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 65.152.162.3 (talk) at 00:34, 30 November 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.


Suggestions on how to proceed with a mess

An IP or IPs starting with 124.106... has been adding colors to List of colors (main page) with links that go to non-existent sections or non-existent articles. Example with this edit Deep Bronze, Deep Blue, Deep Aquamarine link to non-existent sections and have no source. I removed much of these on List of colors: N–Z with this edit also leaving a refimprove and note on talk:List of colors: N–Z#Dubious, unsourced colors. How does one deal with this stuff? Need a tool that checks Wiki-links that checks for bad/non-existent section names. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim1138 - Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns here. I've added pending changes protection to the List of colors article for three months, since all that's been edited on the page for at least the last six months is vandalism. It looks like the majority of links on the other lists of colors (at least the List of colors: A–F article) point to tables in the List of Crayola crayon colors article (which doesn't appear to point or link to any pages inside or outside of Wikipedia). These colors being added by the various users you're pointing out: Do we know if the colors they're adding are real? I guess another question that comes to my mind is... what is real?... especially when it comes to the name of a color? It seems like anybody could add an RGB or HTML color code to the list and make a claim that this is the correct color, and that this is the correct color name. I don't see it as out-of-line to ask these users to provide a reference with what they're adding in order to verify that these colors do, in fact, have a notable name by some creator that's widely used, and that the color they added is the correct shade as the color that's being claimed as having a name. Then there's the issue of notability and if a certain color is notable enough to be listed... oh boy. This particular situation sounds like one that will need quite a bit of editor review and oversight if it's going to be improved and up to par with our policies and guidelines... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the list of colors article that's getting dubious edits, it's the internal links: List of colors: A–F, List of colors: G–M, List of colors: N–Z, & List of colors (compact) It seems that 124.106.246.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the source of much of it. Broke this template. I seem to see 124.106... popup all too frequently such as 124.106.250.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s edits on 1926. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim1138 - Just wanted to check in with you about this. Did you still need help with this? Let me know. If you do, I'll be happy help you out with whatever I can. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been quiet for awhile. I'll let you know if I see a problem in the future. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim1138 - Sounds good. Please do. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Neri

While looking at the article on Philip Neri I noticed that there appeared to be some recent back and forth regarding material under the "Legacy - The Oratory" section. I have two questions. (1) would most of this be better served on the Oratory page? (which looks rather spare in some sections), and (2) since the sources cited are both over 100 years old, is this still current practice? I did not wish to tamper with it, as I would not want to appear to be "mucking around" after the two reverts, so I will leave this to your discretion. Cheers. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mannanan51! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions. The two reversions I made to the article recently (here and here) was to revert vandalism. I'm not an expert nor do I have much in-depth knowledge on the subject, but I'd imagine that references on topics such as religion and early religion, and the traditions carried throughout them - would be quite old, since these traditions have been practiced for a very long time. I would examine the wording of the article and its references cited in order to figure out if these traditions you ask about are current and still in practice to this day. The article Oratory of Saint Philip Neri might help answer your question; have you read this article yet? Let me know if you have any more questions or need additional assistance, and I'll be more than happy to do what I can to help. If anything, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction or refer you to the correct help page in order to get your question answered. Either way, I'll make sure that you get help. Thanks again for your message :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You bet; always happy to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you were away....

An editor attempted to remove a pair of comments made by other editors on your talk page, twice. Both times he was promptly and rightfully reverted by other watchful editors. However, he also attempted to leave a message at the same time, but that was removed in tbe reverts. That message should remain and be disposed of at your discretion. The message was;

collapsing original message

Hello

Can you please unblock 58.161.155.1 please thank you --115.186.196.218 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyBeachCentre (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same message amd timestamp both times. I added the {{Unsigned}} template.

FYI - theWOLFchild 11:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild - Thanks, man. I appreciate the heads up. I think this editor was also trying to ask me this same question on IRC the other day as well. It looks like an editor that might be violating their own IP block to ask that their IP be unblocked? I'm not sure. I'll need to look and see :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just left the blocking admin a message letting them know that this username is also a violation as it is the exact match of an Organization. I'll let him carry out the decision regarding this user and the block placed on the account. Thanks again for the FYI. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cote d'Azur

