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

Major Sockpuppet Help

I hope that you are doing well. I'm having some major issues with a varity of, what I strongly suspect to be sockpuppets, who are attempting to strongly push POV on United States Air Force Security Forces, Air force infantry and special forces, and infantry. The case is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrkoww, but I am unsure of how to proceed, as it seems that there is a major backlog. Do you have any words of advice? They do not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, but rather force their thoughts on these articles. Garuda28 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like they are correct on the content issue, and that you are insisting that casual, offhand references to "infantry" are reliable sources for such an assertion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s a content discussion I am willing to have. I am pulling primarily from a number of Air University reports, but there are other sources that support it as well. My larger concern is that it seems that either major canvassing or sockpuppetting occurring, which followed a significant amount of vandalism, making it next to impossible to have the conversation. If you would like to help be a third party opinion though, I would be more than happy to have you in the discussion. Garuda28 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that you are confusing casual, informal usage with something substantive. I encourage you to reconsider your position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Garuda28! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. Putting the content dispute and article talk page discussions aside and focusing only on your concerns of sockpuppetry: I took a look at the SPI report you created. I commend you for taking the time to create and insert a well-detailed analysis of your evidence and information, and for including diff links with almost each claim that you make in your description and evidence. Many (if not most) editors do not take the time to add their evidence and thoughts correctly and with diff links and as much detail as possible (something that is needed with every SPI report that is created); thank you for taking the time to do this. I've added a comment asking the user who used their checkuser tools to clarify something in their findings. After this is done, I'll take another look at the report and go from there. Regarding the content dispute and talk page discussions in relation to the dispute: I'll leave you to Cullen328's responses and his judgment, as well as Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol to resolve. ;-) That being said, please don't hesitate to respond with any further questions or concerns. Either Cullen328 or myself will be happy to answer them and discuss them with you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Retirement

Hi,

I saw this, and I'm sure you'll be delighted (or maybe not...) to hear that Wumbolo may not be the only one you need to talk out of retirement (not that this is the first time I've thought about quitting...). Writing articles and reverting vandalism used to give me satisfaction and pleasure. Now however, all that's gone down the khazi : I can't say or do anything without it being taken amiss. I think I know how Wumbolo feels, and I doubt anyone would care if I follow suit. I saw this article the other week, and I'd like to say it's shocking, but I can't because it isn't as I can relate to nearly all of it. No-one's dared to come out and outright say it, but I think it's been made clear (in ways that may not be obvious to you or to others but are to me) that I am not wanted on this project, yet for some reason I am still here. Do you have any idea what that reason could be? (I wonder this all the time and am frankly at a loss... ) Adam9007 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! I appreciate you for messaging me with your honest thoughts and feelings, and for asking me for advice in this regard. I'm sorry to hear that you feel unwanted on this project, and that you no longer gain any kind of satisfaction or pleasure from contributing your time toward Wikipedia. That's a feeling that I completely understand; I've felt this way with many other aspects of my time and how I've lived my life and dedicated my time toward. It's a feeling that isn't fun at all to experience long-term with anything in life (not just Wikipedia), nor is it a feeling that's easy to realize and talk about, let alone resolve on your own without help and support and/or making significant changes. :-)

I definitely want to help you; you're a dedicated and excellent editor, and I'd really hate to lose you... In order for me to try and help you, this will require that I ask some questions in order to try and get to the root of what's making you feel this way. Is there something recent or specific on Wikipedia that you witnessed, experienced, or were given an unpleasant response from a user or group of users? Something that's been bothering you or still makes you feel disheartened, sad, upset, or feeling rejected, excluded or left out by others from? Are you being harassed or consistently poked or given a hard time by a user or group of users on Wikipedia that's making you feel like it's becoming grueling? Is there anything going on long-term on Wikipedia that you're dreading or find yourself frequently trying to put off looking at, responding to, or taking care of? These sorts of things can definitely contribute to what you're thinking and feeling now. Getting input, support, and help with addressing them and putting these issues and feelings to bed will definitely help. If you're feeling burned out, tired, and need a break, definitely take one. There's no rush or obligation to dedicate edits or time here, and your personal life and time outside Wikipedia should always take priority. Let me know about the questions I asked you. I definitely want to help talk it out with you and help you if I am able. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there something recent or specific on Wikipedia that you witnessed, experienced, or were given an unpleasant response from a user or group of users? Something that's been bothering you or still makes you feel disheartened, sad, upset, or feeling rejected, excluded or left out by others from? Well, yes. Is there anything going on long-term on Wikipedia that you're dreading or find yourself frequently trying to put off looking at, responding to, or taking care of? Sort of. Are you being harassed or consistently poked or given a hard time by a user or group of users on Wikipedia that's making you feel like it's becoming grueling? Hmm... It's somewhat difficult to answer that, but yes and no. You're probably already aware of past dramas, but there are two recent incidents that have caused me to lose what little gaiety I have regained since. 1) I was removing copyvios and trolling (because I removed the copyvios) from the sandbox, only for an admin as good as blame me for starting the drama in the first place and refuse to do anything about it. I mean, these were copyright violations! I was under the (now apparently mistaken) impression that they were not tolerated anywhere on this project. 2) Once upon a time, comments like this were considered aspersions (and rightly so). Now however, that kind of behaviour seems to be acceptable (at least when directed towards me). Of course, I asked about it, and his justification was basically just "this editor says so" and blindly took his word as gospel. "This editor", by the way, seems to loathe me with a passion and I'm convinced he'd love to see me leave or thrown off the project. The fact that he didn't apologise, and no-one criticised him for it, suggests (however subtly) to me that the community as a whole hold me in complete contempt. Heck, someone once claimed that (if I remember correctly) I go around the encyclopaedia changing 'happy' to 'gay, and of course another editor blindly believed that and suggested I be indeffed despite having no proof that I have ever done anything of the sort. It all just goes to show that people will blindly believe anything negative said about me, which speaks volumes about what they think of me. There are some really nice people here, but the community as a whole is toxic and uncaring. And I meant what I said about relating to the article: there was one incident (nearly 2 years ago but it still haunts me) wound me up so much that I... probably best not go there here. But basically people really need to stop assuming bad faith, because that's what they're doing. Adam9007 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

reverting vandalism used to give me satisfaction Well, reverting all this gave me a hint of satisfaction, but only a hint . Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adam9007 - Wait, so you were blamed for causing issues because you were removing copyright violations from the Wikipedia sandbox? What kind of 'trolling' were you removing from there? Can you provide diffs so that I can take a look? As far as copyright violations go: It doesn't matter where they're added to on Wikipedia, violations of copyright are not allowed and have to be removed and (if necessary) revdel'd under WP:RD1. We're generally much more tolerant and loose regarding what is added to the sandbox in general. After all, it is a sandbox, and if someone is going to add the word "POOP" 10,000 times in a row, I'd rather they do it there than anywhere else. But... duh, there are limits! It's the same concept as adding death threats, blatant BLP violations, libel, or the personal information of another user: Just because you add it to the sandbox doesn't automatically make it okay. It sounds like someone handled this situation the wrong way, and you've been given the short end of the stick as far as the benefit of the doubt goes. I understand how these assumptions of fault on your part without any proof because you have some past bumps in the road would make you feel like it's always following you, and that you'll be constantly in that pit of being "marked" or "flawed" because of it, and how it would drag you down and make you feel like you're never going to get out of that "pit"... I'm sure that this is what's causing you to feel this way. That's not fair on you, and I don't like hearing that this is going on. I've of course only heard one side of the story, but this isn't about investigating and who was right/wrong... it's much more deeper than that. What can we do to get you out of this pit? What do you feel would make things right and make you feel better? Am I accurate with what I'm confirming in my response here? What do you think is the right policy regarding the trolling and copyvio content? I'd like to hear your thoughts behind this and see what I can do to help.... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, so you were blamed for causing issues because you were removing copyright violations from the Wikipedia sandbox? Well, no-one outright blamed me for anything, but the downright dismissal of my report (it was rather disruptive, even if it was in the sandbox) that said basically that I shouldn't patrol the sandbox certainly implied that the disruption was (at least indirectly) my fault as it wouldn't have happened had I turned a blind eye (are they seriously suggesting that I just ignore copyvios just because they're in the sandbox?!?! ). Or perhaps it was dismissed simply because it was me who raised the issues? (everyone knows how "disruptive" I am, so why should anyone take anything I have to say seriously?) I sincerely hope not. I can't know this of course, but I doubt (especially if something as serious as copyvios are involved) that such a report would have been dismissed had it come from someone else. What kind of 'trolling' were you removing from there? Amongst other silly comments, posts like this. As for the second incident, that's far more long-term (I don't know if you know the story behind it?) I mean, I'm being judged as a Wikipedian based purely on my supposed (I must stress that word, because it really doesn't matter if it's true or not: what does matter is that people here think it is) real-life beliefs (I should point out that, to my knowledge, nobody on here has ever met me in real life, so how can they possibly know for certain?). And anyway, I thought that if someone wants to accuse me of such a thing, it's up to them to prove my guilt. But of course with me, I'm guilty until proven innocent, as it is with just about everything else on here too. The supposition, by the way, is based purely on a misinterpretation of something I had on my userpage back in the days of yore, not my actions on the wider project. What can we do to get you out of this pit? What do you feel would make things right and make you feel better? I'm not sure that anything cam be done to reverse the damage. That's kind of the whole point . Adam9007 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - I'm sorry to hear about all this... no one's legitimate concerns should be dismissed and blown off, and users should never be discouraged (either directly or indirectly) from voicing their concerns and reporting what they believe to be issues that need attention - even if their concerns end up being incorrect or regarding things that aren't a big problem. Had I received this report from you regarding the addition of copyright violations to the Wikipedia sandbox, I surely would have acted upon it and handled the issue just like I would if it were added to any other page. Regarding the random silly comments and troll edits (such as the one in the diff you provided above): I would've just responded to you and told you not to worry about those. Like I said above, if users are going to add stupid stuff to a page on Wikipedia, I'd much rather them add it there. Unless it becomes threatening, libelous, or a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, just let them be stupid on the sandbox page and take the necessary actions (revert and warn) if their silly edits start to move anywhere outside of it. :-) That's all that should've been done and said to you in response to your report of concerns regarding the sandbox and nothing more... messages, comments, and replies in response to good faith reports and concerns should not be dismissive, uncivil, or scold or berate the user in any way - even if it's found that they've violated policy or done something wrong. It should obviously be mentioned and the user talked to about it, but admins are not above other users and admins are not users who get to scold, wag their finger, or treat editors as if they were below them and needing to be round up and disciplined. That's only going to cause them to feel exactly how you're feeling now. I'm sorry that your concerns weren't given the proper attention, response, and the proper direction and help. If it makes you feel better, you're welcome to report issues or concerns to me in the future, and I'm sure you know that they'll be looked into and/or handled, and I'll give you the assistance and follow-up that you deserve and should expect to receive.

