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 Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 28 February 2019 (→Farewell: ce). 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.


Question

Hey, after you added protection to Iron Man, a bot removed it with the next edit and IPs have been disrupting it since. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks - wolf 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewolfchild On reading this, it seemed like the bots have started the revolution as prophesied. Until I looked the settings and found that the protection was set to expire in 30 minutes. so the bots are still doing their job diligently, but the same cannot be said about Oshwah, who in all probability had fucked this up. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild, DBigXray - Well, darn... I had applied such a short semi protection duration because I thought that it would simply end after a few hours. In situations like these, where disruptive edits and vandalism suddenly appear on an article and an at a significantly high rate by many users - is usually due to attempts by a group of people a school or elsewhere to be trolls and cause a high amount of disruption. Applying semi protection for a very short duration in order to stop it - usually for only 3 or 6 hours, is plenty enough time for the users to quickly get bored, give up, and move on to doing something else. It appears that this didn't happen in this particular case and it's been continuing. I went ahead and applied semi protection back onto the article, this time for a week. If shenanigans and tomfooleries continue there after it expires, file a request at RFPP and ask for a longer-duration semi protection, or let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks for the messages, and I hope you both have a great rest of your day. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the details and PP. Well the 30 mins clearly didn't work. Good day to you too. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray - HA! Well, you could definitely say that I "fucked up" depending on how you look at it. The semi protection I applied didn't put a complete stop to the disruption, since it continued after it expired... but I did set a short length purposefully. ;-) Also, I'm not sure how you calculated that the semi protection I applied was for only 30 minutes (lol), as the time between when I set the block (19:47, 11 February 2019 UTC‎) and its expiration (01:47, 12 February 2019 UTC) is 6 hours. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this this edit summary and its time stamp, the difference was 30 mins, so I said so. I may be wrong though. But whatever it may be, I still have faith in Oshwah which is why I said " in all probability", thus keeping an escape route open for me, in case that short duration was somehow intentional. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray - Well strategized; I like it. lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page edits

Please contact me at [REDACTED - Oshwah], and I will explain why certain edits to a page have been carried out. I do not wish to discuss this in a public forum. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briggsywiki (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Briggsywiki - Your reasons for making certain edits and changes to Wikipedia articles and content need to be discussed here and on Wikipedia so that the community can review it and weigh in with comments if they feel the need to. As you would obviously know and understand, Wikipedia's founding principles are based on openness and verifiability. It doesn't make sense to have such discussions outside of Wikipedia and over a different medium... else, how would anyone be able to fully understand, review and, evaluate the edits of others on Wikipedia? If you're unable to fully and properly explain your reasons for making the edit to an article or page that you're about to publish, then you shouldn't publish it. If you're trying to move this discussion to a private channel or medium because the reasons involve information or matters that relate to personal information, personal relationship or connection to the article subject, or other similarly private reason - then you definitely should not make edits to the particular article subject. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, as this may be relevant to the issue here. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know by responding here - and I'll be happy to answer them, discuss them with you, and help you. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for helping me on the vandal that was thebestfrom2005. TheWinRatHere! 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thewinrat! Thanks for taking the time to leave me this barnstar. I appreciate it a lot, and it always makes my day (as well as my user talk page) a lot brighter! No problem; always happy to lend a hand. If you need my input, advice, or help with anything, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help. Thanks again; I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sory sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Right 20000 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Shameel

Sory Sir Right 20000 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not a t-shirt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree - LOL, and thanks for the cookie! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Congratulations on 400,000 edits, and not having a hobby (i guess). $5 dollars per edit please sir. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix - HA! Thank you. :-) I don't know whether I should be proud of this accomplishment, or feel sorry for myself... but yeah.... it happened... and there it is...... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

flindersia brayleyana edits

Flindersia brayleyana comment received, I have no idea how to use this response feature. You mentioned that the there should be a source related to the edit. The source is active logger who is harvesting the tree species in question and simply Wikipedia is wrong. Indeed the supported citation in fact contradicts Wikipedia's article sloppy or just ignorant?

