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 2600:1700:b450:94c0:8576:f2d3:7ef8:6797 (talk) at 21:45, 22 March 2018 (→Not "Constructive"?). 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.


Follow up

Hello Oshwah, I am following up on the question of Blanca/Blanche of Castile. I hope you can now allow me to move the entry to the correct name of Blanca of Castile, which is the only name given to this queen in English language publications. Best regards, Poplar838 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Poplar838: If you are talking about the French queen Blanche of Castille, then I'm afraid the current name is a more common name for her. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about a different queen who is in fact, the grandmother of Blanche of Castille. The queen under discussion is Blanca Garcés of Navarre, who married Sancho III of Castile.Poplar838 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche of Castile is the current article location (talk page stalker) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Last month I moved the page from Blanche of Navarre, Queen of Castile, to Blanca (etc.) because all the publications that mention this queen in English call her Blanca. But it was reverted. I am now trying to correct that. Blanche of Castille is her granddaughter who became the queen of France. Poplar838 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above I made an error and wrote Blanca of Castile instead of Blanca of Navarre. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poplar838 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Poplar838: I'm sorry, but could you provide a link to the grandmother of Blanche de Castile? The article currently named "Blanche de Castilee" is about the French queen. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanche_of_Navarre,_Queen_of_Castile The inconsistencies in her name in the article at present are not my doing. The correct common name for this queen in English is Blanca, as the bibliography indicates. The title of the article should be changed to Blanca of Navarre, Queen of Castile, with consistent usage of "Blanca" throughout. Poplar838 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar838, L293D - Did everyone's questions get answered? Does anyone still need help here? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing OC osilliation Wikipedia Page

Good day

I received a message informing me the page had been reverted to his old details. Please advise how we can update it. We recently signed him to Jam Box Global. Some of the info on it now is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Solyd (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Martin Solyd, I would recommend requesting an edit on the article's talk page because editing while in a conflict of interest (from what you described/wording) is strongly discouraged. In a request (click link), I would recommend including reliable sources which are secondary from the organization. I hope this helps, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here. (talk page stalker) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Solyd - Refer to the above response, as this is what you need to do. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I don't understand what's going on. I have never made any edits from my phone. The only edits that I've ever made was on the USS Birmingham (CL-62) page concerning the Japanese Kamikaze pilot and the two photographs that accompanied the edit. Those edits were made from my desktop.108.235.248.210 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@108.235.248.210: According to the log of your contributions from that IP address, the edit to this page is the only one. Might I suggest creating an account? There are benefits to doing so and helps us help you as then we can help answer questions like this (IP addresses change, accounts dont). (talk page stalker) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, creating an account will certainly resolve this issue for you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lift

You can visit any random website for a ski resort in the US and you will see references to lifts. In the US, ski-lifts are called lifts. It's not only relevant, it's a point of confusion for Brits who go to American ski slopes and ask where the elevator is. If you'd really like, I can give you as many links as you'd like. Just let me know how many you need. Hagrinas (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If you'd really like -- heh, someone hasn't read WP:V and WP:RS. It's not a matter of liking, it's what you're supposed to do in the first place. byteflush Talk 02:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review

Hey Oshwah. I made a new article called Proper Einstein (musician), and I was wondering if someone could review it for me. There was a "refimprove" tag placed on it but I went back and made the necessary changes. If you can point me in the right direction, it would be great and also encourage me to create and patrol even more. Thanks. The Newbie06 (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi [[User:|User:]]! It looks like Proper Einstein (musician) has since been deleted. I suggest that you go through this help wizard or use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to create your next article, as these processes will provide you with guidance and help as you build it, and it won't leave you feeling that you spent hours (or perhaps days) of time and all for nothing... don't be disheartened! We've all been there - including myself! If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to help you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pritamseth77148

You left this editor a warning as well, but they seem to ignore it. Would you mind having a look, maybe leaving a last-last-last-last warning? Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: Oshwah's (or another administrator's) attention is still needed, but wanted to add that I have gone through and reverted a lot of their unsourced edits and left them a general notice about using edit summaries, as well as a level 2 warning for unsourced content. (talk page stalker) --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Muhandes, and thanks for leaving me a heads-up here about this user. It looks like this editor hasn't made any changes for a few days, so I'm going to hold off on taking any action for now. However, if things continue and despite additional warnings, please feel free to report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents depending on the situation. You're also welcome to message me any time you have any questions or need advice on where to proceed - I'll be happy to help you. Thanks again, and best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer of advice. Yhe issue with this editor, as can be seen in their edit history, is that they come, make a few edits which someone needs to clean up, and leave for a few days. Every time they return, we leave them a "last" warning, which they ignore, and the process repeats. I think I even reported it on one of the boards before, and got the same response: the editor has not made any changes for a week, please report next time. I guess there is not much to do. --Muhandes (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Muhandes - Thanks for responding with the additional information - I've run into this situation many times. The thing I usually do is leave them a final warning and go through with action regardless of the difference in time that occurs between the warning and the user's next edit(s). I just left this user a generic final warning regarding the addition of unreferenced content; if the user does this again, file a report at WP:AIV or let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks again and best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Pencil Box

Sentuh! Kai Chek Chai Wan Suang aaaa!