You know, ...it never hurts to take a break and come back in a few weeks' time to see if your thoughts and feelings improve. :-) Please don't let yourself get burnt out; it's important to be healthy, have a balanced life, and put things down once in awhile to pick up other things for a bit. :-) I think that (as with the issues and bumps in the road that you experienced in the past) time will heal all things. If users are consistently not treating you the way that you feel you should be treated here on Wikipedia, stop being involved with them and stop letting them do that to you. Express your feelings to them directly, and tell them that the way that they treat you bothers you and that you don't believe that it's okay. You have the right to be treated fairly and like a human being; don't be okay with being constantly being treated in ways that leave you feeling how you're feeling now. One of the quotes that I have on user page is quite relevant right now: "Raise your words, not your voice. It is the rain that grows flowers, not thunder." You obviously don't want to be rude, uncivil, heated, or angry in your messages to users like this, but you should be assertive and express your feelings fairly. Why not take a break for a bit, and after returning, commit yourself to doing what you believe is necessary to ask others to stop responding and behaving in the way they are to you? What do you think? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to reply by email (for reasons I hope you'll understand when you read it). Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - That's completely fine. I understand; not a big deal at all, and you're of course welcome to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's finally been sent. I've probably missed out much of what I wanted to say, but it was jolly difficult to write (it's always harder than I think it'll be). Adam9007 (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand, and I appreciate the email. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

LAO VISA IS REQUIRED FOR PAKISTANIS!!PAKISTAN NOT INCLUDED IN LAO EVISA EITHER

i made another contribution regarding ethiopian evisa for pakistanis,so today simply wanted to correct another country,s visa requirements which is LAO,according to lao evisa official website,pakistanis are not eligible for evisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.138.247 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! If this is true, then there should be numerous reliable sources that you can find and cite in-line with the content you're modifying. I'd also discuss your changes on the article's talk page if you believe it to be legitimate and true. If it is, other editors will have no problem helping you to locate references and update the information. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano "Best Teeth in the Game"

Hello

You removed the line I wrote regarding Anthony Fantano's nickname, The Best Teeth in the Game as being a personal analysis. If you watch his videos, it's something HE refers to HIMSELF as. It isn't a bias.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLl-IfTj3WM 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUrwgufwfho 3.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVWEl_0nSMU

And many more. I will be reverting this change

166.62.251.17 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for clarifying what you were intending to add with your edit here to Anthony Fantano. It appeared to me at first look to be a random addition of content rather than an attempt to append a nickname to the infobox parameter. I also thought that (what I believed to be) the random addition of content seemed opinionated and not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This is why I reverted the edit and left the subsequent note for you on your user talk page. Again, I appreciate you for messaging me and for clarifying your edit. Just make sure that the addition of content you make also includes in-line citations to sources that are reliable. This is truly important given the fact that the Anthony Fantano article is a biography of a living person (which have stricter requirements regarding the need to cite reliable sources). I apologize for the misinterpretation of your edit, and you're welcome to restore the change you made to the article. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to help you further. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Courage the Dog

I'm not sure why I need a citation. All it says is that the last episode called Perfect is considered the most bizarre episode. This has statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.104.108 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message regarding the edit you made to List of Courage the Cowardly Dog episodes. I'll be happy to help answer your question. :-) When adding content to articles such as this - content that indicates that something is "frequently, highly, or commonly considered to be [something]" (namely, something opinionated or based on the viewpoint of others), this should be supported by citing a reliable source in-line with the text. This section of Wikipedia's verifiability policy details when a reference should be cited. Among content containing quotes, data, figures and numbers, dates, and other such information, content that is controversial or likely to be challenged if no reference is provided should include an in-line citation to a reliable source. The content you added was vague, and seemed like the type of content that normal readers and editors would challenge. Hence, a reference should be cited. Who is saying this? What people believe this? Who conducted the study and retrieved this information? How do you know for sure that what you added was true? That many people consider the episode to be "bizarre"? Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and statements such as these need references to verify and support the claim. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. I hope that my response was helpful and that it provided you with understanding with when and why such content needs to be supported with citations to references and sources. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Corvus macrorhynchos

How do i upolad a video i took in japan for this? (don't mess with this crow it hangs out with bears that are fighting) Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser - You're trying to upload a video to the WMF to use within an article? Have you read through Wikipedia's page on the use of videos within articles? If not, I believe that this would be a good place for you to start. Let me know if you have any more questions. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Nice hair! THIS IS not vandalism. I am merely spreading Wikilove. 65.246.71.70 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

HA! I appreciate the compliment! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi oshwah

I'm putting in the reasons I'm sorry will try harder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilburrifahy (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gilburrifahy! No worries! Please let me know if I can help you with anything, and I'll be more than happy to do so! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		At first I thought this was a one off thing (and totally told someone off-wiki it was the sweetest thing ever!), but now I've seen it again in my watchlist. That's really kind of you to message a bunch of users kind things like that. (': ... and then immediately go back to blocking vandals lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi MJL! You were actually someone who was next on my list to message and say hello to! That's actually quite funny! ;-) Thank you for the barnstar and for the very kind words. :-) It's little things such as saying hello to others, wishing them a great day, and telling them that they're valued that will help to make the community culture a positive, peaceful, and collaborative one. I try to reach out to users like this occasionally and tell them how much they're appreciated. Given the recent frustration, controversy, and drama that's been happening with the community - it's more important than ever before that we do our best to maintain a happy culture. We need our experienced, cherished, and dedicated users and editors more than ever, and I'll do whatever it takes to help them to stay. Whether it means helping users during hard times, keeping them safe from harassment and abuse, or spreading some happiness and cheer in hopes that it makes a positive impact on at least one person... I'm happy to do it. :-) I hope you're doing well, and I wish you a great day and happy editing! Thanks again for the barnstar... I appreciate it very much. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] That's pretty funny! I couldn't agree more that stuff like that helps keep users around long term (Example) Community has been hurt pretty bad with this recent drama stuff, but hopefully we will get back to fine and maybe even better than before. You're a good admin Oshwah!
BTW, are you still accepting adoptees? Asking for a friend who is looking for one based on my offwiki advice. Sorry for the late reply. I'm suddenly very popular today. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL - I appreciate the compliment. It means a lot to me, and I can't thank you enough for it. :-) I'm always accepting adoptees and users who need a mentor and/or someone to go to for help. What's been going on with your friend? How new is he/she to Wikipedia? Are there any particular areas or past issues that are causing them hardship and stress? Any information that you can provide about your friend, what his/her needs are, what his/her desired goals and outcomes are, and exactly what situations, events, areas, or past issues and other things are keeping them from reaching those goals - I'll be able to provide more focused and detailed thoughts and help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on that reply... They said they would.. Hmmm... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi ~Oshwah~! I happen to know the identity of this mystery person. It is (drumroll) me! Anyway I did not know MJL was going to ask you for this, but a warm thank you to them and to you. :) In response to your questions, I'd like to send you an email. (I will also copy MJL on it.) (I'm both a slow writer and a procrastinator so give me a little bit of time...) WanderingWanda (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi WanderingWanda! It's great to meet you! Sure, take your time; there's no rush. I'll be in and out of coverage over the next few hours, so I'll likely be able to read my email messages later tonight. Rest assured, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Looking forward to helping you out and providing you with the assistance you need! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind email, Oshwah. I really appreciate it. Unless you have any objection, I'll put the adoptee template on my page. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda - Nope, no objections here! :-) You bet; always happy to help! Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Far From Home

What did you completely protect the page? I requested it because a sockpuppet constantly adds unreliable content. --Mazewaxie 11:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Again I'm not a sockpuppet and your the one who started this whole edit war thing instead of taking to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killgrave45 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Killgrave45! Thank you for responding here and for providing input to this discussion. I agree that the issues regarding the two articles are content-related, that edit warring has been occurring on these articles over the last few days (if not longer), and I believe that unless detailed and convincing evidence is presented and a sock puppetry report filed and the matter investigated, it's not okay for one to refer to another as a "sock puppet". Even if the fact is true, calling someone a "sock puppet" is only going to make matters worse, cause the user to become angry and the situation to become heated, and (if anything) would only encourage the user to engage in more disruption and policy violations... why would we want to do that? :-) As I stated in my response to Mazewaxie below: You need to start a discussion on the articles' talk pages, and seek consensus using Wikipedia's proper dispute resolution protocol. This is how these disputes are going to get resolved - not with back-and-forth reverts and edit warring. Please be careful and please keep Wikipedia's edit warring policy in mind when making edits and when faced with a dispute like this in the future. It can result in your account being temporary blocked, which would obviously suck. So just don't do that. :-) If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to respond here and let me know. I'll be happy to help you and answer any questions. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Mazewaxie! I hope you're doing well and that you're having a great day! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. I'll be happy to discuss them with you, set expectations, and make sure that your concerns regarding sock puppetry are properly reported for investigation. :-) Given the back-and-forth edits being made between yourself and Killgrave45 between these articles, as well as the edit summaries you've both been leaving with these edits, it's clear that the issues that are currently present are over content-related matters. To resolve these content-related disputes, you must start discussions on the articles' talk pages, and you must properly resolve these disputes by seeking consensus. Continuing to make reverts in a back-and-forth manner as you both have been doing is disruptive, and clearly won't lead to the issues and disputes being resolved. In addition, these reverts are clearly in violation of Wikipedia's edit warring policy, which states that you must stop making reverts and edits to the article once a pattern of back-and-forth reverting begins to arise, and resolve the present issues or disputes by discussion and consensus. Please be careful and please keep this in mind when making edits and when faced with a dispute like this in the future. It can result in your account being temporary blocked, which obviously isn't a good thing. :-)

If you suspect sock puppetry by this user Killgrave45, you need to file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (SPI) and with full and proper evidence, diffs, and details provided; have you filed an SPI report about this user? Can you provide me a link to the report so that I can take a look at it? Who do you believe that this user is a sock puppet account of? Unless sock puppetry and abuse, vandalism, or other purposeful or malicious disruption is clear and blatant, we should not assume that one is a sock puppet because they have issues with the content or the article that you're editing, and we should not make such accusations without clear evidence to support them. Doing so is uncivil, and is generally very frowned upon and seen as disruptive by the community. We need evidence to your thoughts regarding sock puppetry, and until a case is established, we should not be calling other users "socks" or "sock puppets".

