User talk:Oshwah

Let's chat

Click here to message me. I will reply as soon as I can. All replies will be made directly underneath your message on this page.

Please create your message with a subject/headline and sign your message using four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Experienced editors have my permission to talk page stalk and respond to any message or contribute to any thread here.

Archives
Older Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2015 (Jan - Jun) July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 Year 2016 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 Year 2017 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 Year 2018 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 Year 2019 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 Year 2020 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 Year 2021 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 Year 2022 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 Year 2023 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 Year 2024 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August 2024 September 2024 October 2024 November 2024 December 2024

Table of contents

Reported one user to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Hi Oshwah,

Earlier on today at 09:33 (UTC), I have reported one user of possible inappropriate use of their talkpage, details of my reasoning are found at the bottom of this revision, but the helperbot removed that thirty revisions later since they were already blocked (sockpuppetry) and I don't think no-one actually saw my report on it. The reason behind that was the addition of two naughty words which is possibly an attack on random IP users or me. Thanks, Iggy (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iggy the Swan, and thanks for leaving me a message here. I apologize for the delay getting back to you; I've been busy with life this past week and I'm catching up with my emails and messages now. It looks like this account is now blocked - did you have any other concerns or other accounts or edits that I need to look into? Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: Iggy the Swan, I took a look at the diff that you referred to in your AIV report, and I see why you expressed your concerns to me here. I don't see any activity from the IP's contributions since the 9th of November, but do keep an eye on things and let me know if that changes. My concern isn't the language the person used in his response (heck, I've seen wayyyy worse around here lol), but the possible hinting of the IP address as the origin of this user and possible hinting that there's more to come. If this is indeed this person's IP, the block on the account will autoblock that IP address for 24 hours so that no other accounts can edit through that IP (the accounts will be autoblocked, too). However, this only lasts for a day. Hopefully, this person has moved on - but only time will tell. Let me know if you have any additional concerns or if you need assistance with this matter (or any matter) and I'll be glad to help. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong link This diff was the one I was referring to. Iggy (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan - Ack! Yeah, that was the diff I was actually referring to in my update response. I pasted the wrong one from my browser - sorry about that :-). Fixed, and thanks for letting me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Some users know where Davekgoodnight's home IP is (actually that is the same person as Efc1878 who was blocked in May,) - Geolocate says this IP is located in South-west China, the Dublin IPs are a different person used to revert one of the association football timestamps that Efc1878 keeps changing back to 1st July 2017. As a result, I am one of the users who is keeping an eye on that page to be wary of any suspicious editing.

The IP you're referring to comes from Dublin and is therefore not Davekgoodnight while logging out. I will look carefully as to where each IP address is from when they edit Everton football players as I've noticed the Efc1878 socks are editing them. And I know other users, including yourself, are also keeping an eye on these pages, though your contributions probably covers the entire encyclopedia! Also if I see Davekgoodnight editing their talk page and see more bad habits, appropriate actions will take place. This first use may well be too soon? Iggy (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious statement

Hi,

Is this a confession of some sort? Is there somewhere to report this kind of thing? Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:SSP or WP:ANI I would think. SQL^{Query me!} 02:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@SQL: What if I don't know which account or IP address is the master? Adam9007 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, I had provided two options! SQL^{Query me!} 05:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Adam9007, SQL - I've blocked the account. This "confession" on their user page is very specific and something I see all the time when someone evades a block. That's good enough for me to block the account in good confidence; we can safely assume as logical editors here that nobody creating an account for the first time or in good faith and without previous sanctions would put that kind of statement on their user page. Let me know if either of you have questions or concerns about this and I'll gladly address them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP you warned

Osh - did you read my concern about that IP being a sock? I just promoted that article from AfC and put my NPR hat on to finish reviewing/expanding/checking refs when that disruptive IP showed up and refused to discuss anything. I'm thinking my work as an NPR (the G11, AfDs etc.) have made me a target. That IP is not a new user - they are either hiding a block, or hiding their identity so they do what they please but I have a strong suspicion of who it might be and they're stalking my TP. They aren't a new user - they knew exactly what they were doing. If I thought it was disruptive enough to file CU (and knew the process, repercussions, etc) I would. Like I said at the 3R/N, the geolocation appears to be where the suspected registered user resides. Question: if you had imposed a block on that IP address, would it have also blocked the registered user's IP, or does registering bypass such blocks? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

^{See their comment at 3R 02:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)}

Atsme - You're referring to the Ellen Susman article, and the RFPP request and AN3 report you filed, correct? Let me take a look at the information you've supplemented here just now and get back to you. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Atsme - The responses that the IP made on the AN3 report you filed come off mostly that this person has been on Wikipedia before, not necessarily that they're using an IP address to evade a block or sanction. What are the other accounts or other IP addresses that you believe this user is a sock puppet of, exactly? I'll be able to use that information to compare edits and look into things further if they need be. Let me know when you can so that I can look into things deeper...

To answer your question about blocking: A typical block made on an IP address is an "IP soft-block", meaning that aside from not being able to edit, the IP address is disallowed from being able to create new accounts while blocked; it does not prevent an already-created account from being able to log in and edit from that IP. An "IP hard-block" adds that extra restriction; it disallows any account that doesn't have the IP block exempt flag from editing from that IP address. Typical IP blocks that are applied are soft. IP hard-blocking is used to stop long-term abuse, confirmed sock puppetry use, or (in many cases) where the IP is a public proxy or web host that's been used to disrupt Wikipedia in the past. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: Atsme has provided additional information and details in private via email (see notice below). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Question: if you had imposed a block on that IP address, would it have also blocked the registered user's IP, or does registering bypass such blocks?" It depends on whether it's a WP:HARDBLOCK (in which case, yes), or a WP:SOFTBLOCK (in which case, the user can register an account). That is not to say that with a hard block people can't find ways to use different IPs. Softlavender (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ding-dong...mail delivery

Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Material mailed.
Message added 03:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

^{Atsme📞📧} 03:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Atsme - Acknowledged and responded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dfgvbhjk

Hey Osh. I've already listed all these accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, that's whose socks these are. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Home Lander - Yeahhhh, I didn't realize that until after I filed my SPI to the Dfgvbhjk one. Oh well, lets just leave it be and let a clerk fix it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, can you delete this rubbish AFD as well? Thanks for helping sweep all these up. Home Lander (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh lord, now he nominated me for deletion. Hilarious! Home Lander (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Aaaand it's gone! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Home Lander - I'm sure you're already doing this, but make sure to add each new sock account you see to the appropriate SPI. We want to make sure that we're tracking all of this ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I already added the newest one before you zapped it. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Home Lander - No... Thank you, sir! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