Te Diesel Te Felt.

Just now what happened with you?

Te Diesel Te Felt.

Te Kiko Kiko.

Senthuh puot-puot-puot.

Sentuh Fishball Philip Wong, Siamang Wong. 115.133.18.73 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allahabad airport

Allahabad airport was built in 1919 before Juhu Airport as it was founded after 9 years in 1928 [1]

Allahabad airport is first civil airport in India as it was built in 1919 not Juhu Airport in Mumbai because it was founded in 1928 The developement of air tranport in India was started in 1911 WORLD'S first official airmail service was started on 18 february 1911 between Allahabad and Naini during Kumbh,( a famous relious festival or fair) so how Juhu can be oldest airport in India

References

  1. ^ Ashutosh Joshi (1 January 2008). Town Planning Regeneration of Cities. New India Publishing. p. 121. ISBN 8189422820.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivam singh chauhann (talk • contribs) 05:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam singh chauhann - I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to... do you still need help? Let me know and I'll be glad to do so if you still need it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi, would you mind deleting the edit summary of this revision, but not the revision itself? I believe that the edit summary qualifies under RD3. Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Oshwah appears to be offline at the moment, so I'll get it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN - Thanks for taking care of that for me while I was out. Much appreciated :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Barnes

Hi Oshwah, I can't see what was there but could you move the deleted article to my user or draft space for me? If it's about a Georgia Representative he's notable. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy - Did someone help you with this, or do you still need me to take a look for you? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Oshwah. I hope all is well with you. I'd still like to see what was there, but there's definitely no rush. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the deleted text and it's about a different person. Deb (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Deb. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information Quality (InfoQ)

Can u pls help undelete Information Quality (InfoQ) so that i can work on it some more

This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

12:43, 3 March 2018 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Information Quality (InfoQ) (A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content) 05:27, 23 January 2018 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Information Quality (InfoQ) (A11: Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simakenett (talk • contribs)

sima Simakenett (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is about the deleted article Information Quality (InfoQ). Pinging User:RHaworth and User:Anthony Appleyard, the deleting administrators. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN - Thank you (yet again)! This article reads like an advertisement but I'm open to hearing additional reasons as to why it should be undeleted and moved, and what this article may become if constructed according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; if RHaworth or Anthony Appleyard don't respond to your request after some time, let me know and I'll be open to asking you some questions and possibly looking into the matter. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Appleyard - I took a look further back, and this revision from January 23rd looks to have similar content and descriptions as the current Information quality article, so you might be correct. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case. The InfoQ framework is building on data science and statistical thinking, the information quality entry you refer to is IT driven with an orientation towards data quality. That entry now has a reference to the InfoQ framework which should have been linked to the Information Quality (InfoQ) that was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simakenett (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC) The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information also has a reference to the InfoQ page that was deleted....[reply]

IP:86.9.95.20

Hello Oshwah, A quick message, as I'm involved with family business. 86.9.95.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you recently blocked for a short period is again making exactly the same unsourced/unreferenced changes to BBC articles as before. They have been reverted by other editors and myself, but do not seem to learn or engage with other editors. I think further measures are required. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David J Johnson - Thanks man, Ill take a look. Best of luck with your personal time and I hope to see you back soon! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question-request

