holding off until that changes, and see what needs to happen from there. Thanks again for your responses. Much appreciated :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. :) Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Patience should be an expected trait of someone whose been around as long as I've been. No problem, Justeditingtoday ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick FYI:

I noticed that you just blocked Nightmareninja56 (talk · contribs) for abuse multiple accounts. Figured you might want a heads-up that this account created another account: Ninjaboy56. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

AH! Good catch, Excirial! I saw this account but for some reason my block must not have saved... weird. Thanks for catching that and for letting me know. Much appreciated! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Peter Wolodarski is a Jew - He is not Swedish!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.98.89 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-02&oldid=1088076806"