When Nsmutte is doing his thing like this, one can literally go to Special:NewPages, change the namespace to all, and watch for AFDs to be created by an account that has a red-linked talk page. Good chance it'll be him. Home Lander (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ohh, I'm way ahead of ya there, lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and assuming you're not using the live feed... you actually want to change the namespace to "Wikipedia" (not "all"), since AFDs are created in the Wikipedia namespace. That will narrow down your results much better ;-)... basically, use this url... LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Great idea! Sometimes I just sit in the meantime and patrol other new pages while watching for more of his... Home Lander (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Beans beans for everyone. Seriously though, good tip about patrolling. ;D L3X1 (distænt write) 13:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You asked what I was trying to do. I pre-emptively nominated the article for deletion, because I didn't want the other editor to keep merging it back into the main article without a discussion

Hi. You asked why I nominated my own article for deletion. This was only to insure that there would be a discussion on whether the topic merited a standalone article rather than the other editor simply merging the article into the main Joe Arpaio article, and because I believed the topic was notable enough that there was no real chance that it would be deleted if there was a discussion. I wasn't nominating my own article because I wanted it deleted; I just wanted a discussion if the other editor was going to effectively delete the article by merging it. I think this is a very clearly notable topic; while the stub article I wrote isn't particularly good yet, if you look at the sources, you'll see the pardon raises some very notable legal issues that have garnered an immense amount of discussion in the political and legal worlds. Infamia (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Infamia - I created a message on your user talk page here. I think there might be some confusion somewhere; that article was never created before, nor was it deleted. It is simply a redirect to the section I linked you to on your user talk page. If you believe that the article should stand on it's own, you don't need to create an AFD discussion; just replace it with the content you wrote and just go from there... if another editor voices opposition and changes it back, it can easily be discussed on the article's talk page and resolved that way; you don't need to create an AFD process for that :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that I do agree that there should be a separate article for it as the pardon is undue (and some of it is offtopic) in the Joe Arpaio. What is the best way of doing that is to create a summarized version of the pardon for a section in the Joe Arpaio article, create a consensus to replace that (may require a few days), and then create the Pardon of Joe Arpaio article. Galobtter (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC) @Infamia: Just pinging him so he sees it. Also I'd like to remind him that there is no deadline, and no need to rush to put an article out on the pardon. There is already a well written section on the pardon which is what I redirected it to for now (that is much longer than what you have) (see Help:Redirect) Galobtter (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion on the best way. There's really no reason a consensus from the main article needs to be obtained, since you JUST created that redirect now. You don't get to edit war to delete the material, and the material in the target article is largely irrelevant (as you admit!) to the legal and constitutional issues which should be the main focus of this article. If you want to contribute to this article and improve, please be my guest. I put stub on it because it's obviously unfinished. Please stop wasting time by blanking it. Contribute to the article instead. If you reverted again, I'll go back and revert again and create the AfD, because you're not going to delete the article without a discussion. Period. Infamia (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I said it was irrelevant to the Joe Arpaio article, but relevant to this article as there already is discussion of the legal ramifications in the Joe arpaio article. You're version doesn't even start with what the pardon is. It is WP:COATRACK. Is the article Ramifications of the Pardon of Joe Arpaio or the Pardon of Joe Arpaio? Creating an AfD is disruptive. It is not meant to replace discussion and dispute resolution. Galobtter (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well I merged all the pardon material from the Joe Arpaio article into the Pardon of Joe Arpaio. Most of it is good, plus all I really had in my article was a 1-paragraph introduction. Now the people at Joe Arpaio can delete any irrelevant material, and more can be added to the article, and anything objectionable or coat-racky can be removed from the Pardon article. I think this is a good solution, since I think we did at least agree the topic is probably notable enough for a stand-alone article. Infamia (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Infamia: What's the point of duplicating (and creating a mess 09:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC))? It has a lot of your irrelevant (should be lower down 09:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)) material at the top. For now it can redirect to the pardon section of Joe Arpaio (i brought this up at Talk:Pardon of Joe Arpaio), then like I said above a new article can be created and consensus for that. There's also an onus on you to create a consensus for your change. Galobtter (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You agreed there should be a stand-alone article. A consensus is thus born. An article isn't built in a day. My prefatory material frames the legal notability of the pardon. If you give it some time, this will coalesce into a good article (the best article) and the articles will diverge in content. Editors at the Arpaio article can decide whether to keep material there. Readers interested in the legal aspects of the pardon shouldn't have to swim through the general swamp of Joe Arpaio's page. I'm sure there are thousands of article where the target individual has discussion of a case, and the case itself or incident has its own page. Infamia (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The redirect directly links to the pardon section. I agreed that it should be split off. But I did say that for now (on the talk page of the article) that it should remain a redirect, until a consensus can be made and a decent article made. Right now its more of a mess than something that can be worked on as a start. Your additions are extremely biased and don't really represent the sources. Some experts - not all - think that trump may pardon manafort.Galobtter (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (X3) Infamia - I understand and agree that there's a process to discussing the removal of content. If you believe that Pardon of Joe Arpaio should stand as its own article, that's fine. But responding with the attitude that you're going to revert edits that Galobtter makes on the article that you don't like, and create an AFD when it's not necessary (see my response below) - is not going to make things easier for you; it's only going to add more difficulty and frustration to your stack, not take any of it away. Case in point: your edit summary here... don't do that, man! Help us help you! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. well, I merged material from the main Joe Arpaio article, since Galobotter suggested there was some good material already there. Now I think there is a good baseline from which to work, and other editors should get involved. There is a lot more scope to expand discussion of this than merely in Joe Arpaio's article, where the legal aspects of the pardon aren't necessarily relevant.Infamia (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon of Joe Arpaio article

Just to catch you up a little bit on what's going on. The creator of this article Pardon of Joe Arpaio, Infamia, is currently a bit out of control. This first started about an hour ago when he created Draft:List of people pardoned by Donald Trump. I declined the article in the AfC process, for reasons listed on the draft page (basically WP:TOOSOON (a list is inherently more than one item). After this he launched a barrage of attacks on my talk page, and deleted comments by other editors trying to get him to calm down and to examine the reasoning behind the decline. I reverted all his comments, as they weren't constructive in any way. This prompted fellow reviewer Galobtter to leave a warning on Infamia's talk page, in response to which Infamia, basically said he didn't have to waste his time with the AfD process and proceeded to create the article. The article as it stands now has a lot of problems and needs to go through the AfD process, just seeing what needs to be done to re-nominate it.