Hey man. Sorry for bothering, but I really need your help. There is an obvious paid editor in an article in my watchlist. I'm talking about Delyan Peevski. I find it annoying to constantly pet it. The paid editor in question is Lee-ann-25 (talk · contribs), sock master of 3 accounts and possibly owned by Lyubomirab (talk · contribs). The related COIN discussion and SPI case with all information available are still open. Can you take a look and close both of them, or ask an fellow administrator of yours who's dealing with this kind of stuff to do it? Thanks in advance. Quickfingers (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oshwah, I am sorry for thus intervening into your conversation but I have been literally "hunted" by quickfingers, falsely accused of paid editing and relations to profiles I have nothing in common with. At the same time quickfingers is in a possible COI situation so I started a Conflict of interest discussion against him [1]. I have to admit that he contributed a lot about this procedure, giving me a clue where to find explanation for his obsession about the "Peevski topic", citing this article here. Today I found though another one, published by the same media outlet, explaining Quickfingers connection to Peevski's "arch rival" (that's how the user himself call him) Ivo Prokopiev here. Please take this into account when you estimate the case and the situation in general. Lee-ann-25 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfingers - Have you filed a report at SPI about your suspicions of sock puppetry and abuse of multiple accounts? If not, you need to do this, and provide evidence that clearly shows that this is going on. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: Yes. I linked it. CheckUser is complete and it needs to be closed. Quickfingers (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quickfingers - Ahh, indeed you did. Sorry... don't know how I missed that :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lee-ann-25 - Why do you believe that Quickfingers has a conflict of interest with this article subject? You stated that you feel he does, but you didn't provide evidence or proof as to why you believe this to be true... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah I provided an article, published by the same media outlet Quickfingers gave as an example. According to the article [[REDACTED - Oshwah]], he [REDACTED - Oshwah]. If you take a look on the Delyan Peevski page you will see that a great deal of the sources, used there, are articles, published by those very media outlets. That obviously raises suspicions of Conflict of Interest against Quickfingers. Lee-ann-25 (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee-ann-25 - The external link you provided has multiple issues, the biggest issue being that it attempts to disclose private information about Quickfingers (which can constitute WP:OUTING - a very serious violation of policy), so don't post external links like that on any public pages or forums on Wikipedia; it can get you blocked. I know that this isn't what your intentions were, and I've removed the link from this page. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia's policy on "outing" and let me know if you have any questions. Aside from that issue, none of the information stated there is verifiable at all, nor does any of that information constitute evidence that I can use to justify taking any administrative actions or make any kind of assertions regarding Quickfingers. I understand that you were the subject of an SPI and that it frustrated you to see this happen, but I cannot use the information you provided as any kind of evidence for the reasons I stated here. If you have no other evidence, I highly recommend that you work things out with Quickfingers and come to a consensus and work together to improve the article. I know that the SPI and accusations were frustrating, but I urge you to set that aside and consider it part of the past and move on. Continuing to point fingers back-and-fourth (especially without reliable evidence on Wikipedia that can be reviewed and used) won't do any good... Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. Thanks again for the messages, and I hope that this issue comes to a quick and peaceful resolution between the two of you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, again Oshwah I have to admit that I didn't have any idea that posting external links with that kind of information is prohibited by the WP rules. So thank you for helping me out with that. And for providing information about the Outing protocol. I've just read it carefully. I WILL do my best to collaborate with Quickfingers, although I am a bit pessimistic about his intentions. So far my experience shows that any attempt to start a discussion on the issues with the controversial article ends either in erasing the information I add or update, or in starting a procedure against me. lee-ann-25 22:34, 22 March 2018
lee-ann-25 - I figured that was the case, which is why your account isn't blocked ;-). Thank you for taking the time to read up on this policy and for understanding the level seriousness and severity that this policy is enforced. As you can read in this talk page discussion alone, those links you provided added a significant amount of stress to Quickfingers - I mean, how would you feel if I posted links to external websites that reveal off-wiki and real-world information about your identity and who you are? I'm sure you'd feel the same exact way as Quickfingers does :-). Please remember to always keep this in mind... and not just with outing, but with anything you say to another editor on Wikipedia in general - always think about how the recipient will feel seeing the response you're about to make and how you would feel if the same was said toward you :-). I'm happy to hear that both of you (while both understandably feeling somewhat disheartened and somewhat "pessimistic" as you put it) agreed to try your hardest to work with one another. Go into the discussion knowing that the feelings are mutual, that the past is behind us and is taken care of, and use your mutual thoughts and feelings as a way to acknowledge that you understand one-another in this aspect. If you both do your best to remain civil and keep the discussion about the content, and not about finger-pointing or about one-another... I think you'll walk out of the discussion just fine and after some back-and-fourth debate - you two will come to at least some level of agreement in some places; post those changes that you agree with and go from there. I wish you two well and I hope things go smoothly and that you both can move on from the past and at least shake hands and agree to be peace with each other. I'm available should either of you need my input or have any questions for me; just ask and I'll be happy to answer and help. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure how I can build consensus & work with someone who tries to discredit me as an editor through articles with false information. I'm more than confident that Lee-ann-25 (talk · contribs) is the author of these articles. because they were written during their block period. The one that appeared in 19th is a translation of a previously written article in Monitor. The user avoids answering any questions regrading this topic, didn't participated in my COIN discussion at all, yet continues to attempt to remove selective information about Peevski, and reported me for the same reason as I did, even though I did nothing wrong and I'm not affiliated or paid by anyone. For my nearly 6 years being in Wikipedia I never experienced so much stress here. Quickfingers (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quickfingers - I completely understand and I'm sorry that you're feeling so much stress over this situation. You did the right thing by creating the SPI given the evidence you had. I, quite frankly, don't blame you at all for being stressed over this. What I can tell you is that I've removed all of the external links that Lee-ann-25 posted that mention you and had those revisions all suppressed for you. The posting of these links constitute WP:OUTING, regardless if the information is true, reliable, etc - or not. From here on out, I'd say that if the user isn't willing to discuss any of the content issues or disputes with you on the article's talk page and despite your repeated attempts to do so - if the user starts edit warring, report the user to WP:AN3. You've tried everything, and all you've been met with are accusations with "evidence" that constitutes outing (which I've removed for you). Hopefully this response (and the actions I took) help to lower your stress and put you at some level of ease... If you have any more questions, concerns, or need my help or input with anything else, please do not hesitate to respond and let me know. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse and museum categories

