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

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

• Anarchyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• Oshwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• Yamla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Congratulations, Oshwah! Very well-deserved. :) Patient Zero^talk 04:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Patient Zero! That means a lot! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Finally. I was waiting for this. One of the most well qualified users. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree <3 Folly Mox (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, 67.85.37.186 and Folly Mox! It means a lot to me! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Just learned of this. Congratulations!! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, TheSandDoctor! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Congrats. Use it well. —DoRD (talk)​ 18:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

DoRD - I plan to, and I won't let you down. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Could you close this RfC [1]. Everything is clear, thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be also mentioned that the RFC had a sequel and went through it again and consensus was reached Theonewithreason (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

My RfC was for ethnicity of Novak Djoković mother based on two sources. This proposal did not pass and this RfC concern ethnicity based only for these two sources. Since there are more sources new RfC is possible based on other sources. My intention was to determine which sources can be used for ethnicity (in this case mother ethnicity). Obviously these two sources can no longer be part of the article. The problem is that there are several sources which exist and they are not respected, but now we can say it officially (which sources are not for the article) and to bring some order to the article. Mikola22 (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mikola22! Sorry for the delay responding to your request here. I'll take a look at it either today or tomorrow and see what the consensus is (if one exists). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand. You don't have a lot of problems making a decision here, because everything is clear, cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 - It looks like there are arguments on both sides here, both in support and opposition to this RfC. I don't think I could easily close this without reading through the arguments in-depth and seeing if a consensus has been reached. Upon first look-through and without going too far in-depth, I don't believe one has been established. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, you tell me if I as a editor (in this RfC) need to do something. Mikola22 (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Page about Drillz (Musical Artist)

Hey, you deleted my article about Drillz & I was wondering why you did that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeboy256 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Codeboy256! Welcome to Wikipedia! The content that you wrote had multiple issues. The main issue that should be addressed is that the content appeared to be an advertisement or promotion. This kind of content is not appropriate for a user page. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

About the Causal inference page

I removed that part in august 2020 "The widely held (but mistaken) belief that RCTs provide stronger causal evidence than observational studies...." because it does not make sense. Anyone who has studied causal inference knows that if your RCT is always gonna be stronger causal evidence than any observational studies. 1: You did not provide any evidence/reference for the claim that observational studies are on par or stronger causal evidence than RCT's. 2: RCT's have been the "Gold standard" in clinical trials for more than a decayed and for good reasons too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196997/ just read the background it literally says "randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to study the safety and efficacy of new treatments" I think your sentence will mislead the reader to think observational studies are better the RCT's, which they can be sometimes. But if put both on equal playing ground the RCT's will always trump any observational study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118259/ "all other things being equal, randomised controlled trials are more able to attribute effects to causes".

Hope this clears things up on why I removed the sentence. best Regards Moha2144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moha2144 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Moha2144! Thanks for the message and for letting me know. :-) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to me and ask. I'll be more than happy to help you. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! I just wanted to say hello. I've been editing on Wikipedia for awhile but I feel like I want to make more of a community of meeting other editors and the like. I've frequently seen you doing edits, whether that be removing vandalism or posting new content. Just wanted to say hi and hopefully make a new Wikipedia friend. :) PickleG13 (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi PickleG13! Thanks for the message, and welcome! You're more than welcome to reach out to me if you have any questions, need help, or just need someone to point you in the right direction. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please notice

Please check out the Draft:Emiway Bantai (rapper). The article title of this draft has been protected by the administrators. Please publish it under the correct name of Emiway Bantai. 27.63.64.191 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! You should file your request here. This will allow for discussion to take place, and the proper procedures to move forward if approved. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing the draft and publishing

Dear Oshwah,

Hope you and your family are safe during these uncertain times!

I am editing the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shyam_Wuppuluri) and it is not related to me in anyway. I found that the page is neither published (and if it doesn’t meet the requirements: it’s not deleted either). Can you suggest me if there’s a possibility of this page getting published and if not the procedure for deletion?

In any case, thanks for making the world a better place through the support you offer here. You seem to be very kind in general.

Cheers, Roo Pumpuhar (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pumpuhar! Thank you for the message and the very kind words. It means a lot to me. :-) No problem; if it's not related to you, then please don't hesitate to do what you're doing! If you have any questions or need any help, please let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No subject

did you message me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUEENBEE12345 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi QUEENBEE12345! I did not; I believe that I just marked a page that you created as "patrolled". Nonetheless, if you have any questions or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me and let me know. I'll be happy to lend you a hand. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

203.149.75.202

Can user:203.149.75.202 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

CLCStudent -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Cookie!

99.116.24.175 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I did this because you've been contributing to Wikipedia for a long time. Thank you so much for all your hard work! I'm sure all the users you helped are happy right now!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi there! Thanks for the cookie! Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No subject

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:74B0:3400:F988:5E0:A66D:8C08 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Is there anything I can help you with? If so, please don't hesitate to let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Paramount+

Hi Oshwah, an IP-hopper keeps trying to create an article at Paramount+ against consensus. Could you consider semi-protection? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi BilCat! Sorry for the delay responding to your request here. It looks like the edits came from the 2603:9008:1C80:BA76::/64 IPv6 range (where the first half of the IP is the same between each "hop"). It's actually quite normal for many IPv6 address users to frequently change within that range, usually without the user's knowledge or action. They can change from as frequent as a week at a time, to daily, or (especially with mobile IPv6 ranges) every few minutes depending on the user's travel or device status. Because this pattern with many IPv6 networks is normal and very often done without the user doing anything intentional, I wouldn't necessarily call this a case of "IP hopping" from the get-go. Just keep in mind that if an IPv6 user appears to be "IP hopping", that if the first half of their IPv6 address (the left-most four IP blocks) looks to be remaining the same with each "hop", that it's probably not the user doing this maliciously. Now, I'm not saying that users never do this maliciously (lol)... I'm just saying that this regularly happens. ;-)