Sorry if that was a mouthful. I've reviewed hundreds of AfC pages and dealt with many editors and never had one go this rogue before. Any advice would be great. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete any comments. What is the purpose of your lying?Infamia (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Infamia - Hold on... lets not accuse other people of lying and turn this discussion into a heated or angry situation that doesn't need to be. I think that, out of the confusion with everything, edits were made that didn't make sense. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Just pointing out I didn't delete anyone's comments, and he is in error. This editor reviewed my submission at AfC of the above article. He gave me uninformative "feedback," declining the submission. If he wishes to nominate it for deletion, he's welcome to. I'm confident the article passes all notability guidelines, and any problems it has can be corrected (and which he could instead help address by simply contributing to the article, rather than attempting to delete it.) Infamia (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Infamia, Sulfurboy - Ooookayyyy... let me try and help straighten up the situation on both sides here. First of all, I thank you both for messaging me with details and information about what's going on. It was extremely helpful for both of you to calmly describe the situation to me so that I could properly offer help to you both. I agree that Draft:List of people pardoned by Donald Trump is quite premature, since there aren't a lot of people that would fit that list. However, I will acknowledge that Pardon of Joe Arpaio is a completely different article and format than that list. First of all, well... it's not a list. And second, it is a notable sequence of events that may or may not warrant it's own article. I think that Infamia was perfectly fine to replace the redirect with content he wrote under this belief (provided that any opposition is discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus reached; no edit warring, etc). An AFD discussion isn't necessary until someone else creates that discussion; Infamia, you don't need to do that since it's not necessary for you to add a process onto what may not need to even become one in the first place :-).

Infamia - On a side note, I will mention to you that edits like this are absolutely uncivil and completely disruptive. Sulfurboy is listed as a trusted editor and member of the articles for creation process, and he took the time to review your article and offer you help and advice. Responding in this manner isn't only against policy, but I'm sure that it makes him feel that he wasted his time trying to assist you... especially knowing that there's (literally) hundreds of articles waiting to be reviewed in AFC. On top of this, creating a discussion in an attempt to get around Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines, or make doing so more difficult to accomplish - is also not okay. If you're confused or do not understand how certain processes work, you gotta ask, man! Don't make assumptions and then revert other editors when they say that you're doing something wrong... listen to them and let them help you!

I hope this answers some questions and helps to get this situation somewhat organized... do any of you two have questions or concerns that I can assist you with? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to remove protection on this Page to edit

Hi Oshwah I would like you to remove protection on this page so that I can create a new Page for this upcoming game

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Finding+Paradise

thanks - AITSTUDENT5852 AITSTUDENT5852 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi AITSTUDENT5852! Welcome to Wikipedia! I think that you might be in the wrong place or confused on what you need to do or where to go. If you want to create a new article, there is a tutorial located here that will help you with exactly how to do this, as well as help you to do the necessary checks before proceeding (so that you don't end up ultimately wasting your time with writing an article that ends up not meeting certain requirements). It's very important that you go through this tutorial and follow all of the necessary steps; if you unknowingly skip a crucial check, you might find yourself spending a significant amount of time writing an article just for it not to be used -- I do not want to see that happen to you. Before you begin writing, please do not hesitate to message me here if you have any questions about the tutorial or need help with any guidelines or steps. I'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Little Mix

You recently corrected my edit on best selling girl groups. The X factor confirmed Little Mix have sold 36 million records, and I was editing it accordingly. I don't know why you switched it to 30 again, when that is no longer true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petty Mixer (talk • contribs) 09:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Petty Mixer! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns. I did not revert or undo your edit to List of best-selling girl groups. I simply applied page protection to the article in order to resolve the persistent level of unreferenced modifications to the content being made to it. If the content is not correct in its present form, please feel free to modify the article and fix the error. Make sure that your changes are either supported by the source already cited, or that you cite a source with the changes you're making. If you have any more questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

udhampur

my edits were totally genuine and i was only putting the missing but worth to be mention places to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJandial (talk • contribs)

SirJandial - What about this edit you made? I'm also concerned that these edits might be based off of original research. Have you reviewed Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and no original research? You might want to start by visiting this Wikipedia tutorial and going through it entirely; it will help you learn and understand the basics and core policies in which this project operates and follows. I just don't want to see you end up frustrated and feeling overwhelmed in the end; Wikipedia has many guidelines that you should be aware of, and this tutorial will absolutely guide you through them! Please take my advice and do this; it will help you significantly with understanding Wikipedia's basics and will give you a tremendously good start with editing here. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm happy to have you here as an editor! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

Hi,

I would have reported this sooner, but I was on my mobile phone. Not sure what else to say (except maybe should the editor be blocked?), but WP:LEGAL says such threats are to be reported, so here I am. Ta. Adam9007 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! No worries; thanks for letting me know.  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Issues with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Georgia Southern University/Modern Latin America (Fall 2017)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Issues with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Georgia Southern University/Modern Latin America (Fall 2017). There are some somewhat serious issues with this course, your input would be appreciated --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cameron11598 - Thanks for the ping. There are lots of concerning edits going on by a few users under this class, and we need to get things straightened out. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

42nd Ontario general election - photos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Ontario_general_election

I am a new user, so apologies for any small errors of etiquette I may make.

The photos provided for the 3 main leaders are not consistent. The Liberal Leader is smiling and looking directly at the reader - the best photo. The NDP Leader is smiling, but not making eye contact with reader - not so good. The PC Leader is not smiling, nor looking at the reader - worst photo.

I suggest similar photo for each to ensure impartiality of Wikipedia. suggestion: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/830142570151960576/1xygBPH9.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/834757904058060800/5LF-jvMe.jpg

Burloak Burloak (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Burloak! Welcome to Wikipedia! No apologies are needed; we were all new users here once, and you'll learn the ropes and etiquette as you edit and grow your experience here. Sure, I can agree with that; if there are better photos that can be used, then yeah... I see no harm in using them. However, there's a very important set of guidelines and policies that we must understand and comply with 100.0% of the time, which is Wikipedia's policies on copyrighted content (specifically, the copyright and licensing of images). We must be absolutely careful and make absolute sure that any image we upload to Wikipedia has a license and copyright that allows us to use it. We take violations of this policy very seriously, so make sure that you know and understand these guidelines and are proficient with them before you begin working with images yourself (which will be awhile from now). Until you're fully proficient on Wikipedia and with it's policies and guidelines, you should have other editors help you with this process; don't do it alone. I'm not a complete expert on image copyright, but I can at least answer any questions that you may have. There's also a useful FAQ for copyright-related matters that you can read here. I know it's a lot of links to give you and tell you to review, but it's an important policy and it takes great time and understanding before one becomes an expert in that area. I'm certainly not one ;-). This is why getting someone to help you is absolutely important. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! We're happy to have you as a member of the community! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit you deleted on Samuel de Champlain

I think you have made a mistake. I added from another source and that is what they called him at the time. It is not my opinion and think it should be on the article because it is a useful fact to others that are . doing research on him (like me). Thank you

2601:182:CF00:1C93:5DCD:617E:F649:D9F4 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for leaving me a message. The edit you made here has multiple issues. Not only is it not referenced by any kind of source, the part that states "and was like always greatly respected" seems to be a statement that's opinionated, and isn't worded in an encyclopedic tone. This is why I reverted this edit. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, verifiability, and adding content that's worded in a neutral point of view. Another helpful guideline is how to write in a formal and encyclopedic tone. These guidelines will help you to understand the concerns I expressed, as well as help you improve and grow with experience. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sulphur Springs

Hello,

I currently reside in Sulphur Springs. I am editing it to reflect the current conditions.