Discussion here Is there anything to be done, or do we have to revert these one at a time? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 7&6=thirteen! Sorry for the late response to your message here... is this discussion still ongoing and do you still need my input regarding how to quickly resolve what issues may need fixing? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. IMO, I think this is resolved. Phew. Glad that worked out! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen - Cool deal; thanks for the update and for letting me know. Glad things appeared to have worked out for you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indef IP

Hi, would you mind unblocking the indefinitely blocked IP 178.36.118.74? It has been three years since the IP was blocked, and there appears to be no evidence that the user purported to be using the IP has been socking recently. Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) Look at this edit that IP made. I see no reason to unblock that IP ever, and I would question anyone recommending such. Also, Kudpung was the blocking editor. Why not ask them first? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In general, IP addresses should not be blocked indefinitely (although doing so for 5+ years is acceptable). Pinging Kudpung - does this block need to be indefinite, or can we lower it to a duration of 5+ years like I typically see that we do? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reasons for unblocking or shortening the block, they have posted some pretty discusting stuff and vague legal threats. The have also threatened to continue to sock with a mobile device, which they might already be doing, but which is harder to detect as GSM data connections don't use the same IP systems. It might even be user:Demiurge1000 (UK) although the IP locates to Netia, Poland, (might even operate a VPN service - a lot of European VPNs locate there). While he was a C-level at the WMF, Philippe was the most sincere and trustworthy manager I ever met. A good friend. Someone whom I trust implicitly to know what they are doing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung - Thanks for taking the time to further explain the situation and the blocking of this IP. I trust your judgment and I'll leave things be. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Problem

I have received several messages about edits that I did not do. I do not have a shared IP address, so I do not know how the edits were attributed to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.194.106 (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account and use your account to edit and discuss things. Not only will it eliminate any potential issues with being warned for edits you didn't make, but it also comes with many benefits that you may find useful in the future. Let me know if you have any questions. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Socks

Hey Oshwah,

I recently ran into QuadleTheCorrector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Inspector coole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who were both vandalizing Phil Sumner. Once I clicked on their contributions I noticed something fishy (or Ducky): both began editing on the 14th, both edited Summer Nights (Grease song) and Phil Sumner unconstructively using edit summaries like "fixed typo" [2], [3] and "Added content" [4], [5] when it wasn't. If you look at the edit history of Summer nights they were both vandalizing at the same time [6]. I am almost certain there is a connection even if they aren't the same user, they know each other. Would you or one of your tps check them out? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When they edit again should I take this to the Admin noticeboard or open an SPI? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe friends larking about, or socks. Doesn't really matter, as they're both vandalism-only accounts. I've indeffed them as such. (See Melanie's note below.) Bishonen | talk 09:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen - Thank you for taking care of this issue while I was out. I appreciate it very much :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey stalkers!

It looks as if Oshwah hasn't been online since the 15th. To the extent possible, let's see if we can answer some of the notes people have been putting here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN - Jeez, thanks for the guilt trip ;-). No, seriously - thank you for keeping an eye on my talk page while I was out. Things got busy and I was sick for a little while, which was what kept me away from being active here :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was sure there was a good reason. Happens to all of us. I am always grateful when stalkers step in to cover my page so I thought I would encourage it here. Wasn't able to do much myself, and in fact I'm afraid we left most of the dishes for you to wash when you got back. Anyhow, welcome back and glad you are better. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN - I was just messing with you ;-). I appreciate it just the same, and I thank you for the kind words and for welcoming me back. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT WARRING OCCURED AT MUSTAFA ALI