Hi Oshwah. Do you think User:Cote d'Azur is a username violation because technically there is a place called Cote d'Azur? Also, it seems unlikely that this editor is a Wikipedia:Master Editor just based upon the edits made with this account, but not sure if that's really an issue that needs to be addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: - Just so you know, Cote d'Azur has been here since 2008 and has almost 37,000 edits so far. There doesn't appear to be anything in the Wikipedia Username policy that prohibits using a name of a location as a username. FYI (Non-administrator comment) - theWOLFchild 11:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Since the WP:Master Editor requirements include at least 42,000 edits, that userbox is indeed misleading. Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Really? Then somebody better do something... quick! Before anymore damage is inflcited on the project. Children might see that atrocious misuse of the 'master editor' thingy. >gasp!< Think of the children! [/sarcasm] - theWOLFchild 12:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My Global edit counts shows 43,490 on All projects. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cote d'Azur, the edit counts refer to EN-wiki only, not "all projects". Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? Wow. No wonder we have a problem keeping decent editors when they're harangued with this kind of nonsense. FFS. - theWOLFchild 12:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Wikipedia:Service awards: To learn your edit count and the date of your first logged edit, click Preferences where this information will appear under View global account info. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quoted directly from the Wikipedia Service Awards page; "These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty". I think we're done here. - theWOLFchild 12:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks, Cote d'Azur, I learned something! Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Apart from the edit count, the name of the "place" is Côte d'Azur not Cote d'Azur. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call this one 'close enough'. :) Cote d'Azur is 9 years 5 months (6/16/2008 1:7) 36,882 edits, and that makes him a friend and valued editor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Anna Frodesiak, his edit count is 43,446 [1], because as he notes/quotes above, the service awards include global contributions. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Just for the sake of clarity, per WP:SVC#What is counted? "If you want to count edits on other Wikimedia projects, that's okay too." It's not important though... just a bit of 'fun'. Eagleash (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to everyone who responded. First of all, my sincerest apologies to Cote d'Azur. I don't know exactly how I mixed things up, but I probably had multiple windows opened at the same time and mixed up your contributions history with another editor, or just had a total brain freeze. Regardless, a silly error on my part, so once again sorry for that bit of drama. Next apologies to everyone else as well for stirring a pot that didn't need to be stirred. My bad all around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there! Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. Yes, as said by Anna Frodesiak, Thewolfchild, and others here: Since this editor has made positive and constructive edits and contributions to the project, administrators will be much, much less inclined to hold their feet to the fire regarding a possible username violation (unless the violation is grossly egregious in nature and needs to be changes - and even then, we'll ask them to do so first without taking any action). Reports that are made to WP:UAA and others regarding username issues should be in regards to accounts that were just recently created; old accounts you happen to bump into that have made no edits, or accounts of long-term editors that have made good contributions will generally be left alone (with the usual exception I stated above, of course). If there are other questions about usernames, the username policy, or if an account is in violation of this policy - please don't hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be happy to take a look, answer your question, and explain the policy in regards to the given case (if applicable). I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving, and I wish you all happy editing :-)! Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and others..." Gee, thanks. Oh well, Anna said I was a "friend and valued editor", which gave me a warm fuzzy feeling : ) - wolf 00:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thewolfchild - LOL! There - I added you as well. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild - Also, your current signature doesn't link to your user space at all (the one right above that just says "wolf" and in red color) - unless you were just adding one with code as a one-off? If you changed your signature, I'd suggest changing it to this, so that other editors can click on it and go directly to your user page: [[User:Thewolfchild|{{color|red|wolf}}]]
It's up to you, obviously. Just adding a suggestion to help you out ;-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just a one time thing. My sig is still hooked up. By the way, speaking of usernames that sound like places, I heard of a town up in Ontario Canada called "Oshawa". Coincidence..? - theWOLFchild 01:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild - HA! I've had that mentioned to me a lot. There's even been users who've misspelled my username as that town as well. Coincidence, you ask? Yes. 100%. I knew nothing of that town's existence until other people here mentioned it to me... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lunatic is back

Hi! This guy is back. Your assistance is very much welcome! Surtsicna (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna - I've blocked the IP for edit warring. Let me know if you see any more disruption like this and I'll be happy to take a look :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

71.55.216.64

Hi,

I think he's asking for his TPA to be revoked. What do you think? Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007 -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.T. Barrett

Thank you! I was in the process of deleting the change and saw that you did it. I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhombre329 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elhombre329 - No problem. If you need help with anything, please don't hesitate to message me here an ask. I'll be happy to help you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another one on User talk:JamesBWatson

IP contibutions Meters (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meters - Thanks for the heads up. The IP is blocked. Let me know if you see any more pop up and I'll be happy to take care of them ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed

Because I know better than u and its my birth place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad abedi (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your message left below. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

denial of changes to guy Sebastian

here is the source http://www.hamishandandy.com/2017/guy-sebastian-polishes-musical-disaster/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.3.160.222 (talk • contribs)

Hi there! Thanks for the message! What you need to do is cite the source in-line with the article. The link I gave you here will show you how to do this if you don't know how. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It's non-notable trivia, no? --NeilN talk to me 07:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN - I would say that you're correct, yes. I guess my priority with helping this user was to make sure that (s)he understood the importance of citing references to content they add or modify in articles. However, I guess by not addressing this issue as well, the user would ultimately be wasting their time just the same... I'm glad you mentioned this; I was debating whether or not to, and I probably should have. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removing of my edits

I have edited chatta bazaar and u have removed this can I know the reasono — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad abedi (talk • contribs)