Thanks yous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmadman (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank's for helping me with getting situated in RC patrolling, and IRC, and basically everything Wikipedia related. You've been a great help. Adotchar| reply here 00:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Adotchar. It's what I'm here for; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message, Oshwah. I'm glad you reached out to me. Might I ask you why you reverted back to a version of the article which contained no reference to Dominic Selwood's membership of the Freemasons and his active participation in Masonic events? The links I have provided show more than circumstantial evidence of his involvement in Freemasonry. Dr Selwood is a journalist and published author: it is not an incidental detail - and it should be noted in the main body of the article. Initially, I linked to an online document written by Dr Selwood (published by his old school apparently). It looks as if that school has its own Masonic Lodge for old members. When that document was taken off-line someone edited the wikipedia entry to remove reference to Dr Selwood being a Freemason: the source no longer 'existed' - the claim could no longer be substantiated. I asked a friend of mine to tweet the same document on Twitter - but shortly afterwards a complaint was made that this violated privacy rules - the friend's account was blocked. I then decided to make the wordpress blog with the same information - but with all sensitive personal information blocked out other than the fact that Dr Selwood was organising a Masonic meeting. But this new link also proved contentious on here since a blog is not considered an authoritative source . Subsequent Google searches reveal that Dr Selwood is slated to appear at Masonic conferences to talk on his personal impressions of the 300th Anniversary celebrations of Freemasonry which he participated at. He is an advertised speaker, the links are genuine, a simple search within those links will see his name appear on the list of speakers. At the very least, then, these salient facts should be permitted to stand in his biography. No value judgment is made here on Wikipedia about Dr Selwood being a Freemason. (On the wordpress blog I criticise those who are editing the wikipedia page to make no reference to Dr Selwood's Masonic connections but on Wikipedia I appreciate that neutrality is important and I simply want those details to be mentioned in the biography. They are not incidental details: the Freemasons are a hugely influential organisation and belonging to them should be in the public domain of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia: especially if such details are available online. I am, of course, more than happy to enter into discussion with yourself as mediator in order to resolve a fractious dispute that wastes everybody's time. Many thanks. 202.239.38.179 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I simply reverted the edit because it appears that it has come under dispute by other editors who have concerns about the content you're changing. Have you started a discussion on the article's talk page? If not, you need to do this. We don't resolve disputes by repeatedly reverting each other back and fourth; we're supposed to follow proper dispute resolution protocol and discuss the dispute and come to an agreement with the others, then edit the article with the changes agreed upon. The information you provided here is definitely what should be added to the talk page. Then, let the discussion take its course. If you have any questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah So I reached out to Eggishorn on the Dominic Selwood biography page with exactly the above. No reply. I'm not too surprised by that: those who are editing out my additions want to PREVENT the knowledge that Selwood is a Freemason from being public knowledge. If, as I suspect, I don't get any reply and that they will stonewall in silence in that hope that you will keep your editorial decision and keep that information from Selwood's Wikipedia page, can I hope that you will check the reliability of the sources yourself and make an arbitration that sees that information returned to his public biography? If you're not willing to do that can you tell me why you wouldn't be willing to do that? Many thanks.159.122.131.153 (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

See the response I made to your message below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game)

Would you consider ECP? I'm clearly to involved at this point, but I was looking to request escalation to ECP next. Was hoping it wouldn't push to full protection but there is a reddit thread actively encouraging users to make the disputed change. There is an AMA by EA scheduled for Wednesday now, so protection through at least the 16th is probably good. The game will be released on the 17th. -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi ferret! Thanks for leaving me a message here. Sigh... this is a situation where I wish that setting multiple protection level durations were possible (AKA full protection for 2 days, then have it automatically lower to ECP after it expires and go for a week). Unfortunately, this is not an option. Given the information you provided, I think that the right thing to do in order to maintain order on the article and be in compliance with Wikipedia's page protection policies is to keep the article at full protection. There are clearly disputes and borderline edit warring by different users with all different user rights (including extended confirmed users) and over different areas within the article. Full protection is the fair and logical level that will stop all of the various disputes, and give no advantages to anyone.

Being a redditor myself (unfortuntately... lol), I completely 100% understand your concerns, and I'm pretty damn sure that I know what subreddit is behind the meat puppetry recruitment efforts... lol. I also understand the concerns regarding the upcoming AMA, too... I've seen many, many times first-hand the ripple effect that follows on related or directly associated articles. To speak freely, it pretty much becomes a shit-show... LOL. Let's not beat around the bush, here :-). As much as I really, really badly want to factor this information into my decision to change the protection level and extend the duration, the AMA is information that's upcoming and in the future, and making an administrative action to protect the article with this taken into account would be pre-emptive, which by policy is something I cannot do.

I'm sure you know that administrative actions are a judgment call, and there's typically some leeway in these areas when making the call to protect articles (I mean, that's how it is...), but this particular request for edit protection and this situation impacts many editors, who will be looking my direction and setting a very high expectation regarding proper administrative tool use and the compliance of these policies, as well as my reasons behind taking the actions that I took. I believe that what's best in this situation is to take the action that is fair, neutral, and the right thing to do. And I believe that keeping full protection is the right thing to do. However, after it expires, I'm open to evaluating and considering what should be done next (whether we keep ECP, or something different), but for now... I will stand by my original observations and evaluation of the evidence, and the decision I made. I hope you understand and appreciate what I'm trying to do here. If you have any questions, concerns, or additional reasons you discuss where you still believe that my decision needs to be re-evaluated, please let me know. My talk page is completely open to you, and you (as well as anyone else) are welcome here. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely understand, and don't really disagree. I started out hoping we could be a lenient as possible with protection for this (Hence only 2 days) but it quickly escalated and continued after semiprot. For what it's worth, I don't believe the rest of the article content is in dispute. There has been some editing and tweaking, but no real changes to the overall content and its nicely sourced. The main dispute has been about inserting "pay-to-win" into the lead sentence so that it would appear in Google search results (There's a thread dedicated to it). -- ferret (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Ferret. I always hope to be as lenient with protection as I can, and apply the lowest and shortest protections that I think will solve the situation. Shoot, if you know me well, I get disappointing messages somewhat occasionally that the OP was expecting a longer or more strict protection than I give! But... I gotta be fair, and given what I observed, I had to stay true with what I believed was right... even if I'm not exactly satisfied with the result. It's the curse that comes with being an admin that's a completely neutral party and evaluating a request in a completely impartial manner; sometimes, what is honest, right, and fair will be what makes everyone unhappy (lol). It's the responsibility I bear, and while I'm definitely far... far... FAR... from a perfect editor and a perfect admin, I'll be damned if I don't do my best and put my heart into doing what's right for the project :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Before I wander off for the night, just for full disclosure, I semiprot'd Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game) just now as well. Electronic Arts was protected earlier today by someone else. -- ferret (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

