Jump to content

User talk:Oshwah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is an edit filter manager on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has interface administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cariad09 (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 3 March 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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.


Unblock

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

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

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

Carswell source

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

Is that enough for you?

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

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

Reverted edit

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

Thank you.

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

Regarding Actor Sudeep martial status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My page

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

A beer for you!

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

Gregory Baum's gay lifestyle

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

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

memory fails me... master?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just 2 let you know

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

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

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

you should know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cambridgeshire edit

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

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

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

Your Message

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

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

It was common knowlege

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

Edits I did not make

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

Setantii

Account Hacked

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

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

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

Reverting and protecting.

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No._2_Squadron_RAF&action=history

Sorting out capitalisation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Arnett_McLeod

Linking to correct aircraft type

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoptolemus

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

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

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

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

Liverpool Boys High School

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

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

89th Academy Awards

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

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

ODEON updates

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

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

WhiteLightning1438 looks like another sock

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

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

A favour

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

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

Edits revoked.

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

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

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

Re: Geoffrey_Regan

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

Thanks, Andrew Regan

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

Aregan76 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvery in Islam

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

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

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

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

deletion

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

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

User:Prasanna Dange

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

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

re: TruthRevealer69

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

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

your recent edits on biography of David Petrovsky

Hi Oshwah,

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

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

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

Deaths in 2017 page protection

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

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

Psychosocial (song)

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

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

I didn't know how to say this in ANI

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

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

Oshwah

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

Edits to Frederick Chiluba

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

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

Doubts....

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

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

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

Elys75 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy?

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

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

Did you blocked this user?

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

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

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

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

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

ishwarya menon WIkipage

Dear Oshwah

Am the official Representative of Actress Ishwarya Menon

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

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

User:103.199.16.111

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

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

List of Wild at Heart episodes

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wild_at_Heart_episodes&action=history

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

Extremely High Frequency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency

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

answer to Oshwah

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

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

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

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

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

Not being disruptive

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

Australian Classification Board

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

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

Nomination of Everaldo Coelho for deletion

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

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

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

Christoph Waltz Social Media

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

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

Profanity

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

Gillian Ryan

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

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

Response to disruptive editing comment

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

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

RE: Birmingham Mail Edit Message

Hi,

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

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

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

Thanks.


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

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

Hi

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

1.222.82.86

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

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

WP:ANI

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

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

whale extinction

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

Atp masters,500,250

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

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

baklava

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

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

Deaths in 2017

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

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

Read before revert

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

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

Generation Snowflake edit

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

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

An AfC about Oshwah

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

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

Activision

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

Juan of those days...

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

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

White Helmets page

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

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

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

Warning

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

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

Quick FYI:

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

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

Why?

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

edits to ferdinand marcos page

the ferdinand marcos page seems to be written from the point of view of a marcos loyalist. either that or someone who was not inside the philippines during that time. it mentions some things but omits others. if a kid reads it he will have no context and might end up with the wrong conclusions. many of the information given have a slant towards the marcos side without explaining why that happened or this happened. i suggest you have it reviewed by the university of the philippines professors via e mail or any other creditable institution in the philippines like the ateneo or lasalle colleges. even the reason why aquino came back is wrong. aquino did not have to come back. in the article it said the reason he came back was his tenure as professor was over. the aquino family is one of the wealthiest families in the philippines. he did not need to work to live in america. i suggest you look at the speech he gave before he left as to the reasons why he came back to the philippines. the article on marcos seems amateurish at best somewhat leaning on the side of the marcoses who have hired many internet experts for his run for the vice presidency.if you are looking for a court case that have been decided to verify the information written then you will not get any verification. you might as well write that he is a saint. many of the stories are already forgotten by the current generation who did not live through it. remember hitler and stalin, they were never prosecuted in any court. what we know of them comes from the stories told by those who lived during that time. from the eyewitness accounts of the horror the people lived through. are you allowing wikipedia to propagate biased information which does not explain the other side?Nixon your own president accomplished many things but he is still remembered today by many only for watergate. on the paragraph of marcos' death the article even says he left 90 percent of his estate to the filipino people and the cory aquino government refused. this is an unverified fact. laurel is the vice president who plotted to oust the gov. through a coup d etat. zobel is a golf buddy of marcos and one of the richest men in the philippines during the marcos era. if he was really giving it away the sons and the daughters would not be listed in the panama papers as owning huge wealth through various holding companies. many of the philippine people are stupid just like many in the states who elected trump. there are still many marcos loyalists most of them in the extreme north where he had his home town and in which he poured money during his presidency to develop. all they hear are the good things and never the bad. your article seems to be written by one from that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit

My recent edit on the early years of Albert Beveradge were changed back and I do not know why. These are factual points that the public needs to know. Please for the benefit of the children change this information back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcinoabsuovn (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

÷_(album)

Thank you for helping fix the source problem rather than just reverting like the previous editor did. 86.174.166.171 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Horowitz

Hi Oshwah,

I am trying to edit events regarding Jordan Horowitz and the Academy award incident. The original content was written with no neutrality, and tried to portray Jordan as the person who resolved the issue. Please read the cited source (4) for clarity. The current page states that Jordan rushed to grab the correct envelope from Warren Beatty, and this was proven to be completely false. Warren Beatty was provided with the wrong envelope to begin with with (do any web search and you can see). The wiki appears to blame Warren Beatty for the mistake.

Thank you,

Michael Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.158.223 (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the edit to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Samoa-Apia

Hello Oshwah

I was just looking to make this link like I had seen with most other diocesan Wiki articles that had Wiki article links to their cathedrals

(e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Aga%C3%B1a and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Chalan_Kanoa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Caroline_Islands and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Apostolic_Prefecture_of_the_Marshall_Islands and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Noum%C3%A9a and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Port-Vila and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Wallis_et_Futuna and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Papeete and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Taiohae_o_Tefenuaenata and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Samoa%E2%80%93Pago_Pago - all of which were linked before me),

and I was looking to dutifully follow suit with other diocesan webpages.

Respectfully

Ka24872482Akeakamai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka24872482Akeakamai (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, alright

President kennedy school, I appreciate that there is definitely a fair amount of spam getting added at the moment, but can I add what I feel is actually relevant. Thanks Tdp2612 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tdp2612 - All vandals are now blocked and the page is now protected. Should be a lot easier for you to improve it now ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

629 changed to 630

As I said, I made the change to make the article consistent with the page regarding the previous king, and also with itself. Ardashir III's page says he died in 630, not 629, and the article itself says Shahrbaraz was killed only 40 days after usurping the throne. From 27 April 629 to 9 June 630 is a lot more than 40 days.

If it's incorrect, that's fine, but both statements cannot be true. One or the other should be changed. If you disagree, I'd like to know what your definition of "constructive" is.165.127.8.254 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Tony Harrison, not an expert, but a guy who can read.[reply]

Hi there! That was a mistake on my part; I apologize for that. I meant to revert a different edit and it ended up rolling back yours. I removed the warning and restored your changes. Please let me know if you need anything else. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Spear

Why did you remove so much information from the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.174.210.117 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was I being scammed?

Hello. I know nothing about how Wikipedia works but I was contacted by someone who said they would help me create a Wikipedia page. I get a fair amount of publicity so didn't think much of it. I just saw that you blocked Tropical Animal..looks like he was the guy making it. I was just trying to figure out if he was scamming me. I never paid anything yet because it wasn't finished but I'm just curious. Thanks for any info.Jomac10126 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Jomac10126. I'm not sure if anyone can say for sure whether you were being scammed. Although "paid editing" is not something which is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, it's not really something really encouraged because it can quickly lead to more serious problems. All editors being paid to edit/create articles are required to formally declare such a thing on their user page as explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. As long as a paid editor does this and is able to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, they should be OK. Problems only happen when the editor-in-question fails to follow relevant Wikipedia policy and makes edits that draw attention to themselves. In serious cases, the account may be blocked to prevent any further disruption. At the same time, there seem to be a number of "paid editors" who have no problems complying with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use and are able to contribute productively to improving the encyclopedia.
As to whether there is any point to hiring someone to write a Wikipedia article about you, I guess you can only answer that one for sure. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project which does not require any special qualifications to participate. Anyone anywhere in the world can edit/create articles as long as they do so in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Articles, etc. are neither owned by those who create/edit them nor the subjects they are about, so article content can be be removed/revised just as quickly as it is added. When there's a dispute, editors are expected to try and resolve things through discussion and by establishing a consensus. Subjects of articles are expected to be Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article to be written, and those which are not may be nominated/tagged for deletion at anytime by any editor. In other words, there is no 100% guarantee that any article which is created today will still be there tomorrow, next week or next year. If you feel you are notable enough for a Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)), then try asking for assistance at Wikipedia:Requested articles.There are number of editors who simply like creating new articles, know how to properly do it, and are not in it to make money. Perhaps, one of them would be happy to help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Quintart

Hello I am very surprised to see that you removed what I did write about Julian Quintart. I think that what I did write was neutral. I only related a few things that Julian did in 2016 and early 2017. I did link to article from some newspaper or from article on google. I did cite my sources. Can you tell me what was not neutral ?