Hi Asad abedi, and thanks for leaving me a message with your question and your concerns. Your edits to Chatta Bazaar here and here, and your edit to Noorkhan Bazar here - did not cite any reliable sources with the content you added in order to verify its accuracy and authenticity. It appears that the content you added may be based off original research (experience, ideas, conclusions, etc. that you've made or written yourself - basically "citing yourself"), which is not allowed on Wikipedia. They're very important policies that help assure that the quality of articles within Wikipedia are within those of an encyclopedia, and it's important that you read and understand them. I highly recommend that you review both of these policies and guidelines, and let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them if you do. Thanks again for leaving me a message. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy sebastion edit

I tried again with the proper cite and used this link http://www.hamishandandy.com/2017/guy-sebastian-polishes-musical-disaster/, which is where the song was made, I then got a message saying i was doing "disruptive editing" and was vandalizing the page. which was not my intent whatsoever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.3.160.222 (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Please forgive me this is my first time plus i really dont feel like getting in trouble il stop im sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMaN696969 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New

New --Why Orshwannkr waste time with PatrolScript ? (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]



  • omg bro... how do you do it? - wolf 09:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Very carefully ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shahab.pishanidar/Archive

I just ran across an editor complaining that you had blocked his account[2] - I don't know which it is, do you want me to run a CU? Doug Weller talk 09:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller! It's good to talk to you again. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving holiday. Is this user is referencing information from the SPI you placed in the section header here? If so, this was an easy SPI with obvious behavioral similarities with all accounts involved. The user keeps trying to create those same articles and was (or possibly 'is') using multiple accounts to do so. In that case, I'd say sure... go for it. You're only going to pull data that would potentially confirm this account using information from Srmgh1990, since Checkuser data retention is only three months. If you run the check, let me know what comes back and I'll be happy to do what's needed if you need me to - just tell me what you need me to do. Thanks for the message and for the heads up. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow you "is referencing information" - the Mafiri account, which has never been blocked, is saying you blocked his account after he created an article for Pishanidar. He doesn't give the name of the blocked account but I'm guessing you blocked Srmgh1990. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doug Weller - "referencing information" simply meant "making any reference that would link this account to evidence or other information presented in the SPI". Aha! This edit the account made is a give-away. He referenced the Srmgh1990 account near his/her signature, which I did block per the SPI you linked above. I'd say that there's no question that this user is the same as the account in the SPI, per their own admission. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need anything else and I'll be happy to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller - FYI: I just opened a new SPI case for this user for record-keeping purposes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing done by me in wart

Hello Oshwah, Myself Dr. A.P.S.Chhabra, I made a small addition to article "wart" as it seemed to be necessary in the treatment of warts. Can u add that content again and if any clarification is required pls tell.

Thank u Dr A.P.S.Chhabra (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr A.P.S.Chhabra, and thank you for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns. Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason I reverted your edit here was for a number of concerns. First, the content you added did not reference any reliable source at all. Your edit also had issues with neutrality. For example: stating that "homoeopathy is very effective in treating warts" is opinion-based and isn't in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on adding content to articles that reflect a neutral point-of-view. The topic of homoeopathy or alternative medicine (broadly construed and on any article anywhere on Wikipedia) is a current area of conflict on Wikipedia - and to such an extent that we have special authorizations and scrutiny enacted in this topic area (due to a past ruling by a committee). We need to be especially careful with how we add content in this topic area, and how we word things on articles in the area of medicine. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's verifiability and neutral point of view policies, as well as our guideline on identifying reliable sources. These are very important pages to review and understand. Since you're new to Wikipedia, you should start by completing our Wikipedia tutorial. It will help you by showing you around the site, exposing you to typical situations and areas, and guiding you through how to perform basic tasks and functions here. From the feedback I get, most users say that they gain a much better understanding of things here when they complete this tutorial. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines, and we don't expect you to be perfect at all - so don't fret and don't worry! It's okay to be bold and fix things! You'll just need to keep your eyes open and listen to the feedback and input of others so that you can pick up on the different guidelines and improve things from there. If you have any more questions or need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask me. I'll be happy to assist you. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for the message, and I hope you follow my recommendations and go through the tutorial and review the pages I linked you. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look?

New IP user, at this point only has a half-dozen edits, however all but one are to add a "cite" from a website called beautifullife.info which appears to be a user submission site. People send blog posts in advertising design related products. Submissions appear to be anonymous, as there is no author's name attached. There is very little info about the site itself. I don't know if this guy is just innocently adding a site he likes and thinks is a legit source, or if this is the beginning of some advert-spam. Either way, I think his additions will likely need to be dealt with in some form. Here's his contribs: Special:Contributions/86.58.52.10. Maybe you could also let me know the best way to deal with this if I come across a similar situation in the future. Thanks - theWOLFchild 14:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thewolfchild. I definitely see your concerns here. I'd start by giving the IP the benefit of the doubt until we have reason not to. Just explain on their talk page what you said here - the website isn't reliable per WP:UGC because it appears user-generated and opinionated, and that they should review this guideline on identifying reliable sources. Lets do that and see what happens from there. If trouble continues to brew, let me know and I'll be happy to try and lightly step in and help :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again...