Now, onto your request (sorry if I digressed too much above). :-) It looks like the editing has stopped, so I'll hold off on adding protection. However, if you do see that disruption there is continuing to occur and is ongoing, please let me know. I'll be happy to take a look and do what's needed to put a stop to it. :-) I hope you're doing well, and I hope you have a great weekend. Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and no worries. I was using "hopper" just to indicate the full IP was different each time, not necessarily to mean intent. Anyway, is it possible to block just that range on just that article? I know it is technically now, but asking about this case specifically, if and when they return. Thanks again. BilCat (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding a SPI case

Hi, Oshwah I would like you to help regarding a new sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RejsHajredini95. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amkgp! I apologize for the delay responding to your message and request here, and I also apologize for missing the IRC messages that you sent to me while I was busy. Life got a little bit hectic and unfortunately kept me away from Wikipedia for a short time. :-) It looks like this case has been handled by another checkuser. If you do need my input or help with anything, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Bell table on St Mark's Campanile

Hello Oshwah, I keep reaching out to you whenever I run into a wall. I hope you don't feel pestered. On the St Mark's Campanile page, I would like to move the table with the bells (towards the end) to the left. BUT, when I do, the text of the article (wrapped) is attached to the side of the table. Is there any way to create space?Venicescapes (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes! I don't feel pestered at all! Helping other users is a core part of why I volunteer here, and I'm more than happy to help you with your edit. :-) Check out the edits I just made here to the article. To flip the table to float from the left, you simply change float: right; to be float: left;. To add spacing outside the table between other text, you'd normally add a margin value to the element. However, it looks like we already have a margin (margin: .46em 0 0 2.00em;)! This margin is coded like this: margin: [top] [right] [bottom] [left]; So, I just moved margin values and changed it to margin: .46em 2.00em 0 0; where the 2.00em spacing is now on the [right] value instead of [left]. Does what I did make sense? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I had no idea it was so simple. Thank you for guiding me along the learning curve. I hope that all is well with you in these troubled times. Kind regards.Venicescapes (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes! No problem! You'll learn this stuff and it'll get easier as you gain experience and spend time on this project. It took me awhile, too. :-) These times are certainly crazy, aren't they? I never expected the things that you'd only saw in movies (such as everyone wearing masks or hazmat suits when they'd go outside) would become a reality. It's quite frustrating, but I hope that this doesn't live with us forever and that we learn from this event and put better measures in place should it happen again... and given human history, it most certainly will. Let me know if you run into any more questions or get stuck anywhere, and I'll be happy to lend you a hand. :-) Be safe! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I need to play around some more with image placement. Moving the table to the left made it necessary to move other images, and I'm not sure about the end result. At any rate, I now know how to do it. Thank you again.Venicescapes (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes - You bet; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"New User"

Haven't been on en wiki for some time now, everything seemed to have changed. I'm feeling lost, can you guide me as to where I can see new Wikipedia updates? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser. I don't believe that too much has changed, but you can get a sense of it all by reading the admin news monthly releases for a generalized summary. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

hi

oswah you are on teahouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habeeb Bello (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Habeeb Bello! I'm a member of the teahouse, but I admit that I haven't gone there or checked in with people there in quite some time. Why do you ask? Do you need help with something there? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

IP: 86.11.51.106

Hello again Oshwah, Could I bring to your attention the activities of 86.11.51.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on various pages - notably the Imber page. They have placed a notice at the top of the article regarding sources. The sources are the BBC and book sources written by reliable sources, as against their comments. I have reverted the notice but note that the IP will not allow comments on their User page, stating "Please do not write here" and "Do not write her, I don't care and it will be blanked". As you have taken action against this IP previously, I wonder if it is time for further intervention? With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi David J Johnson! I apologize for the delay responding to your message and request for help here. Life has kept me busy lately! :-) It looks like Doug Weller has already handled the matter. For the record, if I had seen this going on, I would've handed a block to this user as well. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be happy to lend a hand! ;-) I hope you have a great weekend, and I'm sure we'll talk again soon! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Oshwah, Many thanks for your message. As you say Doug Weller has handled the immediate problem with this IP. However, I do want you to know how much I appreciate your friendship and help over the years - and no doubt, in the future! Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

David J Johnson! Thank you for the kind words! They mean a lot to me, and I appreciate our friendship as well. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can be of any assistance to you. I'll be happy to help! Until next time... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No subject

190.113.114.62 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi there! Thanks for the cookie! I appreciate it very much, and I hope you have a great weekend! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit my page

My first film is ‘Demodara Palama’ shot in 1989 There is an article which hates me for long time now so has to be removed. It’s not good for the other chap also who questioned me regarding this article. So many things to be edited please help me Tell me how can I install a lot of details including the photos of the ten awards I received Please help Thanks

I’m about to leave for two weeks of shooting in a forest to end of a TV series -Lakshman Mendis- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.216.128 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Exactly what pare are we talking about here? Can you link me to it? Is it an article that you're creating in order to write about yourself? If so, autobiographies are highly discouraged here, and will likely lead to the content being removed. If you're notable, someone else will surely write an article about you - don't worry about that. Otherwise, you could be seen as having a conflict of interest with what you're writing about (since, after all, you're writing about yourself). Please let me know if I'm correct and if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Page deletion?