Yo, Another user caught doing edit-warring at Mustafa Ali (wrestler) added same incorrect info, If you have any blocking privilege then I request IP block even account creation on the IP. See I've warned that user at talk page. Further Remedy would be appreciated. CK (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken nutshell - Well, let's hold on for a second and take a look here :-)... the IP only made one edit to that article (here) and hasn't done so since you warned the user (which I'll add was too harsh - you should have given the user a "level 1 (assume good faith) warning" to start. Just because I have the ability to block accounts and IP addresses from editing doesn't mean that I'm allowed to do so - I can't just go around blocking accounts and IP addresses as I please... there's policy that explains when this is appropriate. One instance of editing that I'll assume was simply because the editor didn't know policy does not constitute a situation where I would block. If things change and if things go off the rails and the IP starts vandalizing Wikipedia repeatedly, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so an administrator can take action. Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to help you. Thanks again for the message, and I hope you're having a great day :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, I have a question about socking and wondered if you could offer some advice? If someone makes an edit using IP address #1, gets reverted, then immediately shifts to IP address #2 to revert that same edit back, is that considered socking? And if there is convincing evidence that it is the same person, and they have used both IP accounts before and are continuing to use both of them in tandem like this, along with other items of compelling evidence, should it be reported? Thank you in advance for any information you provide. Cheers - theWOLFchild 06:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Thewolfchild: It's presumably the same person per WP:DUCK, but it's not considered socking. That's because, if the IPs look related, it's probably the ISP changing dynamic IPs for the person, and they can't help it. And if they don't look related, it could be the same person editing from at home/at work. (For large values of "immediately", admittedly.) However, if the IPs put together breach 3RR, that's a violation and should be reported. And if one of the IPs is blocked and the other continues to edit during the block, that's socking/block evasion, and should also be reported. That's for your general question; but Oshwah (or somebody else, per Melanie above) can very likely advise you more pertinently if you provide more detail about the page/s and the IPs. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, and thanks for the reply. What I had noticed in this case in they made an edit, were reverted, then minutes later, switched to the second IP to revert their edit back, then immediately after that, were back to using the first IP, all within 12 minutes. It appears they have full-time access to (at least) two different IPs, and can switch at will (and do). The first IP is dynamic, but they have been using it regularly for a couple months. The second IP is static, from the same area, same country, and again, the same user has been using it for a couple months. Same edit style, edit's the same areas (specifically categories) and uses the exact same edit summaries (WP:DUCK). I did post the 'good-faith-version' notice about multiple accounts but it was quickly deleted, claiming; "this is not an account" [pp]. I posted a follow-up comment which was also quickly deleted as "nonsense". Then I stopped posting there, as there is no engaging with this person. I thought the deliberate switching of IPs to revert an editor that had reverted them, giving the impression it was a different person, may have been a sock violation, so I thought I'd seek some advice. If you care to take a look, I could post a single 2K/kb diff that spells it all out. If not, thanks for the feed-back just the same. - theWOLFchild 09:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I meant, please identify the IPs in question. Yes, if your diff does that, please post it. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Sorry about the delay, just got in. Everything is in this diff. I don't have a lot of experience reporting socks, but I think this waddles and quacks like a DUCK. If you have any questions, let me know. - theWOLFchild 01:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thewolfchild! Thanks for leaving me your message here with your questions and request for input. It looks like you've provided the information asked for above, so I'll take a look and see what's up...
For the record (and to answer your questions): Sock puppetry refers to the creation and use of multiple accounts to perform edits and actions that are against policy. While hopping IP addresses doesn't quantify "sock puppetry" under the wording of that policy, it's just as disruptive if the evidence is clear that the user is doing this intentionally and in order to disrupt the project and avoid being blocked for their actions. Filing an SPI isn't the wrong thing to do (people do it quite regularly) if multiple accounts aren't suspected of being abused by one person, but I believe that these particular issues (unless you know them to be connected to an LTA and hence to a pattern of abuse by accounts in the past) are best reported to AIV if the disruption is blatant and obvious vandalism. Just add a comment to the report and state that the abuse is from multiple IPs, and list those IPs you see the abuse from. If you're not sure if the abuse constitutes a report at AIV, you're always welcome to file a report at ANI instead :-). Please let me know if you have any more questions about sock puppetry and when / how to report different issues or suspected abuse from the same person and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message and the heads-up. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild - Exactly what edits between these two IP addresses make you believe that similar disruption is occurring between them - can you provide diffs so I can take a look? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oshwah, I posted comments to this IP user which contains diffs of the (potential) socking incident. I had already tried to take the AGF route, posting the AGF notice about using multiple IPs to this and the other IP user noted in the comments. Aside from that, geolocation shows they are from the same former-SSR country, delete talk page notices with the exact same dismissive wording, edit extensively at category pages, and have been active along the same time frame. One IP is dynamic while the other is static. Could it be the same person switching between say, his mobile device and home pc, with generally no ill-intent? Sure, but in the diffs I included in my comments, show they made an edit with IP addy #1, were then reverted, switched to IP addy #2 approx. only minutes later to revert the edit again, then continued editing with IP addy #1 minutes after that. To me, the evidence shows they are the same person, and, at least in this instance, hopped from one IP to another to give the appearance that a different editor was challenging the revert, and further reverting back to their version. To me, that is a violation of WP:SOCK (btw, does that policy not apply to IP users?) Was this violation their intent? I'm not sure, so like I said, I tried the nice, AGF way to discuss it with them but got the brush-off, and so decided to seek further advice (which brought me here) because I'm not all that familiar with sock reporting. If you and/or Bishonen would care to take a look and let me know what you think, I'll go with whatever you decide. Thanks - theWOLFchild 04:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC). 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.