Thank you for your answer.

Vero55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verovero55 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verovero55 - That was a mistake on my part; please accept my apologies for the mix-up. I've restored the changes you made to the article. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else. Thank you for leaving me a message about this and for giving me a heads up. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girton Alumni

Thanks for your note, could you please reinstate the entry that was deleted (Jennifer Moyle) on this page. The only edits were to add her name and then delete the citation to Dr Moyle's wikipedia page as this did not seem to the style for this table 12:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)12:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)12:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejc44 (talk • contribs)

Ejc44 -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you ...

Verovero55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verovero55 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to 99X history

You reversed my edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWWQ-HD2. I re-did the edits and included cites, but I'm not sure that I included them correctly.

Thanks

Elvisisatimelord (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. L.S. inc. (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just read your message I just added plz learn senators what's wrong with that?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polop7 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 1 : No valid verifiable source as per the Wikipedia standards

Quote of Luke 1 Verse 3 clearly states that it was for the purpose of writing orderly account and hence has nothing to do with divine. also its not historically accurate account as genealogy of Jesus is Matthew and Luke are totally different. Kindly remove your post as it was having a warning deadline to remove if it is not backed up by proof by July2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.75.77 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--5.34.135.145 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)nkxkkdk[reply]

File:Jjdk
Nn

Notre Dame High School, Glasgow - New website link

Hi Oshwah,

My name is Joe Kane, one of the Depute Head Teachers at Notre Dame High School in Glasgow. I tried to change the web address link for our school on the wikipedia page and received a message from you to say that it had not updated.

We recently moved to a new official website for the school: https://blogs.glowscotland.org.uk/gc/ndhs/

[1]

This can be verified by visiting the site or indeed the old site: http://www.notredamehigh.glasgow.sch.uk/

[2]

We will shortly take the old site down completely, but as you can see the old site no longer includes content, only links to our new site. The new site is hosted on the Scottish Government Glow platform powered by RM Unify and makes use of Wordpress blogging to host sites. I am guessing that the new link may have flagged as it looks like a blog but it is an official site.

Is it possible to request that the wikipedia page be updated to only include the link to our new school site.

Kind Regards

86.166.116.204 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's alive!

Ha. --NeilN talk to me 21:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN - OOPS! Good catch! HAHA! Fixed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe what Wikipedia is saying about me! I'll sue!

Favor

Didn't want to log back onto IRC before I left for the night but can you do me a favor? Rev'del the first upload on File:Paul Johnson Lakes Sotheby's International Realty.jpg. Short story, they didn't want to release that one under a free license. See the file talk page for the long version. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read the long version but it's not clear to me. I don't see a difference, of course, between the images, but more importantly I think you're talking about deletion of the first two or three edits, not revdeletion. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: After explaining to them what they would have to do to certify that they own the copyright and can release the image to us, and after explaining what a free license entails they did not want to release the first image for modification (which would have made it unacceptable). So I asked them to upload a new one in its place to preserve the file talk page explanation and history (in hindsight I could have just moved the file talk page to whatever new upload name they put it at but an admin action would have been required either way). Since they refused to allow a free license on the original upload it has to go. Delete, rev'del, whatever works. It can't be visible. --Majora (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I said rev'del since it would be the same principle as non-free revision removal which if I am thinking correctly is a rev'del. Not a delete as the file edit history is still there. --Majora (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on "taekwondo" ! Truejim (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Truejim! Thanks for the wiki love, man! I appreciate it! And no problem! Always happy to help! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WORCS Barnstar.