This is a direct quote from the citation :

https://web.archive.org/web/20090624160410/http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/hardwoodsqld/8247.html

" Local name: maple

Tree description and natural occurrence A medium sized tree attaining a height of 40 m and 2.5 m in stem diameter. The trunk is usually well formed, circular in cross-section and not buttressed. The bark, which is approximately 12 mm thick, is grey to brown in colour. It has fairly distinct longitudinal fissures. In older trees these fissures are not so marked owing to a tendency to scaliness.

Restricted in its distribution to northern Queensland rainforests between Townsville and the Windsor Tableland."


Sorry I don't know how to respond properly here. I'm forester myself (dual degrees) and have edited a few tropical agroforestry books. Very glad to help clean up the tropical forestry stuff where I can but my time is a bit limited as I run a small business and have family duties and some volunteer work.

NativeVAspecies (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NativeVAspecies, and welcome to Wikipedia! No problem! We were all new here once, and mistakes are certainly to be expected as you're learning the ropes and understanding the different policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has. The reference you provided seems to be good - it's from a government domain and it's an archive link, which will prevent issues from happening with the link to the source, such as it becoming dead or the information becoming degraded or changed. You just need to cite the source in-line and you'll be good to go! :-)
Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before making any more major edits or changes to any articles. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and it led to them being saved hours (if not days' worth) of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. If you have any questions or need help with anything, please let me know and I'll be happy to help with anything that you need. Thanks again for the message; again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and hope you enjoy your stay and become a regular and experienced editor who stays with us long-term. We can always use more members of the community! :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry..wasn't clear. The current citation in the page presents the correct information. The wikipedia page is wrong and presents incorrect information though citation has correct info. I simply was quoting the original citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeVAspecies (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Am I too late to the party? Congrats on 400,000. You know how much of a help you've been. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 19:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RhinosF1! No way, not late at all! Thanks for the barnstar and the kind words. I'm happy to be of help to anyone that needs it, and I'm glad to have the trust and confidence of the number of editors who come to me for input, advice, and assistance with difficult situations and issues. Thanks again for the barnstar and for your message, and I'm sure we'll talk again soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're a credit to the community and an editor to be looked up to. We'll definitely talk again, your advice is always appreciated. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RhinosF1 - I appreciate that, and I'm happy to be of assistance to the community. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiFortress

Hi Oshwah. I noticed at UAA that you declined the report ref WikiFortress, which I agree was not the correct venue, however, they appear to be presenting themselves as a place to report a "very dangerous vandal or hacker". See their userpage User:WikiFortress. I am unsure which venue would be suitable to report this. Do you know if this is actually something official, or someone pretending? Ta. Agent00x (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agent00x! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns regarding this account. No worries about the report at UAA; it happens, and it sounds like you understand why. At that particular noticeboard, the only thing that is looked into is the username of the account. I'll take a glance at some other things with the reported user as well, but mainly so that I can help direct you to the proper noticeboard to report the user. UAA reports that are filed are many times a reflection of other concerns regarding the account, but where the reporting user is just not feeling confident that their thoughts are correct. Regardless, If it's not a blatant violation of Wikipedia's username policy, the UAA report will get stamped with the appropriate decline response stating that the username is not a violation, and I'll usually always try to follow up with either some questions, or my thoughts and findings and exactly what noticeboard they need to take their concerns to. ;-)
Let me take another look at the user page of the account, their contributions, and a few other things - and I'll follow up with you here with my thoughts about what may be going on. Stand by.... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agent00x - Just following up with you as promised. :-) I agree that their user page and the Wikipedia page they created about themselves contains statements that are not appropriate, as they state things that are false and attempt to misrepresent him as a bot that's operating under the foundation and their direction. I left this message on the user's talk page. Give it a read when you have a moment; it explains exactly what I think this user is trying to do and for innocent reasons like just trying to "look official and look good", and that he doesn't understand the gravity and severity of what he's done and the impact it could have. I simply asked him to remove those statements, and explained exactly how it would be received by the community and interpreted. Hopefully this is all that we need to do, and the user complies and we have no further problems. But... having been here 12+ years, I know that this won't likely be what happens... but hey you never know! I've seen miracles and rare events before around here! ;-) Thanks again for the message and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no problem. By the way, it wasn't me who reported him to UAA, just came across him on my recent changes patrolling. Agent00x (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agent00x - Ahh, okay I got'cha. Still not sure about exactly what he's trying to do... I'll keep an eye on the user's contributions and see what happens. I'll definitely put this user's page creations and user pages as quite a bizarre one... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks very much :), and as above, huge congrats on the 400k and hope you have a great day :). Agent00x (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agent00x - Thank you! And I wish you the same as well. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page abuse