TheSandDoctor Talk 03:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor - Just replied :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my edit

You deleted my edit as a member of the referenced band...I am a novice here, don't know how to source or footnote my own self..all I did was update info on the history portion to make it more timely. ..I tried previously also and someone else deleted it...how do u source your own existence..let's get real here — Preceding unsigned comment added by David L Duff (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David L Duff and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, you cannot "reference yourself" or use any of your personal experience, relationships, or research to modify content on Wikipedia. This constitutes original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Instead, you need to locate reliable sources in order to verify the content you're adding is accurate and true, and then cite those references in-line with the content you're adding. I should also mention that editing articles or pages where you have a personal conflict of interest with the article subject is highly discouraged behavior that will almost certainly draw attention and be reverted by editors of the community. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message and I appreciate your understanding. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demos Shakarian edits

I am a family member of Demos Shakarian and wanted to made an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.78.142 (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, you cannot "reference yourself" or use any of your personal experience, relationships, or research to modify content on Wikipedia. This constitutes original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Instead, you need to locate reliable sources in order to verify the content you're adding is accurate and true, and then cite those references in-line with the content you're adding. I should also mention that editing articles or pages where you have a personal conflict of interest with the article subject is highly discouraged behavior that will almost certainly draw attention and be reverted by editors of the community. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message and I appreciate your understanding. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive edits are damaging the Neutral Opinion.

I have seen you have reverted my edits and made the article of Mughal Maratha victory quite baised. Please explain if you are paid by right wing extremist fundamentalist organisations to do so? Or you are doing this to white wash the failures of your ancestors? Or you're spreading propaganda on Internet? Or you are spreading edit terrorism on internet? Please refrain from callous, frivolous and outrageous acts of yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:2301:d237::aa8:e8a1 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to Mughal–Maratha Wars (such as the edit you made here) have multiple issues. Not only did you fail to cite any kind of sources with your changes to help verify that your changes are correct and accurate, but I believe that your changes also introduce concerns in regards to maintaining a neutral point of view. If you feel that the article has neutrality concerns as-is, we should resolve this by fixing the words that cause them, not by adding your viewpoint in rebuttal - that is not neutrality. Please review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I've linked here, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for the message, and I appreciate your understanding :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yassmin

Hi Oshwah

2 questions. 1. Do you have an alarm system that alerts you when Yassmin's page is edited. Why the obsessive interest? You took 2 seconds. 2. Referring to her lack of boyfriend goes to credibility. To claim an entire nation is an "abusive boyfriend" is bigoted, meaningless and should not be left unqualified. The qualification is that she will not marry a non-Muslim and has publicly clarified she has not had a boyfriend. She is therefore unable to make a claim on an abusive boyfriend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎110.20.24.93 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Umm it's not an "alarm system", but a queue of edits that I patrol in order to make sure that vandalism or disruption is promptly removed (this is not an implication that the edit I reverted was vandalism or were disruptive). Your edit to Yassmin Abdel-Magied here added commentary and analysis based off of your point of view, which is in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This is why I reverted your edit. Please take time to review this policy, and let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them and help you if needed. Thanks for the message, and I wish you happy editing. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edit re Arnaldo Lermas death.

There has been no official investigation into Arnaldos death-no autopsy as yet and no proof he tried to murder his wife. Tony Ortegas version of evehts is speculation and Arnaldo is innocent till proven guilty- therefore his assumptins are illegal and defamatory- his sihgle source is his own article.I am seeking legal advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupitersdreaming (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jupitersdreaming - Two things:
1. I agree with the removal of the content that details the "death" of this person. The reference provided do not meet the requirements per Wikipedia's policies on the biography of living people. I've removed this content and posted an in-depth explanation explaining the issues on the article's talk page here.
2. Please clarify your statement above where you say, "I am seeking legal advice". If this statement is intended to imply any kind of legal threat, I'm required to block your account indefinitely until you retract your statement. Please respond as soon as possible; if I don't hear back from you within the next five minutes, I will be blocking your account per Wikipedia's policy on legal threats.
I'm giving you a chance to clarify and/or retract that statement so you don't get blocked - please take this opportunity and explain. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you haven't edited since the message you left here. Since I didn't hear back from you in a reasonable time, and no clarification or retraction was made regarding the statement above - I'm forced to interpret your statement as-is and I find it to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on making legal threats. Therefore, I have imposed the actions described in the policy and blocked your account. You're welcome to make an unblock request in order to clarify and/or retract the statement in concern, and (if satisfactory) your account will be unblocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic article

Hi. I just restored a part of the edit you undid on the Titanic article. It was a link to everything that was releated Titanic. It was quite appropriate to say the least, plus it has not been on there before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.183 (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for checking my edits and for restoring the material you felt didn't need to be reverted. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know. Thanks again and best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred DuPont Trust