Please let me know if you have any further questions, concerns, or if there's any information or details that I've missed. I'll be happy to take a look at them and discuss them with you. :-) Please also let me know once you've filed an SPI report so that I can take a look and investigate. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Hi, thanks for your time. I have already reported Killgrave45 here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hhggtg3279. It's a situation that has been going on for days, this person keeps creating new accounts and he always makes the same edits on the same pages, adding poorly sourced informations (he uses blogs, rumors, leaks etc. as sources). I already reported him when he edited as DrChaos56 before as you can see here. I'm sorry if I was too frantic in my edits but this user brings your patience to the limit (I think you may have encountered similar cases in your Wikipedia career). I would love if you could check Killgrave45's contributions and compare them to Hhggtg3279's and DrChaos56's. You will notice that they are indeed the same person. Thanks for your time again and I wish you happy editing. --Mazewaxie 12:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Killgrave45 has been blocked. I think now you can remove the full protection on the pages. Thanks for your help. Happy editing :) --Mazewaxie 14:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mazewaxie! Thanks for the updates, the link to the SPI report, and for letting me know that the user was indeed a sock puppet account. I've gone ahead and restored the previous protection levels that were set on each article before they were modified by me today. I appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this situation and matter. As you probably know and understand already, when I have the "admin hat" on, I have to do my best to reserve judgment, act fairly and neutrally to all parties involved, make sure that the policies and guidelines are followed by everyone, act consistently and treat everyone the same (no playing favorites), and I have to assume good faith by default until I see clear evidence and information showing that I should assume otherwise. Until I was linked to the SPI and made aware of the resulting actions and the block, I had to manage the situation fairly with the information I had, which was why I initially treated the matter as a content dispute (I didn't see any blatant vandalism by the user; just content-related changes to those articles). In the end, the issue has been resolved, which is what's most important to the both of us. Thanks again for your messages and for following up with me here with your concerns. Please don't hesitate to message me any time you need my input or assistance, and I'll be happy to help! :-) Until our paths cross again... ;-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand everything and I think that you are doing your job really well. Thanks again for your kindness and for your professionality. I wish you a nice day and happy editing :) --Mazewaxie 14:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Mazewaxie - And to you as well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the same person that got blocked has created a new account and has started to make disruptive edits again. I reported him here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hhggtg3279. --Mazewaxie 10:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Mazewaxie! Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to your updated message here. Great! I'm glad to see that you've reported the user by updating and amending the SPI report you originally created. If it hasn't already been handled and closed, I'll take a look at it and see what I can do. :-) Thanks again - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Happy editing! --Mazewaxie 09:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A small request

Hello Oshwah, is it possible for you to delete the very first description I gave in [REDACTED - Oshwah]? It contains some private info (you'll see), which I would very much like to remove.

ty :) Mm.srb (talk)

Mm.srb -  Done. I've suppressed the revision you described and it should no longer be a concern. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Mm.srb (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the second one, just above the one you edited -   moved User:...to User:Mm.srb: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "..." to "Mm.srb" undothank. Mm.srb (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Mm.srb - What concerns require this revision to be removed or suppressed? Can you elaborate a bit further so that I can understand? :-) Oh, and I forgot to mention this to you earlier: You should send deletion and suppression requests like this to me privately by emailing me instead of requesting them here or anywhere on Wikipedia publicly. As an example, my user talk page is currently being watched by 970 Wikipedia accounts and users, and they each are aware that someone has edited this page as soon as it occurs. This means that your requests can potentially draw the attention of 970 people immediately when you add them here. As the Streisand effect has proven time and time again, most users who read your request will purposefully try to locate the revision in question in order to view it before it becomes hidden from them. This is obviously not what you want to have happen at all, so make sure to email these kinds of requests to me privately in the future (for your benefit and for your protection). ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Good God, I did not have such a number of followers in mind at any moment. Point taken, you are very kind. It is my old nickname, which is related to some really bad memories from the web which I would like to surpress and undo on all levels. Mm.srb (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mm.srb! I appreciate the compliment and your kind words. :-) Unfortunately, this revision may not be able to be revision deleted or suppressed due to not meeting the criteria and requirements listed on each page. If this is incorrect, please let me know and I'll be happy to proceed. I'm just bound by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as the fact that I'd have my advanced user rights revoked in a heartbeat if I were to use these tools improperly and to hide revisions and content that do not meet the criteria required. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's well earned sir. :) I was a bit vague, if it is possible I could send you a link (via e-mail) which would explain the matter much better, as it is also a matter of privacy. Mm.srb (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Mm.srb - Sure, no problem. You're more than welcome to email me the information and details if you're concerned about matters of privacy. I'll await your email and get back to you there. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Help :)

Hi Oshwah, I would need a help if it is possible. An article (Draft:Anissa Lahmari) I have created got moved to draftspace citing lack of sources. I have added sufficient sources since then, however it is yet to be reviewed. Can you review it and make it as an article if it is possible? Thanks in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoeist (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kokoeist, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your concerns and your request. Unfortunately, I won't be able to review or approve of your draft for inclusion or publishing to the Wikipedia mainspace. This is because of the fact that active members of the AFC team, users who are familiar with the process of reviewing submissions and providing feedback, should be who performs the review of your draft. It would be improper and inappropriate for me to just step in and start performing reviews and moving drafts around; I would be interfering with the AFC pending drafts queue, how AFC users handle and respond to requests, and I would potentially be messing up their workflow and important elements of the project and process. They maintain an established culture and set of norms, as well as a list of users who have been OK'd to participate and review submitted drafts. I am not a user who is active with the AFC, and hence I would be causing disruption by performing reviews and modifying submissions without their permission and prior approval. Just be patient, and someone will review and respond to your request. If you have specific questions regarding your draft, or if you need help with something specific that doesn't involve actually reviewing the draft under the AFC process, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) I appreciate your message, and I hope that you understand why I cannot simply cut you to the front of the line, and step in without permission to perform actions that I'm not OK'd to perform. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, thanks for finding time to reply! Yeah, I understood how it works now. Didn't knew much about it before. Guess I will stay patient till they find my article :D Again, thanks for helping out. Have a good day! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoeist (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Kokoeist - I hope you have a great day as well! Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any more questions or need help with anything else. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding SPIs

Hi, i figured you're probably the right person to ask. Some weeks ago i noticed a pattern in the editing of a dynamic IP range that makes me think an indefinitely blocked user might be evading their block by editing through that range of dynamic IPs. I continued to assume good faith and of course not name them, but i've compiled a bunch of diffs which seem to back up my thought. Should i straight up open a sockpuppet investigation or post to some other noticeboard like WP:ANI? If SPI is the answer, what can be done about it, since IPs can not be linked to accounts for privacy reasons? Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 19:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyamo Kurosawa, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your observations and findings, as well as your questions with how to properly report your concerns. I believe that the best place to report your concerns is at ANI. SPI is for reporting users who are suspected of creating and controlling more than one account in order to cause abuse or for reasons that are against policy. While listing IP addresses within your SPI report is perfectly fine and happens quite often, you wouldn't want to create an SPI in order to only report suspicions of abuse between IP addresses and not any user accounts. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and please keep me updated and let me know when you've filed this discussion at ANI so that I can take a look. :-) I'm quite curious to take a look at it and see what I can find.... :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_block_evasion_by_Calvinkulit. Thanks for your assistance so far. Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 00:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nyamo Kurosawa - Thank you for the response and for the ANI link! I'll take some time tonight and take a look at the report. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any more questions or if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You might have already noticed that the IP got blocked a couple of days ago; the report is now archived here. Again, thanks for your assistance! Happy editing and Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 10:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Username

I seem to sense something a tad suspicious about this account, but can't put my finger on it. But it doesn't appear to be related to 96.72.167.254, so I'm wondering if it could be considered a misleading username? Am I imagining things? Adam9007 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! Your suspicions were correct! This account has been confirmed as an LTA and indefinitely blocked. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

LTA of who, I wonder? That kind of username rings a bell... Adam9007 (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Good question! I would perhaps ask the blocking admin (Edgar181) if he knows the sock master of this LTA. You could also try performing a search at SPI to see if this account pops up in any report filed recently... ;-) Let me know if you manage to find out who this account belongs to. I'd be quite interested to know! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, my first thought was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP (the username resembles an IP address, even though part of it is in Chinese numerals), but I don't think the account history matches... I'm currently busy typing that email though (not to mention it's 3:44am where I am :)). Adam9007 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Dang, dude! You're either up very late or woke very early! Don't overwork yourself and let yourself become exhausted. Remember that there's no rush and there is no deadline on Wikipedia. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope: there doesn't appear to be any SPI cases that have that username. There are also no links to either the talk page or user page. I'm still none the wiser :(. Adam9007 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Interesting... I wonder if perhaps Bbb23 is familiar at all with this sock user... I'm pinging him in order to see if he has any information that he can share that will help us. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry folks but I really don't see why this matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's Arturo, and I generally agree with Bbb23 on this. Also, don't file an SPI for any username like that. Just block and have a steward lock. They'll catch him on loginwiki cu. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Gardner Edgerton

The information on Wikipedia regarding the athletic conference in which GEHS plays is inaccurate. I was simply updating this information to reflect the accuracy of reality. Here is the link to the Sunflower League website which validates my change: https://www.sunflowerleague.org/g5-bin/client.cgi?G5genie=403. Even the Wikipedia page for the Sunflower League correctly identifies Gardner Edgerton as a member, not part of the EKL. Please review and revert my revision to present accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.48.58.47 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message and for letting me know about this. It looks like you've already restored your changes back to the article, so I'll go ahead and leave well enough alone and leave you to it. :-) Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything, or if you have any further concerns. Thanks again for explaining your edit, and I apologize if my revert caused any frustration or inconvenience upon you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dominatrix link

Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.248.250 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! :-) The reason that your edits to the Dominatrix article (such as this one) were reverted was because it provides an unnecessary external link to a website and in a manner that advertises and promotes it. Wikipedia is not for advertising and promotion like this, and links such as these are one of many that should not be added to articles on Wikipedia. This can be considered link spam, and is disruptive and not allowed on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for the message, and I hope that my response helped you to understand the reason behind why your edits were reverted. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take you to answer..