Hi Oshwah. You blocked Macedonia, our name is our right. It seems that the account is a sock. Someone is creating accounts to make unhelpful comments on the talk page of North Macedonia. The following accounts have made the same comment as that made by Macedonia, our name is our right:

MACEDONIA United Independent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MACEDONIA (Republic) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MACEDONIA (Country) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The older account is Macedonia United Independent. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ktrimi991, and thanks for the message and for providing this information to me. I've applied indefinite blocks to each of the accounts you listed here, as they all made the exact same edit to Talk:North Macedonia as the account that I blocked originally. If you spot any more accounts like these or if you see someone adding the same disruption to the page as these users, please don't hesitate let me know and I'll be happy to take care of it. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Oshwah! The article is attracting much attention because of the name change the country is undergoing. It seems that not all people touching that talk page are interested in contributing positively. If the disruption persists, I will notify you. Thanks again. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991 - No problem; always happy to help. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know, you are very kind :-) Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Daniel_Brandt

As you are uninvolved would you care to close this discussion? Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim - Sure. Give me a few minutes to wrap up what's on my plate and I'll head over there next. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim - The deed has been done. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gates

Exuse me look up Jennifer gates horse riding, she is well known for horse riding not sliding a ball across the table. Please get your facts rights thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judestev123 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Judestev123. I'm not Oshwah, but perhaps I might be able to help. Is it possible that the Jennifer Gates who is known for horse riding is a different person from Jennifer Gates the curler? Often different people share the same name and all of the sources and information in the Wikipedia article is about a Canadian curler named Jennifer Gates. Wikipedia often has articles about different people who share the same name; for example, see Bill Gates (disambiguation) for a list of Wikipedia articles about men named or referred to as "Bill Gates".
Now, if there are two Jennifer Gates (one who has a Wikipedia article and one who doesn't), then we don't add information about the one who doesn't to the article about the other one. It might be possible, however, to create a new article about the one who doesn't if it can be established that she is Wikipedia notable enough for one to be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change in subjects

I changed it to nepal , which is his birth place . I dont think there is any reason to remove it. Please kindly consider it . It can be Koholpur nepal. Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.6.176.114 (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah! Please block this IP. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ruyaba -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How much time do you sleep? 2 to 3 hours only? I have no words to describe your dedication. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ruyaba - People have mistaken me for a bot many times.... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declining unblock requests

I agree 100% with this unblock decline except for one thing: you should not have been the person to do it. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests says "Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesBWatson! Oh yeah, I know all about that policy. I will respond and handle the unblock requests of user's I've blocked once in a great while, and usually in cases where the user is making them in order to be disruptive and troll. In those cases, I'll revert its creation and revoke talk page access from the user. This case obviously didn't fall into that exact situation, but I do admit that I'll decline them one in a while and when the case is extremely painfully obvious and it's clear that it would only waste the time of the reviewing administrator. I do understand and acknowledge the rule, though... it does exist for a good reason - so that objectivity and neutrality is inherently enforced by making us to defer to a different administrator to evaluate the block request... but my momma didn't raise no dummy, and I make no apologies for my decisions to revert and delete unblock requests by users that I've blocked because they were disruptive, blatant attempts to troll, and sometimes... just out-right horrible things to say..... or for declining them in situations where the request would only waste the time of the evaluating admin when I could've just declined it right then and there. Like I said, these are rare situations when I do this, but always for a reason I feel is legitimate. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand everything that you say, but personally I think this is one case where IAR should be used only in cases where there is content in the unblock request which really must not be allowed to remain, such as serious libel. Even in a case which is "extremely painfully obvious" I think we should make sure that it is visible that a separate, independent, administrator has agreed, on the principle of justice being not only done but seen to be done. Despite what you say, I don't see any reason why this one couldn't have been left for another administrator. "Waste the time of the evaluating admin"? Yes, maybe about 5 seconds' worth of time. "Out-right horrible things to say"? No, not really: just the usual run-of the mill silliness that we get all the time in unblock requests. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JamesBWatson - I do agree that you're right in your statements; it's policy and it's there for a good reason. There's no reason that it couldn't have just been left to someone else. I will stand behind my decisions (again, in cases that aren't very common) to revert and remove unblock requests that were made with the sole purpose of being a troll, and yanking talk page access on that user. It only takes me a moment to do it while I'm already close to it, and it's usually abusive unblock requests made by LTA sock accounts... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana Mohan Page