Ashwah, I read your guidelines and sent you an email. No hurry...[but I guess I only have 7 days!] Pls. direct me when you are able...I hope you and yours are well.Onganymede (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Onganymede! I received your email. What article was it that you were trying to create? Can you point me to it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, thank you for your reply. Article in question is J. Jaye Gold. I believe tomorrow is day 7 since I received notification, so maybe this is too late to discuss. Do you know if the decision will be made Saturday? Originally I was told the issue was references. I understand now that my references, which were all to his works, we’re unacceptable. I have spend the week researching and have changed them all. Now it appears issue is notability. I believe I cleared up COI issue on my talk page. It would be nice not to have this also flagged, if others agree. But again, it may be too late. Again, many thanks for input/direction. Onganymede (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Onganymede! Thanks for responding with the link. To help explain the articles for deletion process for you: Discussions at AFD will not take the quality of the article itself into account when deciding whether or not to keep or delete it; they take the notability of the article subject into account, which is typically established by the availability of secondary reliable sources that can be researched and found (either on the internet or in print media) that provide primary coverage regarding the article subject.

Think of it like this: If, for example, the Barrack Obama or Abraham Lincoln articles were only a few paragraphs long and didn't provide many or very good sources, these articles would be kept if I were to nominate them for a discussion at AFD. That's because, well, they're notable people... :-) It's quite easy to go onto Google and type those names in - you're going to find numerous sources that are reliable and show that these people are notable. We don't delete those articles under that process just because they're not long enough, don't have great content, or don't have enough sources cited. The articles just need to be expanded and improved. The same principle applies here as well. On the other hand: I could have an extensively-written article about some random Joe person, but if they're not notable, the article subject won't be determined to be notable in an AFD discussion. Why? Because there obviously won't be any secondary reliable sources online or elsewhere that would establish Mr. Random Joe Person as a notable article subject. The quality of the article I wrote about Random Joe could be significantly above-average when it comes to content, but in the end, it won't matter.

In short: There's really nothing you can do to the article itself that will change the outcome of the discussion. Don't go into an AFD discussion with the belief that, if you could improve the article to be "up to standard" before the discussion closes, that there's hope of it being kept. Either the article subject is notable or they aren't - that's what the discussion is created to determine. If anything, take the outcome as a good learning experience. Before you write your next article, I'm sure that you'll be much more well-versed in Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and you'll create an article that will do well. I created a few articles when I was new on Wikipedia, and I was angry and disappointed when they were deleted - it can be really discouraging... All that time wasted. However, I kept with it, and I took the time to know and understand the policies and guidelines and why they're important. In the end, it helped improve my editing and my experience a lot.

Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Take some time and read through those guidelines. If you have any questions about them, let me know! I'll be happy to answer them and explain, or clarify anything that's confusing. Don't give up! You're doing well here! This is just a minor setback and you'll be a better editor moving forward. I've been there myself; I'm not here today and with the experience and knowledge that I have because I got everything right and did perfectly. I've made more than my fair share of mistakes. Trust me... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you much for all the details and your personal experience as well. I have read the guidelines. I know ALOT more now than I did when I first wrote you my anxious email! Did you get a chance to look at the article? I just added two more refs. It's clear Gold has influenced 1,000s of people over 30+ years of nonprofit service work... but there are, to my knowledge, only hard copy letters of thanks (from, for example, the Daughters of Charity in Cambodia, a Syrian refugee school in Turkey, Mae Tao Clinic on Thai/Burmese border, etc.) I assume these can't be incorporated, correct? So, can you tell me what your opinion of the article is--in terms of worthiness of the subject, as written? (Maybe your above advice answered this but I'm not sure if you were mainly clarifying/explaining guidelines, or telling me your opinion, i.e., it's over...better luck next time! Ok, much obliged and look forward to more input. Onganymede (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Onganymede! I'd have to do some research and look for secondary reliable sources in order to determine whether or not I believe the subject to be notable. The article itself is a good start in terms of content, references, neutrality, and overall setup and formatting. It does seem to detract a bit and talk about the organization a lot, rather than the person - but again, it's not terrible. Remember that this is irrelevant when it comes to AFD. They're not looking at the article itself and how it appears. They're deciding whether or not the article subject should even have an article at all in the first place. That's where notability comes in. ;-) My previous message was written to explain how AFD works and exactly what they take into account when making a decision.

The reason I went in-depth with how you'll learn from this and encouraged you not to take this personally or as a reason to give up was not because I felt that the article should be deleted (again, I haven't looked into the article subject in-depth nor done any research). I wrote this to you because, looking at the AFD discussion, it appears that the consensus will be to either delete the article, or move it into draft space. Likely it will be deleted. I would copy the article and put it in your sand box - just so you have something to reference if you forget how to do something with the next article you create. And, who knows, if the article subject does become notable down the road (it happens quite often), you can re-create it again. All is not lost just because it didn't become an article - you can still keep the work you did and reference it later. I did, and it was very helpful. Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. I'll be happy to do some research and give you what I would've said in the AFD discussion if you wish. Just know in advance that I will be honest with you - if I find that the subject isn't notable, I will say so, but I'll also explain why. Such feedback would absolutely not be given with the intent to discourage you, but as a way of helping you understand, learn, gain experience, and come out of this better than you went in. Just let me know. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, Yes, to both.... I agree saving in sandbox is great idea. I'm researching it now, but any easy pointers on how to do that? And, Yes, if you'd be willing and could take the time to look and make a judgement call, I trust your neutrality and your sincerity and would be grateful to hear it. One question, do or can you know if today is the "decision" day?Onganymede (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Onganymede! Just edit the article, copy everything, then go here, paste the text you copied, and voila! You now have a copy in your user space that you can reference. ;-) There really is no "decision day". The typical minimum time for an AFD discussion is 7 days. If there aren't enough participants, or if the discussion is still in deliberation after 7 days (where the outcome isn't clear), the discussion will stay open until all participants have made their statements. In this case, it'll be closed after seven days when an admin gets around to doing so... there's no "time limit". Sure, I can do that. Give me a bit of time and I'll have something to you by the end of the weekend. I have a lot on my agenda. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes pls. take whatever time! Not wanting to add burden to your agenda load! Have a good weekend. Onganymede (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again! The article was deleted today! It seemed that 2 (3?) editors concurred with a "relist," and I have another half dozen sources to add in a week or so when I get access to them... so that might help .... Should I edit in sandbox for now, add the new refs, and then ask an editor familiar with the article to relist or restore? Or...? Hope your weekend was fruitful! Onganymede (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Onganymede! Sorry for the delay following up. Sure, nothing will stop you from editing in your own sandbox. Asking someone familiar with the article about it is never a bad idea. I haven't had a chance to examine the article subject in terms of notability, but I hope to be able to do so soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Onganymede. After taking a look through search engines and other websites, I would have to conclude with the consensus found in the AFD discussion. I don't believe that there are enough secondary reliable sources available and that provide primary coverage of the article subject itself to assert him as notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article at this time.