Why did you delete the dominatrix link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.248.250 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see my response to the message you left above. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparent COI needs explaining and resolving

Hello, the grinnest Wikipedia admin I ever met! I hope you are well and it's a beautiful weather at your place.
I haven't bothered you for almost a month, but here's another issue I don't feel able to resolve.

The automatic tag at this edit special:diff/908357035 in the article I watch attracted my attention to the user, and I found most of their recent contributions is adding references to the same scientific publication. I do not know that work and can't verify if it's really applicable to all those articles, but I'm concerned about the coincidence of the publication coauthor's name and the Wikipedia user name.

They were already notified about the concern at their talkpage and I feel it should be explained. However, as you know, I don't feel fluent enough both in English and in Wikipedia policies details to proceed. Not to mention I'm on vacation now, away from my computer, and with a smartphone at hand only, which makes hyperlinking with all the markup, as well as searching through Wikipedia resources, quite cumbersome.

So, if you don't mind I'd ask you to take care about explaining and resolving the apparent COI, as well as possible further reverting all coi-related edits done by the user.

May the gigahertzes and petabytes be with you! :) Best regards! --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi CiaPan, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns regarding this editor and the references they've been citing on articles and with their addition and modification of content. I agree with your concerns: The two sources referenced and cited by this editor in recent edits he's made (1, 2) appear to be written by this user since the author (or contributing author) of these sources is listed with the same name as the editor's username. The issue here is two-fold: Not only is this obviously a potential issue in regards to conflict of interest (which can add concerns regarding the content being changed and Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy), but also a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research since he's citing his own publications and references to support the content being added.

Sure, if the account isn't stale and the user has made more edits like this since the time you messaged me here about it, I'll be more than happy to talk to this user about their recent edits, and help explain the concerns and violations of policy that we're observing. Enjoy your vacation, be safe, and I'm sure we'll speak soon. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan - It looks like David Eppstein reverted some additional edits that were recently made by Alexeytuzhilin that were adding self-promotion and original research to articles, and he's talking to Alexeytuzhilin about it. Unless David Eppstein requires my assistance with talking to Alexeytuzhilin and/or helping to resolve the matter, I'm going to leave David Eppstein to it so that I don't step on any of his toes. ;-) Thanks again for letting me know about this, and I hope you have a great vacation. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

Hi Oshwah, hope you're doing good. I see you have left a message on user Idreamofjeanie's talk page regarding their use of rollback a while ago (which, AFAIK, they haven't responded to your message either), so maybe you can help me here. A few weeks ago, I partially translated the Gua sha page into Portuguese. While I was doing it I noticed two things: the wikilink on Placebo effect was going to a redirect page, so I decided to bypass the redirect; and when translating the History section I noticed that the section isn't really about the history of Gua sha, but only talks about how it was also part of Vietnamese culture under the name of Cao gio and the history of that. So, in my translation (pt:Gua sha), I decided to go with "Cao gio" as the section name, which felt more appropriate, and I left a comment on the English article's talk page suggesting the same be done there. After a few days without a reply, I went ahead and made the change myself, with an edit summary explaining it and pointing to Talk.

Now, I think it's pretty clear that I made two good faith edits. I would go as far as saying that my first edit was objectively speaking an improvement (bypassing a redirect, which, BTW, a kind soul has just done it again) and I would be willing to have my second edit questioned and debated and maybe lose the debate, although I still feel like the current title of the section doesn't accurately reflect on its content. And then IdreamofJeanie rolled back the two edits.

So I went on their talk page and left a message. One day later, when I logged back in, I noticed two things: the user had opened Wikipedia and made several changes to pages (mostly reverts and rollbacks); and my comment wasn't answered. So I left another message. Then I waited, it's been a few weeks already, and now I would like to see if an administrator would look into their behavior. I took a gander at IdreamofJeanie's contributions and I get the feeling that this is a very useful, helpful user, with a good history of reverting vandalism, but maybe they're a bit too trigger-happy with that rollback button. Now, I don't wish to see them lose their rollback privileges, as I think the vast majority of their edits are positive, but having been at the other end of one instance where that privilege was misused, I would like for them to at least be made aware that they got it wrong this time, and to be more careful in the future.

Best, VdSV9•♫ 15:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi VdSV9! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns regarding IdreamofJeanie's use of rollback to revert the changes you made to Gua sha, and your request that I look into this user's behavior and use of rollback further in-depth. I definitely remember leaving that message on IdreamofJeanie's user talk page after I had noticed some issues and concerns last year. It's disappointing to see that more concerns are being expressed regarding IdreamofJeanie's use of rollback since then - especially knowing that they've been talked to before about this (albeit just over 7 months ago). It obviously adds even more concerns when I see that IdreamofJeanie hasn't responded to your messages and your requests for an explanation.

Other editors and admins who know me well can easily vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes and accidental reverts involving rollback over the years that I've been an editor here. :-) However, I will say that when I noticed or realized that I messed something up, I reverted my mistakes and fixed things as soon as I found out, and I did what I could to make things right for the article and the editors that my mistaken revert impacted. In general, that's what one should be expected to do when they've made a mistake like that: Clean up after their mistake completely (and without the other user having to perform any of that clean up), apologize to those that the mistake impacted, do what's needed to try and make things right, and make necessary efforts to try and improve from that mistake and avoid making it again in the future. You certainly don't ignore their messages to you asking "what the hell?", and leave that user hanging like this... :-)

I'll leave a follow-up comment underneath your messages on IdreamofJeanie's user talk page and see if I can't help nudge him/her to respond to your requests. I also feel the same way that you do: That IdreamofJeanie is a good faith user who makes positive contributions, does very good work, cares about the project, and wants to do what's within his/her ability to help build and improve Wikipedia and keep it free of disruption and abuse. No editor is perfect and we all make mistakes... especially an editor such as myself. :-P We always do our best to understand good faith mistakes, to educate, help, mentor, and coach other editors to improve and learn from them, and assure them that mistakes are a normal part of learning and that we don't hold mistakes made in good faith against them so long as they learn from them and do what's necessary to avoid repeating them in the future. Repeated mistakes made in good faith can become disruptive if the user makes them consistently or constantly, or if the user doesn't show any sign of improvement or that efforts are being made to improve and after repeated messages, warnings, and opportunities are given to them to do so. If repeated warnings and other measures are taken by an admin or the community to help the user correct the problem and to no avail, appropriate and necessary action can be taken in to prevent further problems (such as revoking the user right, escalating the matter to ANI, or other measure where appropriate). Mistakes can impact many people, take varying amounts of time to undo and resolve, and can be quite frustrating and perhaps upsetting to those that they impact. We must be sensitive to the good faith users who make occasional mistakes, and we should give them the appropriate space and room to improve on their own. However, at the same time, we should also be understanding to those who these mistakes negatively impact, and help diffuse frustration and anger when they arise.

I'm going to look into IdreamofJeanie's edit history and his/her use of rollback. If it's found that IdreamofJeanie uses rollback inappropriately or to revert good faith edits and at a rate or level that I believe to be unacceptable, I'll follow up with IdreamofJeanie appropriately. Please let me know if you have any questions or additional concerns, and I'll be happy to discuss them with you and help you. Thanks again for the message and for coming to me with your concerns, and I hope that my actions help to resolve matters and to ease any potential frustrations. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and thank you for taking the time to look into this. Please let me know if something comes of this. Cheers! VdSV9•♫ 12:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

VdSV9 - You bet. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Oshwah. Don't know if you noticed, but this isn't going well. VdSV9•♫ 18:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

VdSV9 - What do you mean? What's up? I'm taking a look to see what's changed. Please let me know as soon as possible... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

VdSV9 - Nevermind... I took a look at IdreamofJeanie's user talk page, and I discovered what was said by him/her in response to your messages... I'm sorry that you were treated this way and that your questions and requests for an explanation were not provided in the manner and tone that we expect of users who are given these rights. As of a few minutes ago, IdreamofJeanie no longer has the 'rollback' user rights. Please let me know if I can answer any questions or provide assistance with anything else. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ramrancher8

Hey Oshwah, you blocked User: Ramrancher8, and it looks like they violated their block by editing from 2606:6000:6a51:be00:94c4:faad:8ee5:bf14 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is Ramrancher8 edit and then the IP restored all the events that were removed in this edit [1]. The IP has also been editing the same genre of wrestling articles that Ram would edit such as Summer Supercard. What really gives it away is they both edited a random obscure non-wrestling article Wolverine World Wide. So maybe a block for the IP and a longer or reset block for Ram. Thanks for your time good sir. StaticVapor message me! 21:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi STATicVapor! Thanks for leaving me a message here and for letting me know about the ongoing problem involving Ramrancher8. It looks like the IP user you reported to me here hasn't edited since July 30, or else I would've been happy to take action against them. I went ahead and added semi-protection to the 2019 in professional wrestling for two weeks. If the issues continue after the protection expires, please don't hesitate to let me know or file a protection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (this is the recommended thing to do in case I happen to be away or offline). Someone will be happy to take a look at your message or request and do what's needed to resolve the matter. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This IP geolocated to the same city as the one we just talked about, also editing the same genre of wrestling articles, including Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Summer Supercard, World Wrestling Council and Honor For All (2019) (which Ram created). So it appears the block is still being evaded. I am sure Ram knows they are blocked they're just purposely editing under an IP to circumnavigate their block. StaticVapor message me! 17:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

STATicVapor - Sorry for being late to the party and for taking so long to respond to your updated message. The IPv6 address of the IP you mentioned above (2606:6000:6A51:BE00::/64) has been blocked due to abuse. Please update me here (or file an AIV or ANI report) if you see any more similar issues, and we'll be happy to take another look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor - Acknowledged; will check my email and respond tonight. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fram

Hello there Oshwah! I hope you are well. I had a question regarding an incident which I'm sure you will know about regarding the admin Fram. I was wandering what it was all about (in simple talk, it was confusing when I was trying to read about it) and why people are annoyed at the WMF for the ban. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! Are you looking for a simple explanation of what happened and why it's causing a lot of frustration and controversy? Sure! I'll do my best to TL;DR it for you and in with a neutral point of view. If any information I state or summarize below is inaccurate or incorrect, please respond to this discussion and let me know! Here's an explanation of the "Fram controvery" that I can give and that's as simple as I can summarize it without leaving out key details and information:

Basically, it all started when the WMF imposed a one-year foundation ban on Fram, an admin and active editor on Wikipedia, as an official office action - citing reports of off-wiki harassment and an investigation that the WMF performed. The WMF removed the administrator user rights from Fram's account and blocked the account for one year. This comes after the WMF had amended their abilities to add that they can impose time-limited partial WMF bans on users for various safety reasons and violations of WMF policy.