Look who's popped in and reverted, yet again, despite all your final warnings and my cont'd effort to engage (I tried his talk page again last night). I believe this is revert number 11, and again, no reply on the article talk. - theWOLFchild 15:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild - I've blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring. However, because of the fact the more than one user seems to believe that these categories are not correct here, I'm going to leave the article as-is. You should do the same thing and leave things be, since you're involved in this as well. Start that discussion like I suggested above, and lets keep things there and see how it goes :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one other editor once, (and I'm not even sure that wasn't him as well - he has reverted with at least 2 different accounts). Meanwhile, he has been challenged on his talk page by several experienced editors who challenged his cat removals as improper. I think both BRD and STATUSQUO apply here. The article should go back to it previous, widely avcepted form, not the current version he has BATTLED and EDIT-WARRED his way into. He been blocked for this revert, so the revert shouldn't stand. If its going to be changed, it should be changed the right way. - theWOLFchild 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild - It's your call. I'm just letting you know what I recommend you do so that you don't step yourself into any hot water. You're welcome to take my advice or leave it; it won't hurt my feelings (lol). Just make sure that what you're doing is the right thing and that it isn't going to possibly get you zapped - that's all I ask... haha ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying (figuratively speaking), but... and with all due respect, I am going to revert. There are all the reasons and policies I just listed above to support this, plus I'm not violating 3RR or a warning and more importantly, if I don't, then nothing will happen He'll disappear, no discussion, no resolution. A fail for the dispute resolution process. If it's reverted, then when his block lifts, he has a choice...A) discuss on the talk page (finally) and hopefully we resolve this the right way, B) he foolishly reverts again, proving he's NOTHERE and just wants to BATTLE or C), he does nothing. Which means he had no real reason to revert. And the disruption stops. I think its the right thing to do. - theWOLFchild 15:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild - Hey, like I said, it's your call - have at it. I trust that you're being careful and that you're making good decisions :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Apologies if I'm doing anything wrong here.

I can not understand why I can't put an external link to the page which describer all about a location Ella Sri Lanka.

The visitella.com does not provide any paid services, but a information website which covers everything about Ella, Sri Lanka.

So do you think adding that as an external link is violating the wikipedia guidelines?

I'm new to wikipedia, so appreciate your guidence!

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishankasampath (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishankasampath, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for leaving me a message with your questions. The external links you're adding to the article make it shift towards being an advertisement (either by enticing users to visit the website, or by enticing users to visit the place). You must remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. If you're looking to add travel information and tourist content, you might consider visiting our sister project, Wikivoyage, and starting an article there (in fact, you already have an account there! Since you have an account on Wikipedia, it goes with you to Wikimedia's other sister project sites!). That is the place where this kind of content and links may be more acceptable and geared towards. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Oshwah,

Thanks for you reply. Yes, just checked Wikivoyage and found a page about Ella.

Looks like thats where I should add more details.

Thanks for the guidance! Appreciate lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishankasampath (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You bet, and best of luck to you! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 note