I took a look at the references you used in your article as well, and I found that many of the sources you cited don't primarily cover the article subject (meaning that there aren't sources written to primarily talk about or provide coverage of J. Jaye Gold). While there are some sources you cited where he provides a statement or quote that primarily covers something else, I don't see much of anything that primarily covers him. This is a big requirement that editors look for when discussing a subject's notability and when looking for the availability of sources.

If someone wrote an external article, news headline, or another kind of journal or report that covered J. Jaye Gold that could be used as a source, that would count as one (of many needed) that would be considered. However, if someone wrote an online article that covered something else, but mentioned him in passing, such as where J. Jaye Gold provided a statement or quote, or were just mentioned in part of the article, that wouldn't be considered as a reference that primarily covers him.

In time, J. Jaye Gold could become notable down the road, but at this time, I'd have to agree with the consensus found. Please don't think of this as a downfall, and please definitely do not let this make you think that you're not doing well on Wikipedia. The exact opposite is true. Don't let yourself get discouraged, either; I believe that the next article you write will meet the notability requirements simply because you learned so much from this experience. Seriously! We learn the best when things don't work out, and we become experts on subjects when things don't go according to plan. Think about it: If everything went all hunky-dory, sure, we'd learn and gain experience... but we wouldn't take the time to stop and read up on something so far in-depth if things just worked out. Keep positive, and let me know if I can answer any questions or help you in any way. I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Plz

All this changing URL and API off my phone. I know my ex put it on here when she was trakking me to take a shit man. I got 2 girls stalking now. Cock blocking my texts my calls I’ve probably missed out on girls and money. I’m not trying to get anybody in trouble I’m a outlaw with good heart myself but all this GIF crap is old and I’m getting mad bc I feel like there winning. Plz get all this off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.223.1.21 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Umm... not exactly sure what you're asking me here. I can only help you with Wikipedia-related matters. Is there something I can help you involving the Wikipedia project? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congrats on new checkusership! WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi WesternAtlanticCentral! Thank you for the barnstar and for the congratulations! It means a lot to me and I appreciate it very much. :-) I'm happy to be able to serve the community as a checkuser, and I promise that I won't let you down! ;-) I hope you have a great weekend and I wish you happy editing. Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The User

User in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194.81.78.4 /// I have just had to warn this guy to not make false edits as he made an edit to the page on William Russell, changing his name to Big Willy. As I was in the process of undoing this, he removed it himself but even so, I have let him know not to do this and I am informing you. edit: I know the last time action was used on him was in 2016 and by you which is why I am here on your page. Damien Swann (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Damien Swann! Thanks for leaving me a message here and for letting me know. It looks like this school IP range has already been blocked, so we don't have anything to worry about now. In the future, if the user has been warned enough times, you can report them here to have an administrator block them or take other appropriate action. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again, and I hope you have a great weekend! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan Sanctions

Hey Oswhah, thanks for protecting Dashalty. The sanctions authorisation I was referring to there was from WP:ARBAA2, where an amendment was passed that authorised standard discretionary sanctions; sorry, I should have probably said ARBAA2, not just ARBAA. Best wishes, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs! Ah, that makes sense! Thanks for letting me know. the "ARBAA" part of your link rang a bell, but when I couldn't find anything, I just went with the normal policy. The article would've been protected anyways. :-) Thanks again, and I hope you have a great weekend! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey!

First i wanted to thank u for protecting and being interested on Miley articles. I wanted to asked you if you could do soemrhing about it. The user gagaluv1 was actually asked to stop ny old users and almost blocked if you see it on her talk page, but she hasnt been blocked het. She obisbly doesnt wanna participate as she disnt listen to my collegues warn about warring and violent language but she kept going on and if you see the desception edit said "deal with it". Can u roll back and leave the edit bu lk95 where it was consensed by everyone as you see. She is adding songs that were included on other albums too after rhey were originally eeleased and that soace is for songs that wwere not availble on her own albums berore. So it makes thenimpression that that songs were not only included on her albums before. Thank you.--Night Crawling (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Night Crawling. I'm sorry to hear that this is going on. I'll definitely look into this. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Night Crawling, Gagaluv1 - So what's going on at the Miley Cyrus discography article? Why is it that I had to fully protect the article over this dispute? You both know that you could've been blocked for edit warring, ya know... Can you help me to understand what's going on so that I can help you two work things out? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