ferret - Yup, good call. Thanks for doing that. Have a great night, and thanks again for the discussion! I really appreciate your messages here and for challenging my thinking and helping me make sure that what I did was right :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Harmontown Edit

Hello, Oshwah!

You recently reverted an edit for the article List of Harmontown podcast episodes. Below's the link to the episode entitled "Brothers Killing Brothers for Some Dank Memes"

http://www.harmontown.com/2017/07/episode-251-brothers-killing-brothers-for-some-dank-memes/

Thanks! Meanbuttbutt (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Meanbuttbutt

Pardon of Joe Arpaio

Hi, Oshwah - I nominated the Arpaio article for AfD a few days ago - it had major issues (quotes that were character assassinations based on detractor opinions) and considering it's NPOV issues, I removed what I strongly believed to be noncompliant material. It was very poorly written and included information about unrelated events and had many other issues. I removed the most glaring problems and invited the editors who were involved to discuss before trying to add anything back. The article is subject to DS - American politics 2 (June 2015) All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people - Discretionary sanctions - Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Shouldn't there be a notice attached to the article edit view? How about on the TP - and what about notifying editors? It's hard to find all the stuff like the DS templates to remind editors the article is subject to DS. It was also a copy-paste from the BLP Joe Arpaio (a spin-off?), which created a potential plagiarism problem that has since been resolved. I'm just making you aware of my involvement since you were already called to the article before my time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• The onus is on you if you are going to delete 2/3 of the article to provide some justification for that, especially while a deletion discussion is going on that says "DO NOT BLANK THE PAGE" which is more or less what you did. What precisely are you talking about in terms of non-compliant material? Multiple editors are trying to engage you on the talk page as we speak, yet you refuse to respond. I'm having great difficulty in seeing that your actions can possibly be in good faith. What are these "glaring problems"? What is the "non-compliant material?" What is the "character assassination?" It's a page about a legal issue, it has nothing to do with anyone's character. Can you provide any citation to what you find objectionable? Whose character is being assassinated? The page is not about Arpaio. Frankly, you seem to have little to no idea of what the article is about. Your accusations of "plagiarism" are beyond ridiculous- material was merged, and it was stated that it was merged. Also, a strong consensus developed at AfD that you were wrong, and the article deserved to stay. I think only 1 other editor agreed with your position, and yet you felt it was OK to delete nearly the entire page why exactly? Why don't you share what your problems are at the talk page, at the discussion you asked us to have? Infamia (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Oshwah, all I would basically ask here is that there should not be large-scale deletion of 2/3 of the page while the deletion discussion is going on (it's not a very long page to begin with), since this effectively bars any new editors from contributing to the discussion. The deletion discussion also seems to coalescing to a strong consensus for keep as a stand-alone article-- I see roughly 7 votes for keep, and 2 votes to delete or merge-- and I also think it's not really in the spirit of the rules to delete most of a page and ask other editors to establish a consensus for restoring basically the entire page, when a strong consensus has developed that the topic merits its own page. We've also tried to engage this editor at the talk page like they asked regarding the material they'd like to delete, but there hasn't been a response.Infamia (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it bars people, as people can see the page history and the previous version, but agree that deletion is completely unwarranted. Galobtter (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, and thanks for leaving me a message! Yes, as I mentioned here to both Infamia and Galobtter earlier, this article is under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee per WP:ARBAP2. I've already added the necessary warnings and templates on the article's talk page here. Are there templates that you think are missing that I should add? Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Just want to make sure - so there's no real editing restriction like 1RR, just that admins can impose sanctions, right? Galobtter (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter - This article is not currently under 1RR restrictions; that is correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Oshwah - I'm not sure if the edit page needs a DS banner or if it's ok just being on the TP. Also, that article is laden with policy violations and it appears to me that Infamia with only 222 edits may need to read WP:CIR and WP:SOAPBOX. I removed the opinion based character assassinations but the new editors are not distinguishing between what is and isn't encyclopedic or exercising the level of sensitivity needed for BLP. There is far too much noncompliant material in that article now, regardless of it being at AfD - the noncompliance is one of the reasons I nominated it for AfD - and as you can see on the TP, per Jake Brockman, we're dealing with WP:SOAP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:POVFORK and when a BLP is involved, consensus prolongs the noncompliance. It should be removed, WP:POVFORK

Caution - Article splits are permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. On the other hand, having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident. For this reason Mel Gibson DUI incident was folded back into a Mel Gibson article section. However, it is possible for article spinoffs to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinoff Criticism of XYZ. Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.

Oshwah, my concern is justified based on the following comment by Infamia which has gone entirely unchecked: his edit summary reads (Violent oppose. Atsme, your comment merely indicates your own ignorance of the legal issues involved here. I suggest you read some of the sources before ignorantly opining on matters on which you know next to nothing.) That comment is a pretty serious PA against me and a block is in order, especially based on his disruption at the article. Instead, he received protection for what is basically an attack page. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