The edit basically reflects the current,rather than former,content of the linked list of the trust's trustees from its own website.There's hardly any more reliable source than that!12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - is this list cited in the article? Is there a better source that we can find and use instead? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled as to what could be a better source than the Trust's own identification of every present and past trustee,with dates of service for all past trustees and years of joining for all currently in office.I thought the trustee list was linked from that article,and in any case the trust website itself is linked (and the entire trustee list otherwise unsourced) in the article on the trust,and the trustee list page is linked from the article on Herb Peyton,whose outdated identification as if he were still a trustee you blindly restored.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,looking further,the Herb Peyton article uses an outdated URL and a Wayback Machine link to it.The current information is at http://www.alfrediduponttrust.org/governance/trustees/ and should supersede the other cites.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there you go. This is one reason as to why it's important to cite references in-line with edits like these ;-). Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing the content I add

Hi Oshwah, Good day, I would like to add more coparenting ideas and topic o this section. To help People will read this article to get more info about co-parenting. And I know that the link I shared is relevant to this topic.

by the way, I mark lustre who develop the site that I link to this topic. I hope you will consider my topic about coparenting and I'm welling to add more ideas for this topic.

thanks

Regards, Mark Lustre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklustre (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marklustre! Welcome to Wikipedia! The issue behind the external link you added to Coparenting is that it seems to be to a website or content that you've written or that you manage. This is problematic for many reasons - one of which is that this constitutes the addition of original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Other concerns include conflict of interest with the link, as well as concerns about using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. Please take some time to review these policies and guidelines, as well as give Wikipedia's guidelines on external links a read. They will help to answer any questions you have and explain what can and cannot be added to articles for different reasons. If you have any questions about the policies or guidelines I've linked you, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for the message, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes- Arjun Kanungo

Hi,

I need to edit the part that he is managed by Sony Music coz he's not, You can check his official page he is managed by me now so please let me know the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.78.190 (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your message here clearly shows that you have a personal conflict of interest with the article subject, Arjun Kanungo - assuming your statement is true. Please don't edit articles where you have conflicts of interest with; instead, please focus on improving other articles so that neutrality and verifiability aren't compromised in any way. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheReal[REDACTED - Oshwah]

I emailed support and said this: if you need anything else please let me know, I am trying to get verified by twitter and deleting my edits definitely isn’t helping:( Hey, I appreciate your trying to protect me but I am indeed the real [REDACTED - Oshwah] and the reason I went with “the real” is because someone already has my name. You can verify both [REDACTED - Oshwah] on Twitter and [REDACTED - Oshwah] they are both handled by me. My real date of birth once was on wiki years ago and I got scared and changed it. Can you please just revert the edits. I am sure you understand how frustrating it is for me to come back to lies. Also I never ever went by lana, it’s not because someone asshole reported it wrong that Its an aka. My real name which at least for now I don’t want included is [REDACTED - Oshwah]. I caught hiv doing a double anal. Also check out my instagram, if you don’t recognize me from it then you blind boy! Lol have yourself a great day instagram [REDACTED - Oshwah] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.95.204 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thereal[REDACTED - Oshwah] ?

Ok I am confused did you unblock me, did you approve my edits? All I saw is I had a message and got confused 67.68.95.204 (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for the message. If you've followed the directions on the notice I left on your user talk page and you emailed the Volunteer Response Team, they have the proper tools and training be able to verify your identity (I obviously cannot do this) and assist you with your particular concerns. Once your account is verified, I can unblock it as well as undo the redaction of your username to the edits you made (they're redacted at this time). You're welcome to edit as an anonymous user - only your account is blocked from editing due to the username. However, I highly recommend that you follow-up with your message to the Volunteer Response Team that you sent and work with them to resolve your issues - this is what you must do if you want your particular concerns addressed. If you have any questions, please feel free to respond with them and I'll be happy to help you. Please take my input and advice and work with the Volunteer Response Team to verify your identify and have your issues taken care of. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The real [REDACTED - Oshwah] had enough

Dude wtf you block mypage I canedit but not my fucking page you are the vamdal vandalising my page can you please be fucking clear on to how to make the fucking changes for fucks sakes!!!!12:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)~… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.95.204 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC) ok sorry I am programming retarted I apologize — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.95.204 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response above. In order to have your particular issues resolved, you must follow through and work with the Volunteer Response Team. I'm going to go through the article and remove any unreferenced content and make sure that it's compliant with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people; any additional concerns you have need to be handled by working with the VRT. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Roxx