She is adding songs that were released BEFORE on her own lbums. That section is for songs quch are not xeom HER albums. Many users already suportes this. The article is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, for more proof, she was the one asding this songs. Theyve never been there since 2017 wich they there "released". In the meantime please i would like if you could use the last revision by lK95. As it was the original version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Night Crawling - Unfortunately, I cannot do that. That would be against my responsibility of acting as a neutral, impartial third-party, and as an uninvolved administrator. Once I fully protect an article, I cannot edit it unless current revision contains any serious violations of Wikipedia policy - such as copyright violations, BLP violations, threats or harassment, serious vandalism, or other such matters. If any are present, let me know and I'll either remove that content or revert the article to the most recent revision that doesn't contain those issues. Other than that, I can't let things such as who last edited the page, what the revision text is, who filed the protection request, or any other irrelevant matters factor into my decision to protect the article and when I do so. I have to keep things to "the luck of the draw" as much as possible in order to be fair and neutral to everyone involved and to avoid portraying any sort of image to other users that I'm being biased or playing favorites. I hope that you understand. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to address them with you. :-) I will await Gagaluv1's response here so that I can assist you both. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you i will do it if i can onve the protection is over. We cant let a aingle user decide what we include and qhat not, the consus qas alwayd there until this uswr came in. Love xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawler (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I will always be restauring the original version before her edits since it was like that until she came in. I hope she can understand that she has to use the talk page and wait for consensus to change things. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Night Crawling - No, you really shouldn't do that... The reason that the article is fully protected is to systematically "nudge" you both over to the article's talk page so that you both can work things out properly and edit collaboratively. This isn't a "cooling down" period where you just wait it out and then resume exactly what you're doing once the protection expires. You will be blocked if you go straight back to the article and continue edit warring, and so will Gagaluv1 if he/she does that, too. You have both been given warnings for edit warring on this article, and other than the full protection being placed to put the brakes on your actions, that will be the last warning you two will receive. Having the attitude that you "will always be restauring [sic] the original version before her edits" is the exact opposite of which you should be having, and is exactly what is going to get you blocked. Have you read through Wikipedia's guidelines on dispute resolution? If not, you really should do that. It's ultimately up to the both of you how things are going to wind up. I really hope that things go positively and that we don't have to go to the next step. One way or another, the disruption will stop - whether it be that you two work things out, walk away and focus on something else, or end up being blocked. Please, I beg you, choose the easy and the right way that will end the disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I completly agree w you. But the version that should be kept is the one that was consensed and not the one he wanted? Thats what im saying. Its not like i want my esit to prevail. Its the all time page edit rhat didnt incluse that rhat way. I hope u understand ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you Oshwah for getting involved. I would first like to apologize for my behavior, it was childish to keep reverting and I am sorry for not taking it to the talk page for discussion. However, I do not understand the vitriolic response from Night Crawling, who seems to be almost offended by these songs' inclusion in the page and I have no idea why. The jist of the situation is that I added two Miley Cyrus releases, Spotify Singles and Spotify Singles - Holiday, to the extended play section. Night Crawling disagreed with these release's inclusion as they are only 2-song releases, which according to the extended play article, does not meet the definition. I would say that rule is not always true, as Drake's Scary Hours is called an EP despite being two songs, but I accept the disagreement. I then went on to add the songs to the "Other appearances" section, to which Night Crawling also objected and I don't know why. These are four officially recorded and released songs and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be included on the article. Again, I apologize to all involved for being a part of this dispute and I hope we can find a peaceful way to resolve it. (Oh and by the way my pronouns are they/them. Not anyone's fault because I don't have them listed but I figured I'd say since there seemed to be some confusion.) Best, Gagaluv1 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry GagaLuv1 for using qrong pronoms. The thing is that these songs are not "other" appareances since they apoñpwares first on her own albums. People when they will look there they qill go. Oh bad mood was never included in her albums and is originally by these Spotify Session. False. Qhy dis no one add fhem since 2017? Thats the reason. I hope everyrhing goes ok now! Love xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest, with all of these typos it's very hard to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that it's weird that these songs weren't added in 2017? I don't know, I guess no one cared to put them in the Miley Cyrus Discography article, but they clearly are real songs, and have been listed at the Spotify Singles article for a while nowGagaluv1 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