90% of what you removed was already in Joe Arpaio. So hardly part of the POV change. Infamia's additions are definately not NPOV and those can be toned down or removed..but the remaining is not like that. I have no desire to change the POV. I just mostly want the article to be split off per WP:SPINOFF, as it is far too large. For the incivility I have been giving him warnings - it's up to the last one now. He did not receive protection on the article- the article received protection, which is not his. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum: Talk page banners have no real meaning, as far as I know, only DS alerts count for anything sanctions-wise. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The question at the time was slightly different, it was more looking at it form the perspective if that section should be copied to a new article or if the redirect should be reinstated. I believe I did also say that the topic is notable in my humble opinion. The text - as it was presented then - did touch crystal ball (speculation who else Trump might pardon), soapboxing (mainly in the way language was used and the slant the article had). Both led to POVFORK from the main article. The former two have been addressed in the meantime. As Galobtter said, what remains now is 90% give or take what is already in the main article. Forking may make sense given the pardon touches on a vast array of considerations (legal and otherwise) which may be beyond the scope of the BLP. After the fixes have been done, I am not that worried about being a current POVFORK. It may become a POVFORK, but that's up to the community to patrol - just like with the very same section in the main article. I'm not sure what is to be achieved here... There are three usual routes: a) editing by the community to ensure that all issues are addressed (which may include redirecting), b) AfD or c) speedy delete. Editing is ongoing, AfD is being held. A speedy delete I find hard to argue with the CSD criteria. WP:A10 and WP:G10 spring to mind, but as the article is presented right now, both are difficult to argue. AfD is the right way. The editor's behaviour and language does raise concerns. This may be a case for WP:ANI to be viewed there. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: He's been reported to ANI already and blocked as a sock. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Galobtter. I should have checked. No surprise. His confidence, skill and choice of topics was unusual for a new editor._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That ban review thing at ANI

[1] It’s User:Colton Cosmic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 - AHA! I knew it was somebody! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing an article

Hi Oshwah! I'm Scarlet and I was just wondering if you could tell me how to edit an article and save your changes. Write me back ASAP. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletiscool (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

WHO DO U THINK u are changing my work i worked hard doing that do u know who i am i will love u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneymate34 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

UGLYDOLL

Hello, I am the Director of Operations for Pretty Ugly, LLC., the owners of Uglydoll. I need to make the changes to the ownership page. Kathy Caldas [REDACTED - Oshwah] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.213.146 (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

First, this is a direct violation of Wikipedia:ConflictOfInterest - you should follow the appropriate steps to ensure that you stay within the guidelines and regulations of that. Secondly, seeing as how you have a COI, you should post a request to the UglyDoll talk page, along with a valid source to prove that the ownership has changed. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

My Edit

I share this IP address with a number of other users, because it is a public Wi-Fi hotspot. My edit to Joy Davidman was not unconstructive, and was intended to fix a mistake in the article. Fuck you and have a nice life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.134.60 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Huh it is bone cancer.. Surprising. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not too sure about that. Our article, and some others I've found, says it was breast cancer metastasized to the bones, which is still considered breast cancer and not bone cancer. I've found a few newspaper book reviews that call it "bone cancer", like the NYTimes one you cited, but I'm inclined to trust the other sources on this, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess book reviews aren't exactly checked for offhand statements. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry

i did not mean to remove your elderly woman png and put her "sauce" in the text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.28.157 (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Montville High School (Connecticut)

Hi Oshwah, I've requested page protection. Looks like a lot of socks. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:F11B:E449:55C1:762E (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two days. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Bears watchlisting. 2601:188:180:11F0:F11B:E449:55C1:762E (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Malarkey

I am the one who made the michael malarkey article edit. I dont have a source but he told me himself, i went to his moms house in yellow springs, Ohio. My step Dad (wendell hensley) brought me there and told me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.121.77 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, please do not add unsourced content to biographical articles. Something you 'happen to know' about a subject is original research and has no import on Wikipedia. Statements should be reliably sourced and references correctly added; (see WP:REFB for more information). Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Uglydoll changes

Please help. I do not know what needs to be done to correct the owner listed. kathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcaldas (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Kcaldas - Apart from the conflict of interest issues that are occurring, you need to make an edit request on the article's talk page. Just make sure that your request includes a reliable reference with the changes you believe should be made. Our guidelines on adding in-line citations and identifying reliable sources will assist you with everything you need. If you have any questions after reading these pages, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cosmos (Carl Sagan book) Edit

Hello, Oshwah. Regarding the edit made to Cosmos (Carl Sagan book), I want to clarify that I didn't remove any content. In fact the edit was addition of information in the Critical reception section. I have also cited the source deemed necessary.

please reconsider

thank you

Benzy Benzykaram (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Benzykaram - My sincere apologies; I've restored the changes you made to the article. The reversion I made to your edits was done accidentally. Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else. Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bola Johnson edits

Greetings, Oshwah! You recently reverted two of my edits to Bola Johnson, claiming they appeared to be tests. They were not tests. I edited the intro paragraph to bring the dates into standard format and to explain who the subject was in the intro, something the article failed to do. My other changes were cosmetic punctuation and grammar fixes. Can you tell me what you objected to in these edits or what makes them look like tests? HisReasonablyEasyLife (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

HisReasonablyEasyLife - Ah, I see what you're trying to do now... It was simply just some of the small changes made to the article, nothing big. I'll occasionally see new users and editors that make small changes and add technical error or problems to articles to see what it does, or make small changes to see the impact. I noticed this edit and that you placed the words "as told by Bola" with "accordingto". That, and some other small things gave the idea that you might have been testing; I see now that you were not. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need my assistance with anything, and I'll be happy to help. Thanks for leaving me a message and for explaining what you were attempting to do :-). Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

HELP!

I am not having any luck editing the page. Please help me! If you can contact me via email that would be helpful. [REDACTED - Oshwah] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcaldas (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Kcaldas - See the response I made to you above, and please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to help you. I want to make sure that your security and your privacy are protected, so I redacted the contact information that you left in your message above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Further to the "Dominic Selwood" article Edit War...

Hi Oshwah So I reached out to Eggishorn on the Dominic Selwood biography page with exactly the above. No reply. I'm not too surprised by that: those who are editing out my additions want to PREVENT the knowledge that Selwood is a Freemason from being public knowledge. If, as I suspect, I don't get any reply and that they will stonewall in silence in that hope that you will keep your editorial decision and keep that information from Selwood's Wikipedia page, can I hope that you will check the reliability of the sources yourself and make an arbitration that sees that information returned to his public biography? If you're not willing to do that can you tell me why you wouldn't be willing to do that? Many thanks. 159.122.131.153 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The concerns regarding the validity and reliability of content is outlined in our guidelines on verifiability and identifying reliable sources. While I'm happy to answer any specific questions regarding these policies if you have them, the discussion that should be ongoing on the aritcle's talk page will be the best place to have the references in question examined. They will be available to be evaluated and discussed by multiple editors, who will be able to collaborate and come to a consensus that is logical, appropriate, and in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have any questions regarding the evaluation of the sources you're referring to, our dispute resolution process will most likely answer them. If not, then please do not hesitate to ask me them, and I'll be more than happy to help. Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Names of China,

Hello Oshwah,

I did state my reason. I thought the content was off-topic. It's about the names of china/dynasty/state, not the names of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.170.9 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Your edit summary makes sense to me now... thanks for the message. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism to Iko page

Hey Oshwah, thanks for noticing the vandalism to the Iko page and for messaging. We've also noticed this and have issued a warning against this users frequent incorrect edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:146.90.248.167

20:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPProtect (talk • contribs)

can you restore a love letter to you I think I removed all content again

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki1143 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Maximiliano Korstanje

Appears that the second IP was requested by the first to edit Per User talk:Jim1138#Maximiliano Korstanje That page is an absolute promotional c.v. and needs to be hacked way down. I tag-bombed it and started a discussion on talk:Maximiliano Korstanje for what it's worth. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138 - I agree; there are multiple issues with this article that need to be fixed. Thanks for starting that process and for assisting with the attempts to improve the content. Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Formal request for removal of human user rights

To whom it may concern,

Please view this as the most formal request known to mankind. I hereby request that the user right is known as "IPBE" be removed from my user account, and be deported into the void. I solemnly swear that I currently do not need it.