Shortly after the ban was imposed, the admin rights removed, and Fram's account blocked for one year, a Wikipedia administrator reverted the block that the WMF applied by unblocking Fram's account. The WMF then went back and restored their one-year block by blocking the account again. Shortly after this was done, a different administrator went and unblocked Fram's account the same way that the first administrator did. The WMF then responded by removing the admin rights from the user who had performed the second unblock. A bureaucrat user then restored the administrator rights onto both Fram's account as well as the account of the administrator that reversed the block again and that the WMF subsequently removed the rights from afterwards. These subsequent admin and bureaucrat actions have prompted the creation of many discussions, debates, proposals, and ArbCom requests - two of which were accepted and one of which are still currently open (1, 2).

While some editors were okay with the WMF's decision and the actions they took, many Wikipedia editors were not. A significant portion of the community was upset by happened and what the WMF did, for various and different reasons among them. These reasons include (but aren't limited to): A lack of public-facing evidence proving that violations had occurred, the belief that the "partial foundation ban" gives the WMF too much power, what the WMF did was too much and/or without satisfactory input or involvement with the community, and many others. The WMF has since offered some statements in response to the series of events that occurred and made promises to improve communication and how things are handled in the future. They also indefinitely suspended the use of "temporary Foundation global bans" and "partial Foundation bans" (see this section of WMF's Office actions page for details) while community discussions and relevant matters are worked out.

You can read more information about everything by visiting this community discussion page. I hope that my explanation was easy to read and understand, and that it didn't go into too much detail for being a TL;DR. ;-) I haven't read up on the issue recently, so things may have changed or have updated since I last looked through relevant discussions. If you have any questions, you're welcome to ask me, but you may receive a better and more up-to-date answer by vising the page at the link I provided to you above. Thanks again for the message and the request, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, your summary is very well written and I thank you for it. If you could sharpen your pencil and trim 1/3 of the words, it would probably end up as the best summary available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328! I appreciate the comment and your very kind review of the summary that I gave above. Trimming it down by 33% wouldn't be hard to do. ;-) I'd just trim the different reasons editors are upset that I listed to be down to just a few, and cut back some of the details (that the ban came after the WMF modified their abilities, that the WMF indefinitely suspended those abilities, etc). Thanks again for your thoughts and your input. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Great! Send me the bill for your pencil sharpener, and I will forward it to the WMF for reimbursement, after having rubber-stamped it "Approved!" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 - HA! That's funny. :-) If, however, you think I should actually shorten my summary (maybe put an updated version below) so that it could be used somewhere, do let me know and I'll actually shorten it. I doubt that this is the case, but I figured I'd mention this just in case I'm wrong and it really is. :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My friendly suggestion is to just edit it down a bit so that you so that you do not feel obligated to mention TL;DR in the second sentence or include any emoticons at the end. That is all up to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 - I like the suggestions; thank you! :-) However, I didn't think of those paragraphs as actually being part of the summary that I gave - those were just responses directly to Willbb234. I added a collapse box around the actual summary in order to resolve any possible confusion. If I'm missing something from your suggestions, if my response doesn't resolve the reason you suggested the changes, or if you still think that the "TL;DR" and the emoticons still involve issues with the summary or vice versa, let me know. I might just be confused with the "why" behind the suggestions you made. :-) Thanks again! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought of it is thoughtful fun, but opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Ah, got'cha! No worries; I think that's where I got confused. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That really helps and I can now understand the fustration. My question came in light of an admin request for Fram’s second account (I believe) and also the fact that I kept on bumping into ‘Fram this’ and ‘Fram that’. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 - No problem! Glad I could help! Please don't hesitate to message me if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi,

Would it be possible for the developers to move the 'Good edit' button away from the revert buttons? I accidentally marked this as a good edit! Adam9007 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! HA! I've accidentally done that before, too... a good handful of times. :-) I even had to modify my Huggle settings and remove the 'G' key from being mapped as a hotkey (it marks the edit as a 'good edit' by default), as I found myself accidentally pressing it instead of another hotkey, and marking edits as 'good edits' that way.... ;-). Have you expressed your idea on Huggle's feedback page yet? This is the place to propose these ideas and changes, as it is monitored by Huggle's IRC channel and patrolled by active developers and users of Huggle. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Even worse things have happened (not just on Huggle) as a result of me pressing/clicking the wrong button! (and I'm always pressing the wrong button, usually the button next to the one I intended) Maybe the interface should be customisable. No, I haven't put anything on the feedback page. I'm not really sure what to say... Adam9007 (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - That might be a difficult task to make the interface modular like that, depending on how they've coded it. If you find yourself annoyed with the button clicking, you should perhaps take a look at the hotkeys and get them configured to the way you want them. If you do it right and in a way that's comfortable to you, you shouldn't run into any more "accidental presses". ;-) There's no "special" trick, language, or use of words that you need to know about when it comes to starting a discussion on the Huggle feedback page; the exact way you worded it in your original message here is perfectly fine. Just start a discussion and express your thoughts and ideas... nobody is going to bite you. :-P lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

nobody is going to bite you I wouldn't be so sure of that, lol. Also, has that "older than 1 day" bug been reported before? I'm still getting that. Adam9007 (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - That sounds familiar. Is this the issue where warnings and messages aren't left on user talk pages because Huggle believes that the disruption occurred more than 24 hours ago? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Joy..... it can't hurt to bring up that issue there as well. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for acting fairly and decisively, and keeping Wikipedia free from vandals and spammers Railfan23 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Railfan23! Thank you for the barnstar and for the very kind words. I appreciate it very much, and it means a lot to me to hear that what I'm doing makes at least some positive impact on other users. :-) I'm happy to hear that my actions are seen upon as quick and decisive, but much more importantly I'm happy to hear that my decisions and actions are neutral and fair. Again, I appreciate you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nate Speed

Did you get my message about his death "threat"? I was thinking (second thoughts) that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to send it to you after all? (but his socks really were/are out in force tonight!). Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007 - I just got home and sat down at my desk. I'm going through my emails and responding to them now; stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I got those threats too, reported them to WP:EMERGENCY and to WP:SPI. --IanDBeacon (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And I've just received another abusive email. Didn't forward it to you this time though. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah beat me to it, Ian. He's on call, apparently. I may not be here for much longer; don't know what bbb is up to, but it's a Friday night, so they're probably out clubbing. I know bbb is a big Prodigy fan, and it's been almost five months since Keith Flint's death. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, Adam9007, IanDBeacon - Don't worry, I'll be around and available to help throughout the evening should more threats, abuse, and other shenanigans occur. Just let me know and I'll be happy to handle the matter and take care of it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you believe someone just vandalized Tuscaloosa...as if that town isn't already battered enough. / Oh, it was someone from Marion--no wonder. At least Tuscaloosa has past glories it can pride itself on. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think my brother saw those messages and (or so I'm told) he thought I was winding him up! HA! Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Tehepicness appears to be going through articles removing and altering punctuation, piped links, and special characters, leaving the articles consistently worse off. They have continued doing this despite multiple warnings on their talk page. I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia, but you and your talk page watchers have more experience in making that judgment, so I'm reporting it here. If you have a chance to take a look, thanks in advance. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bakazaka, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the edits made by Tehepicness. I appreciate you for letting me know about this. It looks like this user hasn't edited since earlier on August 2. I can look into what's going on, but I'll need to hold of on taking potential administrative action until the account becomes active again. In the meantime, you're welcome to file discussions and reports at AIV or ANI if you feel that this is necessary. I'll see what I can't find as well. Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

They're back, doing the same pointless/disruptive edits. Bakazaka (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bakazaka! Thank you for updating me on this user's contributions. I've reverted the edits that the user made, and left a message on their user talk page in order to try and help and educate the user. Please keep me updated, and let me know if the user continues to make these edits. I'm hoping that the user will follow my advice and reach out to me with questions. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

And again, they're back. I reverted the edits that others didn't already catch. Bakazaka (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Bakazaka - I blocked the user temporarily for these repeated changes. Hopefully this will get their attention and either open a door for communication, or get them to watch their edits and review the guidelines that we've repeatedly given them. Let me know how it goes. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia

Why is this version protected? Santasa changed it in the middle of the night, and "his" version is full of Bosniak nationalism. He is not participating in any of the discussions or meditiation I've opened (at least to my knowledge), just playing edit wars. I'd asku you to at least change to previous version till the discussion end. Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Čeha! When applying full protection to an article, it's not appropriate for me to choose a revision or modify it unless there's a serious violation present on the current revision (such as a BLP violation or violation of copyright). I don't get to go back and pick a "good revision" that I favor or think is better and revert anything. I'd be choosing a side over another, playing favorites, and giving an editor an advantage over the other. That would be inappropriate and unacceptable behavior on my part, and I would be violating the protection policy and the community guidelines and norms if I did this. The dispute needs to be discussed between yourself and the other editors involved. If the other user is not engaging in the discussion or responding to your pings and attempts to work this out, let's reach out to other editors who have modified the article and get their input. This way, we can come to a consensus and get a revision published that's agreed upon... consensus doesn't require that editor's participation. If he/he isn't responding to reasonable attempts to get them involved, things need to move on without them. I personally agree that the article should not have content that's favoring or pushing a point of view that isn't neutral, but I'm bound by policy to be a neutral and uninvolved party when taking actions such as this. I hope that you understand... Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. The sooner that consensus can be reached, the sooner that the revision can be modified and such content removed. ;-) I wish you good luck, and I'm here and available if you need me for anything. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Tnx. Is there any way to speed up the process? Some meditation maybe? --Čeha (razgovor) 11:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Since this thread concerns me and implicating me directly, I am compelled to do what I avoided on previous occasion when page was protected and user panickingly started making threads like this, that is to make just one important point:

User:Ceha didn't start this thread nicely - they misleadingly implied, in their words: "He is not participating in any of the discussions or [meditiation] I've opened (at least to my knowledge), just playing edit wars.", it is actually quite the opposite. I started all but one discussion, and this one initiated by the User was not in line with the basic guidelines of the projects, especially those concerning conducts, nevertheless I responded to that one as well but without user further engagement. User did panicked when the page got protected on previous occasion, and instead of engaging issue with me on TP they started running around various notice boards, lamenting its protection in a way just like here - unconstructively - and since I am not too crazy I avoided, like everyone else on those threads, to engage there. So just to clear the air a little bit, in case user persists in seeking further assistance from User:Oshwah. It's quite telling this amount of panic and contempt.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Santasa99! Thanks for responding with your input and thoughts regarding this issue and dispute. If there are concerns about someone not participating or responding to relevant discussions and attempts to communicate, or concerns about someone going to different noticeboards and other locations to try and forum shop and have someone endorse their preferred revision, we can easily resolve this confusion by simply starting a new discussion on the article's talk page, and where you're both notified and aware of its presence, and where you've both given the expectation to work things out peacefully and follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol. :-) Ceha, I'm pinging you in my response here so that you're notified and aware of the plan. I just started a new talk page discussion here; can you both navigate to this discussion and join in so that I can help you two work out a solution? :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Tnx! I realy hope that something can be worked out, less Santa starting ad hominem "panic" accusations and similar behaviour. Cheers :) --Čeha (razgovor) 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Čeha - Keep participating in that discussion, and keep working with Santasa99 to try and find some common ground. You don't have to agree upon a revision that has all of the solutions present. If you two can at least find a revision that you both are okay with and that resolves some issues, even partially (and even if they're small), and that can be published for now while you two work out other details, you'd be off to a great start and you'd be starting things off on the right foot this time. ;-) Be patient, be civil, be respectful, and be kind. Make sure that maintaining a peaceful and friendly discussion has just as much of a priority to you both as the discussion itself and reaching a consensus regarding the article content. I'm here, available, and happy to help if either one of you runs into any questions or needs my input or advice - all you have to do is let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying, but the guy hasn't stoped. He systematicly removed any traces of Croatian people and history in the article, and worse yet he litteraly speaks about nothing, spining the discusion and accusing the others. I suggested going trough all the changes to see what could be compromise in it, but he declined it. Please help. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

For third and last time, page protection is the best opportunity for you to make constructive changes, because in this mode your every edit will be endorsed (or not) by administrator(s') approval, while not me or anybody else will be able to meddle or undo your edits. Of course admin who controls the process will certainly tend to adhere to WP guidelines very, very stringently.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Santa, have you read what Oshwah wrote? Current version is a random one. I suggested that we compare both versions of the article, paragraph by paragraph (with Oshwah help if possible), and find a solution, but you cling to your version of article?

The one which breaks every possible wiki rule, the one which talks about austro-hungarian conspiracy against not existant country at the time? Oshwah, please help--Čeha (razgovor) 00:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99 - What Ceha said above was correct; I kept the latest revision that happened to be published on the article, because it would be against policy as well as my duties and responsibilities to change the revision and purpose save a different one. We of course modify the revision to be saved and remove any serious violations of policy (such as copyright violations, violations of BLP, libel, and other things), but otherwise, I don't choose a revision that I think is "better" and save it. It would be seen by the community as 'playing favorites' and 'choosing sides' if I did so. Have you two reached any kind of agreement on the article's talk page? Anything at all? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, your patience is something rarely seen around Wikipedia. I understand your position perfectly, and I even have this proposition: I wouldn't mind if you retroactively change article to Ceha's preferred reversion, but maintaining and even lengthening protection for another, say, two weeks, but on one small condition: that you are willing to broaden your involvement just enough to understand issue better, in order to help in bringing it to its conclusion.

This could mean that you need to:

0) - essential - you would control any of the proposed moves, mergers, changes, based on WP policies and guidelines;

1) spend some time and read through all the discussion points on article TP;

2) ask Ceha, me or anyone else about sources (and verifiability in general);

3) check the state of two other articles on the same subject (Bosanska Krajina and Donji Kraji - yes, it's a blatant case of forking for reason only gate-keepers could explain);

4) - important one - you would than express your insight, and possibly: i) give us your suggestion, or ii) ask for suggestions, iii) or both, or propose something completely different;

I know that your involvement in this way would make Ceha more flexible, and I know that guidelines and policies would be your main compass, so I would accept any of your solutions, assuming you are at that point familiarized with most of the important points.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

One additional thing: as an administrator, I am guessing here, you probably have some option of summoning your peers, with Balkan history issues and editing experience, at your disposal. I wouldn't mind if admins like Joy (who is himself Croatian editor) and admin Peacemaker67 (almost completely devoted to Balkan modern history), or editor Surtsicna (who is devoted in editing and promoting East-European history articles to "Good") could accept to join in resolution of the issue.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I know this is humongous request, you have your own life beyond these pages, and on them you have your tasks as an admin, but matter is both very simple and unsolvable at the same time - simple, according to WP guidelines and policies (article was already merged once, but then created again in same form without any sources, so it should be merged again but this time with the deletion of redirect and restriction on new re-creation); unsolvable, with editor who doesn't know WP guidelines and policies, or doesn't care and /or accept them, or for whatever reason doesn't understand them.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User Santasa removed my response in this paragraph, I'll (in good faith) supose it was an accident. It's this edit; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOshwah&type=revision&diff=909913775&oldid=909905786

Personly, I think that it's very simple, and that it should be changed back to my prefered version, and anything on that can be discussed on page talk version. Without imperialistic conspiracy theories, and similar vordings...--Čeha (razgovor) 20:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course it was an accident. Discussion between two of us shouldn't go on and on on admin's page. Article page is protected for now and any subsequent revert wouldn't be appropriate, but I suggested it on very specific terms. However, I don't think it is a fair toward Oshwah to demand such involvement.

Now regarding "conspiracy" claims of User:Ceha :

- Austria-Hungary (see Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina) entered Bosnia in 1878 as an occupying imperial force and held a country for full forty (40) years as an occupier and for the good half of population (mainly for Bosnian Serbs) as a worst kind of oppressor and an enemy, which ended with an Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, which lead to WWI;

- Croatian pretensions (as well as Serbian) on Bosnia began to realize with Cvetković-Maček agreement deal, and came to a full fruition with a begining of the WWII and occupation by forces of Independent State of Croatia (or NDH for short) and its Ustashe as part of the Axis powers. And again with Croat-Bosniak war 1993-1994.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, first, the occupier was the Ottoman Empire, imperial force with permanent expansionist aspirations and permanent danger for neighbours and that eradicated the Christianity, especially the Catholicism.

Worst oppressor were the Ottomans. With the Austro-Hungarian rule, there was no more humiliating 2nd degree status for the Christians (Croats and Serbs). No more forceful islamizations that occured even in 19th century.

With the Austro-Hungarian rule, Bosnia and Herzegovina felt unprecedented quick development on all fields (equality of all citizens, infrastructure, education, media, traffic, healthcare, economy - industry, science...); Yugoslavia bragged with success that Austro-Hungary achieved.

Assasination of the Archduke has been the terrorist act. He was not killed because the "oppression" towards Serbs, but because his policy directly endangered Serbian territorial aspirations. Until 1903, Austria-Hungary was major Serbia's external partner, and since the coup of 1903, Serbia turned against Austria-Hungary and pro-English and pro-French.

Turkish Croatia was the name of Kingdom of Croatia that has been occupied by the Ottomans, and that's why the name Croatia appears on the old maps, before the end of Napoleon's times.[2][3] To take the crown of Kingdom of Croatia, Habsburgs had to accept the conditions that Croatian nobles gave (otherwise they would choose the another monarch) - the return of territories occupied by the Ottomans. [4] (map from 1791, by Austrian cartographer Franz J.J. von Reilly: Special Karte von dem oestreichischen and osmanischen Koenigreich Kroatien) Bosnian Eyalet was also on the territory of todays Croatia, as well as its part Sanjak of Bosnia. [5] [6] (Donji Kraji are just small portion of Turkish Croatia)

It is wrong and unfounded to explain the events from 1526 (Election in Cetin), 1791 etc. with the events from several hundreds years later. Kubura (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Osh! (By the way? can I call you that?)

Thank you Oshwah for deleting my user page and giving me an explenation instead of just making me think you did it for no reason. You probably saved me from a bunch of stuff! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintmcneal (talk • contribs) 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flintmcneal! Welcome to Wikipedia! No problem; I'm always happy to help new users and lend them a hand in order to make sure that they have a good start here! :-) Sure, I don't care - you can certainly call me 'Osh' if you'd like. ;-) Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or need any help, and I'll be happy to assist. :-) Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope you stay awhile! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem like such a cool person! Thanks for being on Wikipedia!

Hey Osh, do you wanna be "Wikipedia Buddies"? Lol. But seriously, you seem like such a cool person! Thanks for being my "Wiki Bud"! Flintmcneal (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flintmcneal! I never say "no" to making wiki-friends with another editor! :-) Your pal, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bye Oshio!

Bye Osh-Bud! I'll stop talking to you for now (unless you wanna keep talking)! Flintmcneal (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flintmcneal - I'm always happy to keep talking, but you should definitely go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial instead! It's going to provide you with a lot of important and useful information that you should know about. If you have any questions after finishing the tutorial, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Call me Striker!

Hey dude! BTW, could you call me Striker? It's the name of my dad's comic I found it in his sketchbook while cleaning the garage (also my spin-off) and I thought it would be appropriate since i'm calling you Oshio and stuff like that. (You don't have to if you don't want to). Also, do you watch the show Cheers or is that just what you like to say? Flintmcneal (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flintmcneal - Why not change your username to 'striker' or something close to it (since 'striker' is taken)? That way, you'll be referred to by that name by other editors, since it'll be your username. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

GlobalYoungAcademyTeam

Hoi, at Wikidata and English Wikipedia I have added many members of Youth Academies. The Global Young Academy is the international organisation. The objective of the user GlobalYoungAcademyTeam is to have a user that owns all the pages that will be on user pages on many wikipedias. Currently they are a [of my profile]..

So please unblock the user GlobalYoungAcademyTeam, it will be used for this particular purpose. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi GerardM! Thanks for the message regarding these two accounts. Unfortunately, these account usernames are not in compliance with Wikipedia's username policy. If I could rename them to something else (a username that represents an individual person, such as "Nick from Global Young Academy" for example), these accounts would no longer have any issues and I could then unblock them. Please let me know of two usernames that I can rename them to, and I'll be happy to take care of that. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

nighty night!