These songs were released before on er own albums. This songs dont belong here. Period the section album appearances are for songs that were released on others people album. Thats why they dont belong here. Never said they arent official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I Think you may be confused. These weren't compilations of old songs, they were new recordings never appearing on other releases. Of the four songs between the two releases, only one is a Miley song and again, it's a new version. This argument doesn't make sense.Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This is my last message towards you, the new versiona of songs arent considered different songs, and that section is not to include every miley song, its for songs on others peoples albums, thats why Right Qhwre I Bwlong isnt there. Know how discography pages work and stop obsessing over things, its weird. Every 5 edits u are reverting that edit, get a hobbie. they dont belong there and never will thats why more users never accepeted your edit or added them before. Keep doing what ur doing and you know what will happen, as other admins have told you before. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 12:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah will you weigh in on this? I have a feeling Night Crawling is not capable of making a compromise.Gagaluv1 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Night Crawling - Your last message above to Gagaluv1 telling them to "know how discography pages work and stop obsessing over things" and to "get a hobbie [sic]" was completely unacceptable. Your remarks constitute personal attacks, which is against Wikipedia's policy on civility, as well as item #4 of Wikipedia's five founding principles. I advised you earlier in this discussion that your attitude in regards to your intent on reverting Gagaluv1's edits regardless of the consequence was extremely concerning to me, and I warned you that continuing to edit war on this article and continue what you were doing would result in being blocked, and informed you that you've been given a final warning with all of this and that no more warnings would be forthcoming. I also told you that Wikipedia has a guideline on how to properly resolve disputes, and I advised you to read and understand these guidelines and follow them. In my observation, Gagaluv1 has willingly participated in this discussion when I asked them to, though he/she was under no obligation to do so. He/She has been civil, responded to your comments with legitimate explanations, questions, and concerns, and has done their best to work with you. You have not offered any explanation to your disagreement; no specific guidelines (such as from Wikipedia's manual of style or other places), no links to discussions or previously-established consensus that defines what an "extended play" is. The only thing that Gagaluv1 could offer is a link to the article itself, which is not a guideline, but an article. Although I do credit you for participating in this discussion as well, I don't feel that you've offered any explanation for your actions outside of incivility, and "that's the way it is". That's not fair on Gagaluv1 for you to do that. As Gagaluv1 stated briefly above, I don't believe that you're willing to work with him/her, and I believe that you lack proper explanation and rationale for your actions taken on the article. That's disappointing... I feel that you could be a great editor if you'd allow yourself to have an open mind and work well with others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if i ofended anyone, i said that i tried ti explain to he se and he she didnt listened; thats why i responded that way; OFC i Will colaboraré, the advice i told him ver was ti prevent her him for being blocked becwuse other editors Aldo reverter and warneed him ver, BEST ir luck ti everyone, lots of LOVE and thabk u Oswah for helping us! Xoxo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Gagaluv1 - I'm almost starting to feel like we're getting trolled here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gagaluv1! I apologize for the delay responding here and providing input. No worries; we've all gotten sucked into the "edit warring" cycle (including myself). Don't worry about what you did and don't dwell in the past; let's look ahead to the future. :-) If anything, you've learned from this and you'll be a better and more experienced editor moving forward. One cannot truly grow without making mistakes. I would know; I'm not here and with all of the experience, community respect, and knowledge because I'm 100% perfect as a member of the community. Many admins and editors will vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes here. ;-) It's your actions (such as being willing to participate here, apologize, and acknowledge your mistakes) that speak louder than anything else, and I appreciate that very much. I fixed some indentation issues above; I'm going to go back, read the responses between you two above, and I'll chime in under your request for my input. Thanks again! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Thanks for the lock - but when will you allow rollbackers and pending changes reviewers? Tvoz/talk 20:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Admins have both rollback and a CRASH badge. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This should not be fully protected. There are just too many problems with the article in its current state. If extended confirmed editors are vandalizing the page, then they should be blocked, not make the article limited to admins. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that multiple EC editors are, and there are signs that at least some of them are compromised. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That's correct, and we've had more than one report of this happening that we're actively investigating. I understand everyone's frustration; it's certainly been quite an election and this is a big moment in history. However, above all else, I have to do what's best for the project and the integrity of the article and the Encyclopedia and keep that as a first priority... Even if it means that I become the brunt of any negative feedback that comes my way. It's the curse that comes with the responsibility. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. I'm glad it's your name on the protection, and not mine ;) Accordingly, could you please reinstate indef move protection when you get a chance. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Look, Oshwah, I like you and I'm glad you're willing to take the brunt etc etc. But indefinite full protection is completely inappropriate. There are plenty of eyes on the article and problematic edits have lasted, like, 90 seconds. If it's possible to combine Pending Changes with EC (though I'm guessing not) that might make sense here, but if not then only EC is justified. I don't see the vandalism or edit warring that would justify full protection -- just good-faith edits which happen to be mistaken. Check out WP:PREEMPTIVE again. EEng 11:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi EEng! I appreciate your honest feedback with how this was handled. I would never discourage you from coming to me and telling me how you feel about how I handled certain situations with the user of administrator tools, and I thank you for doing so. :-)

The reason I applied indefinite full protection wasn't to protect the article FOREVER, but to do so without a timer, so that lowering the protection could be discussed and implemented when the time was felt to be right. This eventually happened from the discussion that was later held at WP:AN, and I don't object to it at all. I originally applied full protection to the article for six hours due to the vandalism that was occurring and given the recent events that unfolded... I'm sure you understand that. ;-) I lowered the protection to ECP, but was questioned about this shortly and reminded that many extended-confirmed users were edit warring (or preparing to do so). We also had some extended-confirmed accounts that we believed to be compromised that engaged in serious disruption of this (and other similar) articles as well. Remember, too, that discretionary sanctions exist both for BLP articles (or "articles with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people"... I think you get it lol), as well as post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. This gives administrators loosened restrictions and the ability to take the proper actions needed to ensure a positive and collaborative editing environment.

Now, I'm not throwing these policies and guidelines at you in order to say that I'm right and that you are wrong. I'm simply telling you what was going through my mind at the time. I was faced with a decision, and I went with what I felt would best protect the article and the project at that moment. I was questioned for lowering the protection, and I was obviously questioned for raising it back up. I guess I can't truly win in these situations. :-) I hope that my response helped to explain why I did what I did. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask them. I hope you're doing well, EEng, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. Oh, and to answer your (question?), yes it is possible to combine extended-confirmed protection (or any protection, for that matter) with pending changes protection, though the only reason you'd do so is if you'd have, say, semi-protection expire sooner than pending-changes protection, in which the pending-changes protection would take over after that protection expires. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your most thorough explanation, and I trust you remain well also. I don't understand your final comment, however. Seems to me if you combine ECP with PCP, you'd have the effect of PCP (i.e. changes are hidden from most readers until they're reviewed) but also only EC editors can edit at all. Anyway, I've since realized that PCP is really practical only for articles with very light editing traffic. EEng 07:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng - Oh, sure, I can explain further: In the situation you mentioned above (ECP with PCP), you'd be right in a practical sense. Combining extended-confirmed protection and pending changes protection would be impractical, but it's technically possible ("technically possible" meaning that you can actually set protection that way and the MediaWiki Software won't stop you from doing so). If they expired at the same time, pending changes protection would be useless. The only effect that you'd see is extended-confirmed protection. It's only practical if a protection that restricted editing at all (like semi protection) was going to expire sooner than the pending changes protection expiration you'd set. This way, when semi expired, pending changes protection would take over, and allow editing but hide changes until they were reviewed. The only situations where I've set both PCP and another protection together was with semi protection. I'd set PCP to expire, say, in one month. Then I'd set semi to expire in a few days or a week. Then, the restriction would "lower" after semi expired, and when PCP would take over. I've been good, but busy... Work has kept me quite busy. Hope you're doing well. Stay healthy... these times are certainly quite crazy! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I still don't get it. If ECP and PCP are both in force at a given moment, why is it that pending changes protection would be useless ... only effect that you'd see is extended-confirmed protection? Why wouldn't you get the effect of both? EEng 08:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng - Because non-confirmed users and anonymous users would be restricted from editing the page in the first place with the extended-confirmed protection being applied. Hence there'd be no point in implementing PCP unless ECP was set to expire sooner. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot that PCP only "hides" the edits of unconfirmed editors. Odd that I let that slip my mind, since I did the table at Template:Protection_table. EEng 08:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