Yours sincerely,
(t) Josve05a (c) 01:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I support this incredibly formal request, and formally request that it be formally implemented in the most formal of ways. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL!  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Bonin Bough

Can you please refund and userfy this page Draft:Bonin Bough? I want to give it another try. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you delete the redirect? I moved the draft to my user page. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If you have a moment, do you think I qualify for the Pagemover privilege? I often find myself in situations where I have to move a page but should not leave a redirect. I have a good understanding of Wikipedia's naming conventions. For example, Bonin Bough's real name is actually Brant Bonin Bough. He is often referred to as B. Bonin Bough. But the majority of RS commonly refer to him as simply Bonin Bough. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 - Sure, here you go. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bob Coy

The first edit today, added at 3:48, did have a source. It was higher up in the paragraph, so you might have missed it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity! Yes, that is correct - which is why I didn't remove that content from the article. There was content in that paragraph after the source citation that appeared to be in violation of WP:BLP; this is simply what I removed. Please let me know if you have any questions or additional concerns and I'll be happy to answer and address them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

But was the later content supported by the reference added in the same edit as the earlier content & source? I guess I'm wondering whether things would be different if the reference had simply come at the end of the paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity - I would say that it doesn't, no. The content included specific words and phrases that the reference did not use. It also contained portions that were within quotations as if it were directly quoting text from the reference, but were not stated in the reference. Because this article is a BLP, this paragraph is detailing a highly controversial and contentious event, and the content removed made statements that were highly detailed and specific - I'm erring on the side of caution and keeping content removed and the revisions redacted. You're of course welcome to expand the paragraph and the content there (assuming they comply with policy of course... lol). While I don't believe that the edit was vandalism or made with the intention of violating policy, I believe that the details were worded different enough from what was stated in the reference that it needed removal. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity - You bet. If you need my assistance with anything else, you know where to find me ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dave Hill

Hi Oshwah, I made an edit to the Dave Hill page to remove a paragraph that was clearly a duplicate of the paragraph above it, this was clearly stated in the edit summary. I believe your reversion is in error and ask that you please review it more carefully.

Thanks in advance. 27.96.199.20 (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh shit. You're totally right. That was my mistake and my fault and I apologize for that. I've restored the edit you made to the article. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention so that I could review and fix it. Please let me know if you need anything else, and I'll be happy to help you. Thanks again :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem mate, after all everyone makes mistakes. Enjoy the rest of your day.

27.96.199.20 (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Busy Day Today Huh?

I keep seeing you in Huggle. About every other page. You are quick. There seems to be more vandalism then normal today. Leave some for me. Also, I did not know you could use three tides to sign your posts! Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners

Hi LakesideMiners! Don't worry, I'll leave some for you ;-)! You can, but look at your signature above ^^ ... leaving three tildes omits adding a timestamp to the end of your signature (fun fact: adding five tildes will only add the current timestamp, no signature). You typically always want to use four tildes when signing your messages ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

T Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners

H Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

X 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Why, just just why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clive_Nolan&oldid=810516365 Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners 19:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dominic Selwood Edit War

Hi Oshwah So you've semi-blocked editing on the Dominic Selwood article because? At the very least, with the references I supplied, 'Masonic Conferences' should be explicitly listed as the kinds of meetings Selwood talks at. I cannot make that change presently. Perhaps you'd be good enough to do so - and perhaps give me a personal reply? Oh, and if you could just clarify that you have had no links with Freemasonry yourself - nor been contacted by those concerned? Thanks. 202.239.38.179 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You can request an edit be made on a protected article by creating an edit request on the article's talk page. The guide I linked to you here will provide you with all of the necessary information, instructions and requirements. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

The IP 209.240.233.18 is being a nuisance and has cleared some of the warnings off his page. Would you like to consider blocking him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Mobius strip animation

Hello :) I think the animation is quite useful. Orientability is often defined in mathematics lectures by considering a frame of reference that becomes indistinguishable from its mirror image when moved around the space it is in and I thought the crab was a good illustration of this. Is there some way I could integrate it into the page more usefully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishtodd1 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hamishtodd1! Ohhhhh, okay. That edit makes a lot more sense now that I look at the equation of the plane and its attempt to explain symmetry. I apologize for the confusion; I've restored the changes you made describing the image. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks for leaving me a message and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385)

Hello Oshwah, I'm Maximilian Mizerski. I see you reported me for vandalism. I removed the y after display because for some reason, there was an error when playing the hymn. It would say that there were no lyrics, even though I recently added lyrics to Bogurodzica in both Polish and English. I was going to edit it eimmediately after and put back the y in display. You removed all of my contribution on that page which I had to put back. I put the national anthems there in the first place.

Thank you! I hope to hear back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmizerski2000 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maxmizerski2000, and thank you for leaving me a message here! I went back to the article and manually restored the original changes you made to it, and then appended your latest revision to the restoration; the article should now be exactly as it would have been if my reversion didn't exist. What I originally saw when patrolling was this edit you made. I initially believed that this was the only edit you've made to the article, and didn't realize that this edit followed the other edits you made. I reverted this edit believing that the change you made was simply because you wanted to test stuff. Unfortunately, what happens with the software I'm using to patrol and make changes is that it looks at your talk page and finds how many times you've been warned in the past, and it automatically leaves the next warning level. Since you have two warnings on the top of your talk page now, the software doesn't leave a warning for edit testing on the third warning. The third and final warnings left on user talk pages are worded exactly the same if it was over a reversion for an edit test or a reversion for vandalism. This is why you received the particular warning on your talk page from me and stating that what you were doing was vandalism. Really, it was my fault - I should have noticed and realized that you had made other edits, and not just the only one that I saw, and had I noticed, I wouldn't have reverted what I thought was a removal of only one letter from the article. I hope that my explanation here helped you to understand exactly what happened and why. I definitely didn't think of you as a vandal, even though the message left and the revert I made said otherwise :-). I apologize for the confusion this caused you. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you further. Thanks again for leaving me a message, and I wish you happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation

Hi admin! You messaged a user, who is actually a sockpuppet of blocked "User:Shameel Done". Check how he has vandalised Fawad Khan. Please aso see User talk:Alexf#Sock investigation, File:Ahmed Shameel.jpg and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shameel Done. Thanks! M. Billoo 04:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi M.Billoo2000! Thanks for leaving me a message with this information. Have you filed an SPI? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What is an editing break?