Gonna go to bed now Wiki-buddy! Goodnight! Flintmcneal (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flintmcneal - Goodnight, my friend! See you next time! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Flint

Hi Oshwah, could I get your advice about our apparently mutual friend Flint, above? They're not vandalising anything, but all their edits seem kind of... high, as well as tendentious. Were that to continue, what'd be the right response? Of course, you can act independently; I was more wondering how I should respond myself if I came across something similar in the future. It's a kind of timewasting that doesn't fit the style of the boards I read most. › Mortee _talk 12:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mortee! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions, which I believe are excellent ones to ask. :-) Users who solely or primarily use Wikipedia as a social network, or a place to chat or communicate in manners like this, aren't collaborating toward the project's goals and its growth, and hence ultimately are considered to be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. This use of WP:NOTHERE is a somewhat catch-22 issue, though; accounts that are determined by discussion or other means to be not here to contribute to the project are usually those who are purposefully or intentionally causing disruption to the project to some level or degree. However, even users who aren't intent on causing disruption or harm to the project can be determined to not be here to contribute to the encyclopedia if their edits show that they primarily or solely use Wikipedia for purposes that are not in-line with our goals, or for purposes that it isn't for. We should always assume good faith when we encounter these users, and encourage them to go through Wikipedia's new user tutorial, and help them to get involved with a project. This usually resolves the matter without further problems. :-)

The last thing we ever want to do is bite them or (even worse) chase them away or show new users like this the exit door if they were simply editing in this manner because of their lack of experience and understanding. This "tendentious behavior" you're observing could be positive enthusiasm expressed by the user because they're excited about the project and their intent on contributing positively to it. If this is the case, we should never turn these people away. They are who will be here to edit and take Wikipedia in its next direction as older and more seasoned editors (sadly) retire or move on, and we need all the positive users we can get! As years go by, this kind of positive excitement and enthusiasm has become all but a rare thing to see around here, and it would be horrible of use to chase someone away who intends on adding that positive attitude as a member of the community. If worse comes to worst, we'll have to take action upon the user in order to prevent further disruption, but until that becomes even a thought, we should try and help the user focus their energy to helping us. This user reminds me of exactly who I was when I first joined Wikipedia in 2007, and had I been given the boot, I wouldn't be here talking to you, nor would I be the editor (or even the person) I am today. :-)

If you have any more questions or concerns, or if you need my input or advice on anything else, please let me know and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, I wouldn't want to bite anyone and I've answered them positively at the Teahouse. I was just thinking ahead, but in the process I was probably getting ahead of myself. Thank you very much for such a detailed and thoughtful reply, and your emphasis on being welcoming. You're entirely right and I appreciate the nudge towards being charitable. › Mortee _talk 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Mortee - No problem; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) Like I said, if worse comes to worst, we can handle the matter very easily and put a kibosh to the disruption. I try my damnedest to try and educate and help the user, and exhaust all of my available options before going down that route... but it's sometimes inevitable that some users will have to be blocked before it'll stop. Some people out there just don't want to accept our help, and would rather continue about their business even after being told that what they're doing is disruptive. You just have to do your best, play your full hand of cards, and hope that they'll understand and cooperate. If I can answer any more questions for you or explain anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know. :-) I wish you a great day and happy editing! Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

for summarizing WP:FRAM for your talk page stalkers. I was really looking for one. Wish we could talk about it more over a beer if only Kms didnt matter. DBigXrayᗙ 15:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray! Thanks for the pint, man! :-D I'm happy to hear that the summary I gave is helping others to understand the situation and what happened. I hope that we can move on from this, and that we continue to grow as a project and a community of users. We need to enact necessary measures so that we consider the WMF to be a valuable resource that helps the project and the community grow and improve, and not just some entity that we reject and shun from being able to stop harassment and abuse. If we fail to put a stop to the harassment and abuse that many users face, this project's growth will only be cut that much more short... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree on everything you have said. I consider Fram as a very good admin. Did WMF release the details of Fram's crime ? Do you as an admin consider the crime (or whatever is known of it) block/desysop worthy ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

FIST

Hello Oshwah. Are you familiar to this tool? It just doesn't work or I don't know how to use. Puduḫepa 16:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Puduḫepa! I've seen this tool a handful of times, but I've never run a search from it myself. It should search and locate public domain and free-to-use images on various sources, such as the internet, Wikimedia Commons, and other locations, and locate articles relevant to those images where they can be added in order to improve them. I tried running a few searches just now in order to test it out, but I'm not getting any results. I wonder if there's documentation somewhere that we need to find and read through so that we can retrieve results that we're looking for... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - AHA! I changed the option on the top of the FIST page from "categories of articles" (the option selected by default) to "articles", entered the word "tree" into the search box, and it came back with a result. It looks like we just need to select the options that we're trying to search for... :-) It looks like the search box is supposed to take a list of data, not just a single entity... this is also probably why we're seeing such little (or zero) results. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I have entered the same word (tree). The tool has found one article but does not specify which article is that. Puduḫepa 16:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - I think the search we entered was the article, and it's trying to locate free-to-use images for it... I think.... I could obviously be wrong. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks anyway:) Puduḫepa 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - No problem. Sorry I couldn't be of much help here... Let me know if you manage to figure out how to use it. I'd be interested to see what you find out. If you need my input or assistance with anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Will let you know when I manage to figure out how to use that tool. Happy editing(: Puduḫepa 17:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Puduḫepa and Oshwah! Possibly you should also fiddle with options in the last section of the tool's form and change the default choice 'List - Articles that have no image' to 'All articles'. Otherwise the example Tree article should not be listed as it contains images already. But that seems a secondary issue. The most important is after finding one image the search ends with a message 'There was an error running the query []' which seems to be a result of executing some empty query. I have no idea though, what the exact reason and context of the aparent failed empty search is. --CiaPan (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Yes, I am A Wikipediholic.  :-) --CiaPan (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa and Oshwah: now I found the message about 'one found' does not mention any image but rather article. And it changes to '3 articles' when I enter three page titles in the first textbox of the form. So this is a report on parsing the user's input and has nothing to do with actual search for images. --CiaPan (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Puduḫepa and Oshwah! The tool is described at m:FIST and there's also a link to it's author's User page there. Possibly he should be notified about the issue (if he is still active, which I didn't check). --CiaPan (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's not that new: a similar or even the same problem has been reported at m:User:Magnus Manske#FIST is broken in 2008. --CiaPan (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa and Oshwah: I have registered an issue at BitBucket:

https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/fist/issues/10/error-running-the-query

and notified the author at m:User talk:Magnus Manske#FIST error running an empty query?. Best regards. --CiaPan (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, CiaPan. Puduḫepa 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan - Excellent! Thank you for doing this! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Protect

Hey, I saw that you recently protected the article Yandhi due to frequent vandalism. I'm not sure if this is the right way to ask, but can you protect the article ASAP Mob too? There's been frequent vandalism from multiple editors adding "A$AP Donny" and the such as a member as a result of ASAP Rocky's trial in Sweden. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nice4What! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your request. It appears that the article was semi-protected by another admin since the time you left this message, so you should be all set to go. ;-) If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help you. :-) I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

AIV

Hi again,

I came across this, which is, although not technically a report in the usual sense, clearly an attempt to deflect blame and get me into trouble. Is {{Uw-aiv}} appropriate for edits like that? I think it's within the spirit of the warning, even if not the letter. I fear I may have caused further aggravation by using it in this case (although he was in a mardy mood anyway). Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! If you're a completely uninvolved and neutral third-party who happens to run into a report at AIV reporting a user for vandalism when they haven't engaged in such, then yes - {{subst:Uw-aiv}} (make sure that you substitute it, not transclude it) would be a perfectly fine note to leave for that user (other than just leaving them a custom message). If you're in the situation just like the one you linked in your message here, and where someone is reporting you to AIV, I wouldn't respond, do anything, or take any kind of direct or indirect action as a result of that report. Let someone else handle it. The only things that will result from doing so will be negative and a waste of your time. It'll give the user "ammunition" to load and wave around, and use to further push their thoughts around... "Look, he even left me this warning about my AIV report about him. This clearly shows that this user is hounding me and trying to push his preferred revision by calling my legitimate report a mistake"... It will also show the user that the report is "getting to you", and will encourage any troll to keep up that exact form of trolling (if such reports were filed in order to be disruptive). There's just no good that will come from you removing such reports and leaving such warnings if you're involved or if they involve you. :-) Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or provide any more input or advice, and I'll be more than happy to be of service. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wiki-Bud

So, I saw the conversation you and Mortee had about me and I promise to never discuss anything unprofessional again and to only expand to Wikipedia. It was a great day being friends with you, but it is unlikely you will hear from me ever again. Thanks for being so cool! Flintmcneal (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flintmcneal! The discussion above was simply someone asking how it would be best to handle an editor or user who only used Wikipedia for chatting and for social networking. So long as you also make some meaningful edits and contributions to this project, it's perfectly fine to message and talk to other editors on Wikipedia, and absolutely nobody is going to take issue with that. :-) It's when messaging and social networking becomes a user's entire focus and use of their account where we might take issue and express these concerns directly with the user in order to educate and help them. We would assume good faith, and we would work with the user to get them familiar with Wikipedia and proficient with how things work... Don't take the discussion above as a "warning" that you'll be blocked or punished if you don't use your account exactly like we want you to; take it as something to keep in mind, and should it become a problem, you'll know because someone will talk to you about it kindly, and offer to help you. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Harassment

Hi. Could you please have a look at this - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_shared_account/paid_editing? and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Henley_Passport_Index/The_Passport_Index. I undid one edit by this IP user that introduced a completely different style and understanding of things to the rest of the articles in the same category. I tried explaining on Commons why certain designations are used (binding findings of the European Commission etc.) but to no avail. The user exploded with anger making schizophrenic accusations that I work for one company, then for another one, then that I demand all articles must be first approved by private companies, that asking for respecting the MoS is demanding all articles to be the same, he is planning a revenge nomination for deletion of all articles I work on, he then copy/pasted the entire discussion on another noticeboard etc.etc. It is all completely insane and I really feel harassed at this point, hope you can look into it. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Twofortnights! Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the issues you're running into with an IP user, who obviously seems to be casting aspersions at you causing you some grief. I'm sorry to hear that this is going on, and I'll be happy to take a look at the discussions you linked me to here. I'm going to finish up with taking care of a few administrative backlog, then I'll take a look at the discussions immediately afterwards. Shouldn't be too long. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Twofortnights - I added a response to the ANI discussion here. I didn't see where this user "[demanded] all articles must be first approved by private companies", nor did I see where he/she was "planning a revenge nomination for deletion of all articles" you created or have been working on. If you could provide diffs and show me exactly where these were happening at, I would appreciate it and it would help me to be able to amend my response with additional statements and questions for that IP user. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking this matter. I've seen many bizarre things over the years but this one perhaps tops the list.