EEng - No worries; it happens to the best of us. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. EEng 09:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

New here - why does the article title "Political positions of Joe Biden" now land on your recent edit rather than land in the main article page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:7CDF:24FD:85F7:E2C9:BFE3:428C (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

CRASH will be by soon. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Can you elaborate or provide a link? I thought at first you might have meant that your changes have become "pending" instead of live on the page (due to pending changes protection), but the page logs show that it's only been semi-protected. Any additional information you can add will help me to answer your question. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No subject

He buddy let me know how can i make a Wikipedia page that fan be publicly seen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagpreet singh virdi (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jagpreet singh virdi! Before creating your first article, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial first. It will provide you with many important walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will familiarize you with our policies and guidelines, how Wikipedia works, how to navigate around the site, and how to find important locations and pages. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Should you wish to proceed anyways, there's an easy tutorial that will guide you. You can find it here. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them and help. :-) Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to join us! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Why are you lowering the protection on this article today of all days? Have you looked over the talk page? There are many editors contesting that he won the election and is the President-elect. It seems like today, of all days, you would maintain protection on this article. This article will be subject to disruption for the foreseeable future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz - The article was fully protected due to vandalism by compromised extended confirmed account. I felt that the vandalism has passed and hence the reason for protecting it was no longer necessary. If you feel that it should remain fully protected due to possible edit warring, I can restore it. Shall I do so? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz - I went ahead and restored full protection with an updated reason. Quite frankly, I agree with you. I'm just trying to be thorough. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit I didn't see the previous discussions on this issue (above this comment). Sorry to add to your burden of placing the protection. I've found that edit suggestions on talk pages of protected articles can show you what edits editors would make if they could do it on their own. And, right now, there are a lot of people that can't accept reality. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz - No worries! It's the right thing to do for the article and the encyclopedia. If it means that I take heat for it, oh well. That's the burden and the curse that comes with holding the mop. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

One thing I can do to possibly help is to temporarily remove the WP:1RR restriction from the article, leaving just the BRD restriction. That would free up our regular editors to revert unhelpful content without worrying about using up their 1 daily revert against the massive number of less-helpful edits, but it would still prohibit drive-by accounts from immediately reinstating their changes when those changes are undone. (FYI this isn't an idea I just came up with, I've been thinking about this for some time now especially in the context of articles about recent events.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BilCat (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

BilCat - Received and replied. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi, I believe it is time to re-protect the List of films impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. There have been multiple persistent edits by unregistered users in the past few days with un-sourced content and/or removal of content without any reasoning. Please help. Thanks. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 07:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shawnqual! I've added pending-changes protection to this article for one month. If things continue after it expires, let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

About Joe Biden

Can you make the protection maybe expire on 15 January 2021? Or probably drop it to semiprotection I am kind of opposed to "indefinite" full-protection as it stops legit contributors from making good-faith edits. Sure there are DS imposed on the page, but I think indefinite full protection is a bit too much as it prevents most direct good-faith edits ever. Aasim (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Or better remove protection altogether, so that way we can tell the truth about Biden without ponces reverting and calling it vandalism! Spacewise (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — Spacewise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi Awesome Aasim - There's a discussion on AN regarding the protection of these articles where you can participate and voice your concerns. I've already expressed there that I'll be happy to update the protection to what's decided. I suggest participating there. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

AN

Sorry to drag you into drama, but I've started an WP:AN thread about the protection on the Joe Biden page. I think you did the right thing here, my hope is this discussion determines what an appropriate length of time of protection is, or some alternatives. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek - No biggie. :-) Just let me know what's decided and I can change it. I'll keep my name on the protection; no need to drag other admins into the mud. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at an edit

Would you please take a look at this edit? I don't know if it should stick around in the edit history. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi BlackcurrantTea! It doesn't appear to fall into the threshold of being a serious BLP violation, so I'll go ahead and hold off. In the future, if you see anything that you feel might need rev del, you'll want to email them to me instead of posting them here publicly for anyone to read. Over 1000 editors have my user talk page on their watchlist - this means that they're notified as soon as anyone makes an edit to this page. If you post these kinds of requests here, you will trigger the Streisand effect (I'm sure you've heard of it), as editors will quickly run over and look at the content before it becomes restricted for them to see. No big deal; just keep this in mind for next time. :-) If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. :-D Have a great day, and happy editing! Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. If I thought it was a definite case for revdel, I would have emailed. Since it's an orphan article with low page views, and the edit was, well, not at all nice, but as you say, not over the threshold, and it had already been there for over a day, I posted here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

BlackcurrantTea - No worries, I understand and I don't fault you at all. Yeah, even in cases where you're not even sure, just go ahead and email them to me. "Better safe than sorry" is how I feel with these kinds of reports. ;-) I've had many editors report possible rev del issues here where they felt doubtful but figured they're report anyways. Well, they ended up being revisions that ABSOLUTELY 100% NEEDED REV DEL... lol. I look at the page views for the article the next day, and as I expected, a big jump was recorded just because the user reported the revision here publicly. I help many editors here, and as a consequence, these kinds of things happen. ;-) Anyways, as I said above, please don't hesitate to let me know if you see any more issues - I'll be happy to take a look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Dougal Dankworth

is requesting unblocking at UTRS appeal #37014. As he is globally locked, his only avenue of appeal is UTRS. I read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajax Coleman/Archive, and your logic would be difficult to refute. Could you opine at the UTRS? The only route I see to unblocking would be to shuttle his requests between UTRS and WP:AN. And I don't think that would succeed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. 331dot gave them/him short shrift.09:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra - Cool deal; glad it's been taken care of. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