Hey there, thanks for your detailed close at ANI on my IPv6 /64 block. I'm nowhere near as familiar with IPv6 addressing, but it's basically my understanding that a /64 basically represents the same sort of endpoint as an individual IPv4 address, so effectively at any time all addresses within a /64 block will be the same end user, but the /64 block can be assigned dynamically to different users at different times in the same way that IPv4 addresses are. Does that make sense? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivanvector! You bet. Your description makes sense, for sure. IPv6 is quite a different beast compared to IPv4. If you're familiar with network addressing, subnet masking, and CIDR notation and what it actually refers to, IPv6 isn't too bad; you just have to get the hang of it is all. I'm not sure how much you know about IP addressing, but allow me to explain how it works... if you're at all interested in some IP knowledge... lol ;-)
Basically, the CIDR notation (/24, /16, /64, etc) refers to the number of bits that you're including in the range to block from editing. So, for example: lets say in "IPv4-land" that 192.168.0.2 (something easy) is causing disruption. In binary, 192.168.0.2 is 11000000.10101000.00000000.00000010. You'll see that there are 8 bits for each address block, totaling 32 bits. So, when you go to block a range on Wikipedia (say, 192.168.0.0/24) - you're saying grab the left-most 24 bits (so, 11000000.10101000.00000000) and IPs that edit from anything after that - are blocked, too. So 192.168.0.X are now blocked.
In IPv6, the important thing to note is that each IP block is not in base-10 (or 0-9) like IPv4; they're in hexidecimal or base-16 (hexidecimal increments from 0 to F). This means that each block is 16 bits in length (not 8, like IPv4). There's also eight IP blocks in IPv6 (where IPv4 only had four blocks) - totaling 128 bits in length (instead of 32 bits in IPv4). So when you block a /64 IPv6 range, (just like above) you're saying grab the left-most 64 bits, and IPs that edit from anything after that are blocked as well.
The big difference is how they're handed out to users. Where you'll see one IPv4 and a range of them (like my example above with 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.0/24), IPv6 addresses are commonly (not always, but commonly) handed out where the first half is kept by the network, and the second half is allocated to one person - so that second half can change like the situation you just saw. In a nutshell, what you're saying makes sense. If you see edits on an article by an IPv6 where the last four blocks are changing and the first four blocks are staying the same, it's the same person - block the /64. Because some networks can hand IPv6 addresses out differently - I usually only block the individual IPv6 address unless I see that it's changing like we've seen. Then I zap the /64.
I hope my long and boring response made some sense and that you didn't get bored out on me... lol. I do Corporate IT Administration and Software Engineering as a career, so naturally I'll have a geek-level of knowledge over this stuff.... haha. Let me know if you have questions or if anything doesn't make sense and you want to know more. I'll be happy to elaborate further :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that detailed explanation! I am familiar with the notations and ranges and bases and all that, I'm just not as up to speed on how they're assigned. This all makes sense to me, and I think would make a pretty good primer for other admins interested in range blocks. Cheers! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector - Awesome! You bet; always happy to help. Until we meet again ;-) -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Beverly R (talk · contribs)

Hi Oshwah, I notice you've already rev/deleted some of this new user's edits for copyright violation. My concern is that everything they've added may be similarly unacceptable, but rather than answering my questions they're just messing around with an article heading. The sources appear to be People or Time magazine articles from the 90s, and I don't know if they easily show up in Google searches. Any light you can shed would be great. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I rev del'd two of her edits due to the fact that she didn't paraphrase what she was referencing, but instead copied the text word-for-word from the source... which... is a copyright violation. I reviewed both the Louise Bourgeois and Andrée Ruellan articles, and I didn't see any blatant copy-and-paste copyright violations that I saw with Eunice Golden (but definitely feel free to check as well, in case I missed something). Regarding the concerns you have with the edits made to Andrée Ruellan: It looks like she just needs to be educated and shown Wikipedia's manual of style (specifically, for section headings). You've done the right thing by not reverting the article any more - don't let yourself get sucked into edit warring ;-)! I'd leave things be and try talking to her on her user talk page, or starting an article talk page discussion. Remember: she's new. We need to give her the benefit of the doubt and try educating before anything else. We don't want to chew on her boots and drive her away; Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines... shoot, it took me at least six months before I felt like I was somewhat proficient with the basic ones. If trying to communicate or educate the user doesn't work, we can discuss things from there if they need be. Oh, and I'd also highly suggest to her that she go through and complete the Wikipedia tutorial. It's a big help to new users as well. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, or if you need help with anything else. I'll be happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm walking away, but I don't trust their edits. She restored this [3] after I deleted it; it's not a reliable source. New doesn't get a lot of slack from me when they don't respond or communicate--if a new user genuinely welcomes guidance or is concerned about violating guidelines, silence isn't a good sign. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Flight 858

Why have you put protection on the article after another random IP address'es trolling to censor content and bot removing it. "path of prospero" (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobog95 - That's because there's an ongoing edit war and content dispute on the article. All editors involved need to take this dispute to the article's talk page and come to a consensus as to what the article content should be - edit warring is not allowed. You need to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and properly discuss and resolve these issues. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to assist you further. I wish you happy editing, and that the discussion comes to a peaceful, quick, and positive resolution. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for discussion due to fact those are noname anonymous IP's and not registered users thus I can not have what you suggest in first place unless they have fixed IP which is doubtful as nearly everyone has dynamic IP. If you weren't aware of that then now you are aware, now its for me to see if you will accept or ignore this fact. First IP wrote NCE which is just acronym and I don't know meaning of it and if he meant NCEO then his reason is invalid as I haven't changed the meaning of the page while other IP complained about english of my addition which I note accepted the criticism yet it isn't valid reason/excuse/justification to remove the content. Those who have issues with my lack of effort in being gramaticaly correct have done edits that fixed that and for that I am thankful. They didn't have to do it, they could have notified me and I would have put more effort in it. The last one that removed content was a bot? Anyway I think I fixed majority of mistakes that native english speakers would have with me such as last noname anonymous user whose only dynamic IP is known which will change once he/she resets router or provider resets IP address. Chernobog95 - 26 September 2017 22:10 GTM1+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernobog95 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chernobog95 - You must understand that this isn't about whose "right or wrong" or "who has an account vs who doesn't"; what you're describing here is a content-related dispute, and they need to be discussed and resolved by following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol - there's nothing more to it. When it comes down to the "bread and butter" of it all: that's Wikipedia's policy and that's what we need to do. Protecting the article will stop the disruption, and nudge everyone to take the dispute to the article's talk page. Because an editor doesn't have an account doesn't mean that you can't start a talk page discussion, notify the IP addresses on their talk pages and give them a link, and wait for the user to respond. The article is protected in order to be fair to all parties and not give favor to anybody - so that everyone involved will take the dispute to the proper place and resolve it. That's the fair, logical, and right thing to do in this situation. Being an administrator often comes with making decisions and taking action that will upset somebody (shoot, I've taken actions where it upset everybody) - but that comes with the responsibility, and is a reason why becoming one is very hard. I understand your frustration (and trust me, I've been there before), but this is the right decision and per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know. I'll be happy to assist you further. Again, I appreciate your messages and I will do my best to make sure that I at least answer your questions and point you in the right direction. Let's start a discussion, sort this thing out, and come to an agreement so I can unprotect the page and we all can move on and keep improving the project :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.- theWOLFchild 20:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was pretty damn quick. Cheers - theWOLFchild 20:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild - LOL. You're all set. Thanks for the email :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HI!