Hi, what was not neutral? The info was from the IMDB page. Pls explain. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yashkkaryan and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions. Your edits here and again here did not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy because these statements spoke overly positive about the actor about non-encyclopedic information. This is why I reverted your edits. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cancelled my edit on Paolo Cherici

Hi, i've recieved a message that you cancelled my edit on Paolo Cherici's page because I did not add any reliable sources. I did not add any sources beacuse I personally know Paolo Cherici as I was a student of his, and the things that I added on the page were all based on my experience (I added that he is now retired but still active as an external teacher at the Conservatory in Milan. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.80.92 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for messaging me here regarding your edit to Paolo Cherici. Sorry, but you cannot add content and "cite yourself" simply because you have a close relationship to the article subject. Adding content citing one's relationship, experience, association, or even one's own website, work, or research constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is because it's impossible for other editors and readers to verify that content is accurate and true. It's as if I were to say, "I'm the President of the United States". Would you believe me? No! You'd want some kind of verification, source, or proof to show that what I'm saying is true. If you asked me for that information and I responded, "I'm citing myself as the proof" - you wouldn't just disbelieve my statement, you'd probably laugh and think that I'm crazy. I mean this with all due respect, but your edit and the "source" you provided in your message here is almost the same thing as the example I just talked about. There's no way for us to verify that the content is correct, and this is why original research is not allowed. According to Wikipedia's verifiability and No original research policies, all content on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source, and specific information such as direct or spoken quotes, dates, data, information that's instantaneous, or other content likely to be challenged or removed - must be directly attributed to a reliable source via a citation. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8

As what I can see, is that it should be actually "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 9", but ignoring WP:CONCISE, Korean Rail Fan procedured not only a disruptive page move to "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8", but also a disruptive change on the sources (see the page history and the second source of the article). As "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8" doesn't exist, I've just corrected his disruptive edits, and please help revert his page move without redirect created, many thanks. Relevant discussion in Chinese Wikipedia (there is English). ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 15:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. (though I assmued bad faith earlier since his username is reminiscent of editing tendencies of a long time abuser back in zhwp.) I thought that when the Line 8 designation can be retained (I am open to this, but "MRT-8" as a combined term is not used to refer to the project. I have little interest to interfere with English community's decision. Once the deletion case back zhwp is resolved I'll revert part of my edits accordingly), the page itself should move to more frequently used title, like East West Rail (Project). But anyway, to usurp sources is not a correct practise. --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 15:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually dont mind to move the article in a name such as East-West Railway (Philippines) but again the move to Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 8 is not done without at least a single yet official resource available online as reported by DOTr itself in the Arangkada Philippines International Chamber of Commerce forums on Road and Rail Transport [1] with the specific DOTr presentation at this link [2] as a measure of goodfaith given that it would be PNR and not LRTA who is the government partner in this, thus it would not be a part of the Manila Light Rail Transit System. Also being a Philippine transportation department employee myself, I can vouch for the legitimacy on my own with Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 9, MRT-9, Line 9 or whatever 9 you might call it as the Metro Manila Subway. The reason the department has not been keen on releasing this info initially to the media is in order to prevent land valuation speculations in alignments to skyrocket and private developers to buy in before government does. Otherwise the data in at hand now and don't worry, we are also in the process of asking this to foi.gov.ph to have more sources later on.Korean Rail Fan 03:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sanmosa. I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. Can you point me to exactly what discussion or edit you're referring to regarding this article? I took a look at both articles you provided, but I don't see where I made an edit or revert... Thanks. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean would you help process the revert? (Ofc you haven't done it) Dukawana (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And actually a move (that 春卷柯南 suggested) may be even better. Dukawana (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for unclear statement, and actually I am Sanmosa. Dukawana (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dukawana - I would create a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves and make sure that there wasn't a reason why the article was moved to its current title. If there isn't and nobody objects, someone will move the article for you. I unfortunately don't have enough information to just revert the move without a discussion unless it was done as blatant vandalism or disruption, and it doesn't look like this is the case. File a request by following the instructions on the page that I linked you to, and let me know if you have any questions. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. The request is made, thanks. Dukawana (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dukawana - No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check a user ?