An editor added a so called "editing break" to a discussion in a talk page. Is that something legitimate? Where can I find more information about it if so? Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Thinker78: He's just putting a heading for a better layout. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It introduces a new subsection that permits easier location in a thread for adding a new comment without loading the entire thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Evading user talk page block

Infamia appears to be evading his talk page access block with this IP edit. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter - I've blocked the IP for block evasion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Trust Definition

What is not constructive about my edit? I simply offer an alternative fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DE77:D300:BDF0:5CBD:5DB1:C3CD (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Company on wiki

Hi I am trying to create new page for my website. I want to show about us of my company on wiki. So help me Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloraZone (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@FloraZone: I've given you a Conflict of Interest notice. I would advise not to try to write about your own company on wikipedia, as you have a conflict of interest. If your company is notable, then someone else will write about it. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 10:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

hey!

Why you delete my page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAYTHAMALFIQI (talk • contribs) 10:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi HAYTHAMALFIQI, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on user pages (namely, what you can have on your user page and what you can not). User pages can be deleted under this criterion if the user page violates the guidelines I linked you, or falls within the criterion's description. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message, I welcome you to the project, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit Salvator Mundi (Leonardo).

the painting that you see is not Christ and is not Supposed to be used as Christ. the Symbolic hand sign's used in the painting along with the orb. are very symbolic. if you search Baphomet on wiki you will see why i am correcting you. the devil worship hand sign in the so called painting of Christ is clearly being replicated. this is a clear representation of the Anti-christ trying to appear as something holy. Jehovah god is my witness and you will be just as accountable. don't take a double portion of gods anger on their behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm823 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Baked Alaska change explanation

Hi Oshwah,

My addition to Baked Alaska was after Twitter ruled the 'entertainer' to be banned competently for beging an user that only distributes racisme as a of revenue.

Since his feed was a daily occupation(considering the volume and longevity), racism is a large part of the revenu generation for Baked Alaska.

Because of this I would define his occupation not only 'entertainer' but also 'racist'. I don't consider describing what people do for a living 'non-constructive' but factual (as per wiki spirit).

can you help me explain the fine line between (for example) describing Hitler's attributes , but it's not constructive about current people(who openly say they are)?

best regards, Wouter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.149.75.75 (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit you made here is not constructive, and hence I reverted it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit

Hi, why was my edit removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigman3000 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Change my edit

Why was it changed?? Thebigman3000 (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Given the response & my edits (with explanation). Please help me understand why you keep reinstating the deletion tag. I made changes and gave a reason for why I deleted some of the content. Kind Regards.

This page is not unambiguously promotional as the additional information included serves to provide context to the manner in which Digitization of Education is utilized, as "edutainment". The manner of application is central to the youth-based nature of initiative. Please also note that the inaugural periodical is pro-bono. The Cover is used as it is tied to Escalating US Dissention (though is in no way biased or partisan). Also, every other picture added in the past has been an issues (logo, picture of an interview, etc.) so this seemed to be the most palatable. That said, I am happy to delete items (select cities, etc.) which imply a "promotion-based" agenda. All that is required is direction. --The LOVE Movement (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Eleazer at The LOVE Movement (TLM) (talk • contribs)

I've responded to your second request for assistance below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Escalating US Dissention (2nd Request for Assistance)

Hello,

Not to belabor the point: However, I did not create the page - Nick Gilliard did. What I would greatly appreciate is a review of the changes I made from the time of the original request as well as the original dispute I filed (if you're available and time permits). I have every intention of abiding by the parameters. Kind regards Oshwah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Eleazer at The LOVE Movement (TLM) (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Eleazer at The LOVE Movement (TLM) - My apologies for mixing you two up. Are are correct: under policy, the only editor restricted from removing a CSD tag on an article is the editor that created it. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to assist you further. Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Ja22tb‎

I don't whether you know the answers to the questions being posted at User talk:Ja22tb‎ regarding ways of proving a users' identity ? The question of deletion is altogether another matter.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Velella - You need to tell him to contact Wikipedia's Volunteer Response Team by visiting Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. This will put them in touch with the appropriate team, who have the tools and training to handle this situation, verify his identity, and respond to his requests. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My WP:ANI Report

Hi. Since you have responded to my report,[2] then would you please finalize it? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wario-Man - Sure, I'll re-review the ANI you filed and do what I can to assist. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on Ibtihaj Muhammad

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ibtihaj Muhammad. -Opluset (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The picture in the Trần Thái Tông article

Dear Oshwah,

The picture 松陰論道圖.jpg is a crop (a part) from this painting. Its Chinese name means “Discussing the Dao in the Shade of Pines”. The painting is printed in the Book 宋代小品繪畫（三）(Song dynasty paintings, vol.3). Author: 尹然 (Yin Ran). China. The People Fine Arts Publishing House. 40 pages. 2010. ISBN 8102039.

Beside, please see here, with information that:

• The paintings also called 松荫论道图 (meaning: Discussing the Dao in the Shade of Pines) or 三教论道图 (meaning: Discussing the Dao from Thee Religions).
• Traditionally the painting was attributed to the famous painter Liu Songnian 劉松年 (ca. 1150 – after 1225), but painting's style is relatively weak and during Song dynasty (960-1279) there were too many paintings with theme “Three Religions” (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism), so that currently attributed to anonymous painter (佚名畫家).

From my point of view, three characters in the painting represent the three East Asian religions: Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, in which the figure in the 松陰論道圖.jpg is a Confucianist in the Song dynasty’s costume. So that, use this picture to illustrate Trần Thái Tông (1218-1277, the king of DaiViet) is unreasonable. Khonghieugi123 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

85.181.240.51

FYI, Special:Contributions/77.179.48.107 appears to be making very similar edits to the above IP you recently blocked. –72 _(talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

72 - Ohhhh, yes.... there were actually A LOT MORE than just this additional IP. It looks like it's stopped though. If you see any more of them out there, please let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey newbie

No chance! 92.229.133.109 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Chukwalla

Hi, I did not do any mistake, this was the wrong person sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowlion100 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, I am currently working on a college project. We are supposed to be adding information we found in our research and adding our new information into a previously created entry of Regulation of Emotion. We plan to edit the information into a neutral point of view and try reentering our information into the entry.

Thank you for your message,

Emily