Just saying that you do an amazing job but you keep saying that i keep vandilizing but im not! Can you fix this error?99.229.125.80 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your talkpage doesn't exist, and you've never edited wikipedia from this address. Where are you being accused of vandalism? SQLQuery me! 01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for blocking no good users and reverting vandalism keep up the good work! Felicia (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Felicia777! Thanks for the Wikilove! I appreciate it very much, and I'm happy to see that my time contributing here is somewhat useful around here :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Adolph Hitler" main page

I would like you to monitor the activity on this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_18_November_2017

My request for addition of 2 paragraphs on the Adolph Hitler main page has been met by criticism from people who are closed minded amateurs. They control the webpage, they are unfamiliar with quality books, they are all about recent writings, triteness, and sarcasm. I added a request to join the editing team, and I'm sure they will have something to say about that, too. I would like to know who they are (meaning qualifications, academic background, & present employment). Is that possible? Thanks for your interest. You can reach me at the following email address: [REDACTED - Oshwah]

John Milner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Music man214, and thank you for leaving me this message with your questions and concerns. Looking at your edit request, the reason it was originally declined was due to the volume and size of the request you're trying to make. Edit requests typically involve non-controversial changes to the article that don't require discussion or significant scrutiny in order to be implemented. Your proposed changes are significant; they require much more discussion, input, and scrutiny than what an edit request is designed to review and accept with its process and procedures. This is why it was declined. It doesn't mean that your proposed changes are bad or that none of your proposed changes will improve the article... they're asking you to start a discussion on the article's talk page so that your proposed changes can have a deeper look and give other editors time to help review it and get it ready for implementation (if applicable).
It's not helpful nor does it make the process easier on anybody when you respond to the feedback and instructions other editors gave you and in the defensive and combative nature as you've been doing. You need to be accepting of the feedback and the instructions given to you; they're not trying to make your life harder or give you a hard time... their responses are completely for your benefit and to make the process easier and stress-free for you. These editors are certainly not "closed-minded amateurs" who "aim to control the article" to their liking and preference, as you've stated both here and in your responses to your edit request. These editors are proficient with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the proper procedures and processes involved with making large changes to content, how to assert verifiability and identify reliable sources with content that needs them, and with formatting your changes properly so that any incorporation of your changes are added to the article without big formatting messes or mishaps to clean up... this is why you need to let them help you.
You came here for my input, and my response to you is to collaborate positively and openly with them, and help them to help you! Asking me to find out "who they are" and give you their personal and private information is not only something I cannot do, but would be egregiously against Wikipedia policy if I were to even consider doing so. People who are closed-minded aren't those who take time out of their day try to help you... they are people who make the unfounded accusations and combative and defensive responses as you've been making. I'm not trying to personally attack you with that statement; I'm trying to help you see things in their perspective in hopes that you'll understand what I'm trying to tell you and that you'll let them help you. They're trying to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and they're trying to help improve the article if your changes do just that -- let them help you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Did I post my suggestions in the wrong place? I don't think so (The article's "Talk Page" is the Adolph Hitler main talk page. If there is a better place to have this matter discussed, please give me the link. BTW, my credibility is unchallengeable (I have cited source material that the other writers had missed), and I ask about qualifications only because of unprofessional conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs)
Music man214 - My apologies if I confused you; you're in the right place (the article's talk page). I just assumed that the editors who responded to your edit request asked you to start a new section on the same page so that they could close the edit request discussion is all. So long as you let them help you and you follow their recommendations, you'll be fine and your proposed changes will be reviewed and the right changes will be made to the article (if applicable) to reflect improvements and with your changes in-mind. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New subspecies declaration

    I was and am making a declaration of a new subspecies of robin and naming it Turdus Bergensii. The species does have white spots/feathers in it's hood and does not migrate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybee1960 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‎A barnstar for you!