As for the two particular issues you've raised, the user claimed that "The other user is basically saying that no-one is allowed to change anything on any of those articles unless they are approved by Henley & Partners' [85] or Arton Captial's [86] staff," and went on to say that he thinks "that all "Visa requirements for XXX citizens" article [should be] be removed" - diff.

It can be a tedious job to keep all those articles up to date, but I've received many messages where readers expressed their appreciation and how interesting and useful it is for them, so I am happy to continue editing these travel related articles. Thanks for a quick response again!--Twofortnights (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Twofortnights - Ah, okay. That's what I figured, but I wanted to ask you about it here in case I was wrong and may have missed where the user may have said something on a different page. Good; don't let resistance, push-back, or even accusations such as these discourage or deter you from editing articles and pages in areas and subjects that interest you. :-) It definitely feels rewarding and satisfying to receive messages of appreciation and gratitude from editors of the community for your edits and your time; I'm happy to hear that you appreciate them greatly and that your heart is in the right place. No problem; always happy to lend a hand and do what's necessary to maintain order, peace, and civility on the project. :-) Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything else. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and supportive words. I really appreciate it.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Twofortnights - You bet. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sameold sameold

Care to close another case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Train Master? Thanks. Cards84664 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Cards84664 -  Done. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers, my friend - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

About my profile

How can I get to my profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Michaelchi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ronald Michaelchi - See my response to your message below. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with my profile

I want to be seeing my profile and chatting with friends and family Ronald Michaelchi (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Michaelchi (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ronald Michaelchi - Are you perhaps talking about your user page? Just click the link with your username ('Ronald Michaelchi') located on the top-right of every page on Wikipedia, and it'll take you there. You can also click here to go there. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Welcome to Wikipedia; I hope you enjoy your stay with us. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by an IP you blocked

[7] - false claims about a source (which I even quoted in an edit summary). Doug Weller talk 11:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller - I've blocked the IP user for two weeks for continued disruption to the project. I'm looking into the range as well in order to see if there's similar abuse by different IP addresses within it. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller - No problem. :-) Keep me updated. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No subject

Oshwah, you and I spoke recently about the page SpaceportCamden. I am the PR representative for this effort. WE have been experiencing a variety of disruptive edits from the user CamdenTaxpayer who is making biased changes for advocacy purposes. Based on your advice, I have abstained from undoing these changes to avoid "warring."

Any chance you can review these changes for accuracy, and/or prevent CamdenTaxpayer from continuing to edit this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsimpson81 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, [[User:Jbsimpson81|Jbsimpson81]! Welcome back! I'll be happy to continue to help you with the dispute with the Spaceport Camden article. :-) Have you tried to open a discussion with Camdentaxpayer about his/her edits to the article. I note that users have left conflict of interest warnings for Camdentaxpayer on this page, but I must also note to you that you have a conflict of interest with this article subject as well (based off the information you provided to me in your message above). Ideally, neither one of you should be making edits directly to the article, but should request edits be made to it instead. This way, you'll be able to help improve the article, but someone else who isn't conflicted with the article subject can review and move forward with the changes suggested if they're found to be necessary. I would suggest starting a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to discuss the user's behavior. Just be warned that users who participate there will look into both sides of the issue, and they may also find you just as disruptive as CamdenTaxpayer. Either way, I'd file a report there to have this looked into fully.

Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah - I stumbled upon this message board today and saw the above comment from Jbsimpson81. He has expressed concern to you about "disruptive edits" made for advocacy purposes. I make those edits. Yes, as a Camden County taxpayer I have a very different view of the spaceport project than JBsimpson81's perspective as the project's PR consultant, but I suggest that my perspective is no less valuable to Wikipedia readers than his paid boosterism. More importantly, none of information I post in my edits is untrue, whereas much information in JBsimpson81's editing is inaccurate or imprecise. Certainly, we both are guilty of emphasizing some information and de-emphasizing other. I understand that this message board is probably not the best place to debate, and I am open to suggestions. Salut, Camdentaxpayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdentaxpayer (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet activity

Hi,Oshwash. I just wanted to point out that there's a sockpuppet whose account was blocked indefinitely and whose IP, 194.61.223.68, you recently blocked temporarily that is engaged in disruptive editing on the "Kala Kato" article. 2602:306:CC8F:65A0:680F:91E8:654C:BDBC (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for letting me know about this. It looks like another admin has blocked the IP user from editing further; I'll take a deeper look into this and see what connections I can find between the edits by the IP user and others. If you have any more questions, concerns, or if you need additional input or advice, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help! I appreciate your message and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

IP:81.170.16.236

Hello Oshwah, Just to inform you that the IP you recently blocked 81.170.16.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resurfaced making inaccurate edits, on at least two occasions, to The Searchers and removing warning from their Talk page. They do not seem to be hear in any constructive way and takes no notice on reversions and warnings. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a further week by another admin, although has attempted to remove their blocking notice. David J Johnson (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David J Johnson! Thank you for letting me know about this. I'll take a deeper look into the matter and take care of any ranges or other networks that need to be investigated as well. ;-) If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help. :-) Thanks again! Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No subject

hi, I am new at editing Wikipedia, I need your help 203.215.185.73, 103.255.6.109 vandalizing the page "Amb (princely state)" and "Mir Painda Khan". How to complain about the IP address to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor839 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor839! Welcome to Wikipedia! You can report users who you've seen repeatedly add vandalism to Wikipedia by filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Can you help me figure out if we should nuke Penis graffiti, despite the work Þjarkur put in? It's MRY, of course. User:Javierjoy is a perfect match with Fatterman, BTW; I don't know if MRY ever did anything useful in their life, but this may be their good hand, now retired. Ferret, thank you for protecting PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, no objection from me – Thjarkur (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Drmies! I hope you're doing well! :-) Sure, I'd be happy to help. The article was created as a draft by an IP user and moved to the mainspace by Þjarkur. Do we know if the IP address or range of the user who created the draft is connected to any recent or past LTA abuse at all? At first glance, I didn't find any edits to show that it was (even though the range is huge at 182.168.0.0/14; I glanced through the contributions of 182.168.0.0/16). What exactly is making you believe that this article should be nuked? Any details, information, and/or elabortion will help me to see exactly what you're thinking here, and make sure that I'm not missing anything... :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, it's a match with Fatterman, so that part is not in question. The only thing is, is it worth keeping. I don't think it is, despite Thjarkur's good work, and I don't want to reward the sock ("haha, I got a penis thing on Wikipedia"), but I don't really want to decide that by myself. And Javierjoy needs to be considered: I think it's a perfect technical match but the behavioral connection hinges on whether we believe there's good-hand/bad-hand editing going on. If we don't, it's not a behavioral match, if you understand what I mean. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Drmies - Ah, okay... That was what I was confused about: The match with Fatterman. I'm on the fence with you as well. I'd really hate to remove Thjarkur's good work, but I also don't want to reward the sock with keeping such an article. I personally side more-so with deleting it... if anything, it can be easily restored later if need be, and we're not giving the LTA any kind of recognition. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Just an aside, Fatterman is one of the sleeper accounts I was just referring to at RfPP. El_C 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

El C - Ah, good information. Thanks ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It's gone. And now for Javierjoy. Who else knows MRY well? Can you check the CU wiki? I don't have access/a link to it from here. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies - I would check the CU Wiki, but unfortunately I'm not a Checkuser. ;-) Here's a link to the CU Wiki here if you need it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping to be appointed to that role this year, though. We'll see... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry--I thought you had ALL the hats, except for "Founder". Drmies (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies - LOL. Nope, not all of them... at least not at the moment... but I'm hoping to apply for the CU role come this year's round of appointments. We'll see.... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Damn. I set up two-stage authentication, and I got a new iPhone a few months ago. Aaaargh... Drmies (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies - Ruh roh! There's an authentication service that lets you install its app on multiple devices and machines, and then let you grab an authentication code from any of them. I forget what the name of the company / service is, but there's a free one you can check out. Someone was talking about it on IRC a few months ago, and it looked cool when I checked it out... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I use Google Authenticator, but apparently didn't "save" or transfer the CU Wiki information. I'll find some supergeek to ask... Drmies (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies. You're talking to one right now... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 20:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Flounder Award
	For your services to our beautiful project, which are whispered to approach those of our resident founder Mr. Wales. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies! Thank you for the (very interesting) barnstar and the very kind words. I enjoy the dedication, energy, and time that I spend toward Wikipedia, and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. ;-) I appreciate the compliments; they mean a lot to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

ProtectorOfWorldSaves

I think this reply and the associated edit history calls for a block per WP:NOTHERE. I don't think time sinks should be allowed, even if they're polite. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

==

New pages reviewer and AFC

Hi Oshwah, I hope you are doing OK and that life is treating you very well. I was given the new page reviewer right by Kudpung for 3 months. I have been reviewing new pages for a while. I also asked to be on Articles for Creation but the same administrator declined to put on the list. He thinks I won't need the NPR right at all, but I really want to review new pages for the foreseeable future. Do you think now would be a good time to ask for NPR right permanently? Interstellarity (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Uploads

Hey I'm new to this and am not really sure how it works. How do I create my own wiki pages? Sorry. It would be great if someone could walk me through it.

Vandalism

@Oshwah: The articles Kat Von D and Davido are being constantly vandalized and need to be protected.Catfurball (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A problematic editor has returned

Hello Oshwah, maybe you remember me from a rather unpleasant edit warring conflict that took place in the article of Demographics of Mexico that took place from January to early March [8] with an editor called Hueyxocoatzin who was repeatedly removing several reliable sources without any valid reason (this the section I opened in your page back then to denounce it [9]). Well the thing is he's back and seems to be in the same loop he was back then, modifying data just because, disregarding what the sources say, and just like he did back then [10] he is again making intimidating threats about calling administrators[11], I opt this time for notifying an administrator early on rather than let the conflict grow at a point it becomes unbearable and hard to follow as it happened the last time and resulted on me getting sanctioned aswell. Thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

An absolutely disingenuous recounting of my edits. I and others have made efforts to reach consensus with you to no avail,[12][13][14], you continue your reliance on ambiguity and source misrepresentation[15] and that's ultimately not the use for an encyclopedia. I'm back now to continue this and await a response from @Oshwah:. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

Hey there Oshwah The boi is back. Doing what he does. Letting you know at your request. — Smuckola(talk) 11:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked. Muhahaha, I beat Oshwah for once! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)