About the removal of Randeep Rai project Hero Gayab Mode ON

I removed that because Hero Gayab Mode On Trailer has released its appearing Abishek Nigam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.141.83 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for letting me know. If my revert was made in error, please accept my apologies and feel free to restore your changes. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Warner Media and more

You said to let you know if you missed blocking anyone.[2]. You missed this one. The entire /16 has been quiet this month except for that one edit on the 9th so perhaps you didn't "miss" him after all. I did not check the entire /12[3] but obviously that's too big to block. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Davidwr! Thanks for the message and for letting me know. For now, let's just keep an eye on this IP. If things go crazy, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. I wouldn't put much time into that range. A /12 on an IPv4 is absolutely massive... It's wider than the maximum range that we can block in one action. Again, if you see any craziness, let me know. :-) Thanks again for the FYI. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Thankfulness
	I am giving you this because I think you are very thankful for all the work you’ve done on Wikipedia for the past thirteen years. Cupper52 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cupper52! Thank you for the barnstar! You're absolutely correct - I'm extremely thankful to be part of this community over the 13+ years that I've been an editor here. It's been great to work with other people, come to resolutions to complex issues and problems, and keep Wikipedia clean of disruption. I appreciate the time that you took to write this to me, and I hope you have a great day! Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Broadway Blackthorn1234 Page Deletion

So I'm new here, forgive me if I screwed something up big-time, but I want to know why my page was deleted? I tried to look into the reason the page was deleted when I saw the message, but it was confusing. Can you explain it to me like I'm an idiot [mainly because I am, but also because a lot of things are confusing for me sometimes]? Broadway Blackthorn1234 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Broadway Blackthorn1234

Hi Broadway Blackthorn1234! Welcome to Wikipedia! Your userpage was deleted because it consisted of content that was not primarily Wikipedia-focused. It appeared as if you were either writing about yourself or about someone else that you know. See this section of Wikipedia's policy on user pages for more information. If you have any questions or if you need help with anything, please let me know and I will be more than happy to do so. :-) You're not in trouble or anything - don't worry. We just have these rules in place to keep user pages on-focus and appropriate, and make sure that any disruption, spam, advertising, or other disallowed content on user pages are taken care of. Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadway Blackthorn1234 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Broadway Blackthorn1234 - You bet. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to have you here with us! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Shawntheshipper

Hi. I think you forgot to block and tag User:Tayzarswifsson as another sockpuppet. Also, should User:Shawntheshipper have his block extended to indefinite for continues sockpuppetry?4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi 4thfile4thrank! Nope, I left that account unblocked because I concluded that it was likely this user, not confirmed. ;-) It's definitely going to be a sock, but I can't say so with enough certainty given the technical evidence I obtained. Yes, I would say that extending the block to an indefinite block wouldn't be a bad idea. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Can his block be extended to indef please? It hasn't been done yet. It is clear Shawntheshipper has continued to sock after being blocked for it. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 01:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

4thfile4thrank - Sure, though the IP is already autoblocked. It won't make a difference whether I extend the block now or someone else does it while closing the SPI thread. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

4thfile4thrank -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

How to respond to an edit like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasyl_Lomachenko&curid=14538175&diff=988102685&oldid=986396164&diffmode=source 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 02:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

4thfile4thrank - I'd revert it stating that the edit wasn't necessary. Wikipedia is not a place to update website statuses and uptime. I've gone ahead and reverted the edit for you here. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@4thfile4thrank:(talk page stalker)Since there is a claim of malware, I replaced the link with {{cite web|url=http://www.boxing-scoop.com/show_boxer.php?boxer_ID=8586|title=Vasyl Lomachenko's amateur boxing record|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180925104414/http://www.boxing-scoop.com/show_boxer.php?boxer_ID=8586|archivedate=2018-09-25|url-status=unfit}}. This gives a usable link without giving the possibly-contaminated one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Davidwr - Perfect! Thanks for doing that! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Oversighter's Barnstar
		Thanks for being around so much to hide stuff --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712! Thank you for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! And you're very welcome! I appreciate all of the reports you send my way, and I'm always happy to take care of them! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Chills (YouTuber)

@Oshwah: Hi, could you help me fill in the references on Chills (YouTuber). They look weird! --SoothingRelaxation (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SoothingRelaxation! Sure, I'll be happy to help! Have you used the {{cite web}} template before? This is what is commonly used for citing sources that point to web pages. You just put the template between the ref tags, and you're set to go! It's use is documented here, but in a nutshell, this is how you use it:

For references with author credit

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>

For references without author credit

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author=<!--Not stated--> |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>

You just fill in the information after the equal signs. You can remove the pieces that you don't have information for. Here's an example:

Example

The code you actually add to the article in order to reference a source (this one, I just picked Microsoft's homepage to make it easy for you to read): <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.microsoft.com|title=Microsoft Homepage|last=Gates|first=Bill|date=November 11, 2020|publisher=[[Microsoft]] |access-date=January 1, 2019}}</ref> The output in the references section at the bottom of the article will look like this: Gates, Bill (November 11, 2020). "Microsoft Homepage". Microsoft. Retrieved January 1, 2019.

Please let me know if you have any more questions or need help with anything else. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi.

As you can see, the user gagaluv1 has another edit warring going on. As i told you, he seems to have a fixation with all of my edits and he was the one trolling you telling you he learned a lesson. I don't know why you felt like I was the "bad child" here. Because if i was i wouldn't be writing you this to understad the situation. I don't know what to do with this user, it's so frustating and you thinking i was the bad one was dissapointing. I hope this clears up the confussion. thank u in advance!--Night Crawling (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)