The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for helping me unbreak Huggle! Phuzion (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phuzion! Thanks for the WikiLove! You bet; always happy to help. If you run into any more issues or if you need my help with anything on Huggle, you're more than welcome to ask me here and I'll be happy to give you a hand :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox and Friends

How odd! I do not recall making this edit, and it's certainly not something I would do intentionally. I'm ... going to change my WP password :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudineChionh (talk • contribs) 06:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is probably fine, ClaudineChionh. The edit you're referring to here was made by an IP address, or (assuming this is you) - while you were logged out. By the way, I'll be happy to redact these diffs from my talk page if you have concerns about your privacy. Let me know and I will do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no problem. I usually stay logged out unless I'm editing (which I don't do very often these days), and must have got confused. ClaudineChionh (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ClaudineChionh - Are you using a shared IP address here? It seems strange that vandalism was added to the article, yet you came here and claimed the edit to be apparently made by you and thinking that your account was compromised... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reverse your close

Primefac, RoySmith please explain to Oshwah why Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegations should not be prematurely closed - this is getting to be ridiculous. MelanieN, Drmies - it appears Volunteer Marek has started bludgeoning editors who voted Delete, and I'm seeing growing concern among POV warriors who refuse to let that AfD run its course. We clearly have socks who have participated to add to the KEEP iVotes, and I'm not sure why Oshwah decided to close it, but please, something has to be done...I've never seen anything like this throughout my entire time as an editor. I've already had to reverse a NAC soon after it was reopened. This AfD may also be a good place for CU to weed out some socks. Atsme📞📧 14:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from making personal attacks about me on other users' talk pages. Also, you might want to look in the mirror. Volunteer Marek  14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's no such thing as "premature close" here. You can't demand to keep an AfD open until you get the result you happen to like. Volunteer Marek  14:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At 11 days open, there is nothing "premature" about a close. If it ends up relisted, it's relisted, but there is nothing saying that it cannot be closed. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac - it was only open 4 days (start Nov 15 - end Nov 19) before it was improperly closed as NAC. The closing statement included: No prejudice against re-nomination after the election is done. The election is Dec 12th, so the whole thing smells political to me. The article stayed closed for 5 days until I finally figured out how to get it reopened. It was just opened again yesterday and substantive deletes are being added. Primefac, according to your 11 day scenario, when does the 11 days begin and end considering the in-between improprieties and premature closes? It certainly appears to involve some POV warrior activity with a push to quickly close as keep before the election, especially in light of the sock activity and the KEEP iVotes by questionable brand new editors. Oshwah is wanting to close it in a few hours according to his edit summary. I would rather a completely uninvolved admin come in and review the AfD after it has a chance to run 11 days, especially in light of what has happened - and I think it's only fair if the closing admin evaluates the iVotes by brand new editors. Is that too much to ask? I'm also concerned this could be considered an attack page with BLP violations considering the list of victim names which side-steps WP:BLPNAME, WP:WELLKNOWN and NPOV. I will respect a proper close and proper evaluation of consensus once the AfD has had a chance to run its course without unnecessary disruption, and I think that's only fair based on the socks and IAR activity. Atsme📞📧 15:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find much fault with the close--it seems to reflect the tenor of the discussion, sadly. Like the Weinstein case I think all this is way too close to NEWS. I don't see VM bludgeoning, by the way--there's just a few comments relative to the whole discussion, and "Also saying "someone on twitter said so" is... well, silly" is correct. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I lost you at "Also saying "someone on twitter said so"...are you referring to VM's response to another editor? Atsme📞📧 02:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations

Hi,

Your typo fix is still wrong . Adam9007 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007 - ARGH! I love it when I go to fix a typo, and I end up adding another typo alongside the first fix.... lol. Thanks for letting me know - the deed has been done (and correctly this time!) :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hate it when I fix one problem, only to discover another, or worse, it actually causes another problem. I get that a lot when fiddling around with computers. Adam9007 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I coined the phrase "yupo" on Wikipedia because of the level of idiot that I've achieved in the past. A "yupo" is when you edit a page to fix a typo, and you add a typo in your edit summary describing that you're fixing a typo. It came from... you guessed it... a typo I made to the the word "typo" in my edit summary when I was editing an article... to fix a typo. Yes, I have achieved that level of stupid. lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's deliberate, but don't you mean "that level of idiocy" and "that level of stupidity"? (Yes, I'm a grammar nazi ). Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was deliberate :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:GlasgowGladiators