Why are my (LouGeese) and the subject’s ([REDACTED - Oshwah]) edits gone from her page. We’ve been making changes to fix numerous errors and frankly clunky writing and presentation. This isn’t “graffiti” or some malicious intent. This is her trying to get things straight. As well as updating her current activities. There are no copyright issues I can see. And further links I was going to add today can verify identity. She Periscopes live every day! Please restore our edits and unlock the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouGeese (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LouGeese - The user you mentioned has been given directions regarding how to have her concerns completely resolved. I cannot verify anybody's identity nor can I allow any unreferenced content or changes to be made to biographies of living people - Wikipedia has strict policies regarding these articles, and I'm bound by policy to make sure that it's enforced. I've already removed unreferenced and unneeded content from the article; if you have additional concerns, please feel free to file an edit request on the article's talk page and request these changes be made; depending on the content you wish to be changed, they will require that a reliable source be provided to verify that the changes are accurate and true. Otherwise, the subject has been given directions on what she needs to do - the Volunteer Response Team will be able to work with her and take care of any remaining concerns. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for the message, and I'm available to help should you need it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheReal[REDACTED - Oshwah] owes Oshwah

A sincere apology doubled with a big great thank you. Thanks for answering me in real time. I totally deserved that block, I am prompt to react and later feel awful about my words. I am working on it. Please accept my apology <3 67.68.95.204 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your follow-up response, and I also appreciate that you understand why I blocked your account - it was for your benefit and with your best interest in-mind. I hope that you understand and perhaps have an increased level of confidence with Wikipedia knowing that we block accounts with usernames that attempt to impersonate other people or claim they're a notable person. Please follow-up with your emails and communication with the Volunteer Response Team, and they'll be able to assist you properly. Thanks again for the message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this deleting?

Why are you deleting revisions of your talk page all the time? You're flooding my watchlist. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L293D - Sorry for the watchlist flooding; revisions here were rev del'd and oversighted for different reasons (mostly for privacy concerns). I'm hoping things are now resolved and I won't have to redact any more revisions... It's not something I like doing (hiding edits from the public), but unfortunately these were reasons that needed it :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
151? That's not a flood, it's The Flood ;)--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updations

Hi Oshwah,

I am an admirer of Aryan's work and have shared his instagram profile's link on Wikipedia Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.106.25.50 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Of course, and can you please redact my real name out of my first message I didn't realize how public my message would be thanks Lara Roxx ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.95.204 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Seal of the Inspector General

Hi Oshwah I was trying to Update the logo. Becuse the the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense Seal is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Inspector_General,_U.S._Department_of_Defense

And I was trying to fix the logo. Hope that Clear things up a little.96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hadrians wall

i changed it for the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.44.87 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a soothing cup of tea - you probably need it!

After what you (and your talk page) have been through, I think you deserve to sit down, take a long breath, and enjoy a break with the beverage of your choice. Tea is probably as good as anything for this purpose. MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MelanieN! Thanks for the tea! Ha, just another day full of messages and fun times on my talk page... all in a day's work! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you probably have the highest ECPD (Edit Conflicts Per Day) rate of Wikipedia. :) L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict - I see what you mean! 0;-D) Like my talk page says... did you imagine, when you became an admin, that your talk page would get THIS interesting? (BTW this was the first time I've ever been pinged to an edit that I couldn't read. It had already been oversighted.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... one of those times where suppression was needed, unfortunately.... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My review

I was trying to explain what many people want to happen and I think you are stuck up and won’t let people post there opinion so that got me really mad I want a message back thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go figure Joaquin (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Go figure Joaquin, and thanks for leaving me a message here. Your edit here added content that states, "hopefuly lighting will win". This isn't a viewpoint of what many people want to have happen (as you state in your message above), it's clearly an opinion stating that you hope that the team will win. This is why I removed your edit here. Please review Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view on article content and let me know if you have any questions - I'll be happy to answer them if you do. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I wish you happy editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not "Constructive"?

Oshwah,

While the term "constructive" may be one of a personal opinion, it is in fact true that his son died of an Opioid overdose and now he is doing what he can to bring awareness to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYcQ6mF1dZc

The opioid crisis movement needs more visibility and anyone with a platform like his that talks about it is a good thing.

I'm not just making up my edit. It came directly out his father's mouth and I would think that if he's making youtube video's about it, he's alright with it being a matter of public consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B450:94C0:8576:F2D3:7EF8:6797 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please see WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:CITE. Your edit was reverted because it lacked any citation of a reliable source. General Ization Talk 21:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does a youtube link of his father speaking count as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:b450:94c0:8576:f2d3:7ef8:6797 (talk) 32:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to Oshwah on that, but my personal opinion is that the Youtube video can be used as a source for the statement that Eric Bolling (the elder, the subject of our article here) stated in a video that his son (Eric Chase Bolling) died of an opioid overdose. It cannot be used to source the statement that Eric Chase Bolling died of an opioid overdose. The difference is subtle but important. General Ization Talk 21:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I wasn't sure if that was allowable reference or not but here nor there, since it's his father, seemed like it would be. Either way...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=831928132"