Hello Oshwah,

I decided to address to you as I noticed, that you made a contribution to the article Flag of Worcestershire. I used this symbol in the design of Worcestershire Barnstar, created for the WP:WORCS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Worcestershire When I learned, that such project exists, I became very interested, as I’m planning to drive to the Archaeological sites in Worcestershire, make plenty of photos around and then — start the article about Archaeological findings of Worcestershire. I think, that WP:WORCS is a good Project and deserves to have its own Barnstar, which also, probably, will serve as a momentum of positive energy, that will help to make this Project more active: it’s in need of it. If you will have a minute, please have a look at WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards, and if you will see this idea, and the design (I tried my best) of WORCS Barnstar as a good one - give your support. All the best. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.142.69.195

TPA no longer required I think Oshwah. Hope you're well! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 20:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Throttled Iniced, the Churly Chump from Chorley. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)  Done. Talk page access yanked. It's Friday; of course I'm doing well! How's everything going for you? :-) ~Oshwah~<small(talk) (contribs) 20:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted, thanks to you and Favonian. Mind you, from what they said, it must've been ex ;) 20:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 20:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, TGIF eh! Actually you're lucky really- you've still got Friday evening to look forward to- but it's happening here already! :D take care, and enjoy. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

supposedly my IP is blocked

HI, I was doing a search for an article and got a "message banner" telling me I had a message.

It says that I am blocked because of vandalism to two articles I'd never heard of and apparently the only article I did ever edit (was to fix vandalism) the IP for my fix says that that IP is also blocked. I am very confused as I don't recognize the other articles attached to the IP address I know I actually used. can you please help?

I am including both IP pages I referenced; the one I got the message banner for: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172.56.38.141&redirect=no The one I know I actually used to correct the vandalism to Thomas Gibson's article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/165.214.12.71 Thank you for your time. 172.56.38.141 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: It also says I am blocked for making an account. 172.56.38.141 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)It appears you use a dynamic IP address. The warning on your talk page was just that: a warning. It appears that someone using your IP address had vandalized Wikipedia enough to warrant being blocked. Blocks of IP addresses are almost always short term. The message about not being able to create an account is somewhat misleading: the account it references is an internal, technical account used to track activity on the site, and what it means is that you can't edit. The best thing to do would be to actually go through the process of creating an account with a username and password. This will attribute any edits made while logged in to that account, instead of your IP address, and allow you to get around any blocks that may be applied to your IP address. You may reach me on my own talk page if you need any more help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: That is so strange... I am using my house (cellphone) phones hotspot! how can someone else use it who is not on my accepted user list or have access to my password? I thought I might actually have an account here but can't find email conformation I did and I never got a email when I tried to reset a password for my email address. Will it actually let me make an account after the most resent block has expired? 172.56.38.141 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your IP is assigned by your Internet service provider. Check out Dynamic IP address for more info. Basically, it's quite common for ISPs to force their customers to share and re-use IP addresses, as it allows them to have more customers than IPs. As far as creating an account goes, your IP is not currently blocked (unless you're referring to a different IP than the one you're using), or you wouldn't be able to comment here. Even if you were blocked, that won't stop you from registering an account. We don't want to punish you just because that guy down the road from you who has the same ISP keeps vandalising the project. If you weren't getting the confirmation email then either the email is being flagged as spam by your mail provider (in which case, check your spam folder), it's being rejected by your mail server (in which case you're SOL until you make a new email address that uses a different server), or your may have typo'd the address. In my experience, it's usually the first, but the second is a close contender. The middle one is really (really) rare. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion of Dylan T Rocks on Dylan Thomas Wikipedia page

Hello, My name is Julia and I don't understand why you think the details that I added are inappropriate for the Wikipedia Dylan Thomas page. I notice on a lot of similar pages that there are similar links to films/bands/etc. I believe that people interested in Dylan Thomas as we are (since I am Welsh born and bred) would be happy to hear that his name lives on in music.The band are passionate musicians and about Dylan Thomas otherwise why would we base a name on him.It's with the utmost respect that is shown for the poet and it's a way of educating young fans of the band exactly who Dylan Thomas was....in my view one of the most important and exciting poets in my life time.Dylan himself was full of Welsh passion rarely found in other countries although I realise that he didn't speak Welsh as I do not myself. Perhaps I should leave the fact out that we are now based in West Sussex because perhaps that is confusing.

I'd also be grateful if you would explain who you are and why you have authority to remove items added to Wikipedia. Excuse my naivety and blunt words but your help would be invaluable. Sent with kind regards, Julia

Hello again Oshwah, I feel it would be appropriate to add to the references section at the end of the insertion. I hope you're agreeable to this because I feel strongly that people should know this information since we have also notified the Laugharne Festival of our existence too.

I look foward to your earliest reply. Kind regards Julia

  1. ^ https://blogs.glowscotland.org.uk/gc/ndhs/
  2. ^ http://www.notredamehigh.glasgow.sch.uk/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=768463181"