Hi again Oshwah. Another question about usernames, etc. User:GlasgowGladiators appears to be working on a draft on their user page about a wheelchair football team named Glasgow Gladiator and their username appears to be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. I've posted some things on their user talk about usernames, COI editing, and userpage drafts, but I'm not sure they understand such the information in those posts. They appear to be a new SPA whose only edits are related to this draft. They seem to also be having difficulty with image licensing and have uploaded files to Commons which have been deleted or will soon be deleted as copyvios. Anyway, I've suggested the user move this content to their sandbox or another user subpage, but there's been no response. Any suggestions on how to proceed here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly - Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Did you report this to UAA? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not. I just added a template to the user's talk page. FWIW, they apparently have moved what they were working on to Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC and blanked their userpage. A new account has also appeared as KJMClark1966, however. This account was used to re-upload the infobox logo to Commons (I have just removed it from the article) which was previously deleted twice per c:COM:L by two seperate Commons admins. I have tagged the file with c:Template:Fair use, so it will almost surely be shorty be deleted as well.
GlasgowGladiators did blank their userpage, and replaced it with {{Userspace draft}}; so, apparently they did see the user talk page post(s) I left. It's also possible they saw the post I added about usernames and decided to abandon the account and edit as KJMClark1966. If that's the case, then I'm not sure if a softblock of the username is needed, at least not as long as the account remains unused. Also, if this is the same person, then I don't think this is really a case of WP:SOCK as long as they stick to the KJMClark1966 account for here on. My concerns now are (1) about the repeated unploading of the infobox file to Commons and other likely copyvios to Commons, and (2) possible COI (even perhaps paid) editing regardless of who is behind the accounts. As it currently stands, "Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC" is completely unsourced and of questionable notability per WP:ORG. I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion unless the content is a blatant copy-paste copyvio from the club's official website, but it is at risk of Prod or AfD. This also might be a case of the creator(s) misunderstanding what Wikipedia's about (particularly WP:NOTWEBHOST. Someone else has already tagged it with {{Unsourced}}, and I was going to add {{Notability}} and {{COI}} tags as well, but figured I see what you or your talk page watchers might have to say first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly - As long as the user stopped using the first account and has completely switched to using a different one, (s)he wouldn't be in violation of WP:SOCK. If that's not the case, let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance

Hlo Oshwah, Yes I will go through the tutorial and then only take any further step. Thank you for your guidance and keep guiding wherever you feel necessary Dr A.P.S.Chhabra (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr A.P.S.Chhabra - You bet; always happy to help. If you need more help with anything, don't hesitate to message me here and I'll be happy to do so. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid

رمز جی میل میخام — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.36.59 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This translates to "I need Gmail code". . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Umm... okay then? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help With Userboxes

Hey Oshwah, I need a bit of help with getting my user boxes to be organized and not take up so much space. Can you help? Thanks! . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners - Sure, no problem. What exactly are you trying to do? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like something like [4]. If you look right now, I have them going down the side of the page. I was able to get something like what I linked , but the tops of the groups were not alined, unequal spacing in between,ect. so I moved it to how it is now. You think you could help me get something like I have above? Thanks . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 17:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LakesideMiners: how about this? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
YES! THANK YOU User:Writ Keeper. . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 18:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper - Thanks for helping LakesideMiners out. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, you're both welcome. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side Note: Who do you think is the youngest editor on Wikipedia? [REDACTED - Oshwah]. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 19:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure - probably quite young. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just thinking of 2 year old in diaper siting in front of the computer on huggle. . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 19:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to nothing. I've been long out of diapers and should be off the pull-ups soon... we'll see ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, diapers would allow you to edit Wikipedia for longer periods of time. My parents would freak if I did that though. LOL! I will admit that does sound kinda comfy. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 19:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LakesideMiners - Oh... dude! What a good idea! I mean.... *clears throat*. Yeah... that's weird... something I'd never ever consider doing :-P. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of this Paraphilic infantilism, I have done a bit of googling on this, not all sexual, kinda cute sometimes to be honest. Also, you seem to LOVE emotes OwO. Also This is geting so long that I think it should be moved here User:LakesideMiners/ThatOtherTalkPage Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 19:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question...

You recently undeleted a LONG ago post from a troll at the ref desks, here. While I'm not really concerned about whether or not such posts are or are not rev-deleted, is there any reason why an 18-month old post from a one-off IP address with no other history needed modification? Unless there is some other history here, it seems like a waste of time and resources to spend a second on that. Just curious. --Jayron32 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 - I just ran into it while unblocking the IP from an indefinite block and saw that edit in the IP's contributions. The only thing I unredacted was the IP address (the rest was completely fine and needed it); it just looked like it was done accidentally and I was simply fixing it. I guess I'm just a "kill a few birds with one stone" kind of guy :-)... I'm fixing one issue and I see another that can be quickly fixed, why not just do it while I'm here? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense. Yeah, it's not a problem, I was just trying to figure out how you even found the edit. Makes total sense now. Carry on. --Jayron32 17:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32 - Cool deal; you're always welcome to ask me about anything like this - even if you're just curious. I have no problem with explaining ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i really like lasagna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaboogabee123 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I need your help with deleting and editing for an article here at wikipedia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=812810460"