Can you check a user deepsighs. That person made edits on the page of Suki Waterhouse. It could be the same person who had multiple accounts before as saskia lou etc. greetings! Vdh m (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vdh m - What solid evidence do you have that these accounts are the same person? Have you filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

I would have to sadly say that you are misleading people because if you were going to put his name in English his name would be Joshua and you have to realize the letter J is over 500 years old that's it never know where is the letter j in the Hebrew or Greek language so would almost be like lying to people Ellijay you have I even seen it spelled with an i which mean is Zeus and if you say Jesus it would mean that hail Zeus so please fix your mistake this is not King James 1611 where the guy actually in there book is Cesar Borgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:1044:240:F964:466:50C2:9CD1 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please see the page on J, in particular where it says "The first English language book to make a clear distinction between ⟨i⟩ and ⟨j⟩ was published in 1633."[1] There is a distinction between the use of the glyph "J" and the sound which it now represents. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ English Grammar, Charles Butler, 1633

Sockpuppet Investigation

They closed my case and haven't even checked the IPs for EurovisionNim despite the mounds of evidence I gave them. Instead they end up finding out a sockpuppet account on a completely different person, this isn't the reason why I made the page in the first place. I'm not 100% know how this whole sockpuppet investigation system work but what else can I do? --Vauxford (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vauxford. If a Checkuser ran a check on the information you gave them and this is what they found, that's the best way that information and users can be confirmed to one another. If the check found that the users were related to somebody else, then based off their tools, no connection was able to be made. I know that the evidence you provided was well put together; I commend you on your report, as many users fail to explain and detail the evidence with diffs and do so properly. It's also important to note that, just because a Checkuser wasn't able to confirm or connect users to the accused sock master with their tools, doe not mean that the users are innocent.
To summarize: Checkuser inconclusiveness does not mean that the accused are innocent. Checkuser is simply an extra tool that can be used in order to confirm or connect users using technical data that other users do not have access to. For example: I opened an SPI awhile back where I was sure that two users were the same person. They were making the same edits at the same time. A Checkuser came back and could not confirm the IP information as being the same, but that the users were technically related, meaning that they both had the same user agent information as each other (browser and version, screen resolution, operating system, version, architecture, and other information). Based off the behavioral evidence and the fact that the two accounts had the same agent information (which, from what I remember, was not common - it was like a Blackberry device or something), the users were blocked. Either the users are not related, or the user is just very good about using different machines and networks.
The best thing you can do is to follow-up with additional SPI reports when you see more of these similar edits going on from IP users. Create a report, detail the evidence and with diffs from both accounts (so that patrolling admins and clerks can easily click and see what you're talking about side-by-side), and detail what is similar with each piece of evidence you bring to the table. Behavioral evidence alone can be sufficient for blocking accounts; I do it all the time. The evidence just needs to be detailed and specific, and show that nobody else but this sock master is who does this kind of behavior - which may be easy or difficult depending on the behavior.
Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you and I'll be happy to do so. My talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me here any time you need or want to. I apologize for the delay responding to your message - real life has been busy for me and I was sick over the weekend. Feeling better now, though. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I describe the behaviour as you described on your third paragraph though. Why did you made it into a redirect? Does that mean those IPs are all Wilzz99? I find this frustrating that after searching for all these evidences that Nim is evading his TBAN only to have the outcome to be a completely different user! --Vauxford (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

2A02:C7D:38C:1F00:3CC1:486E:F050:20DA (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for the message! Is there something specific I can answer or assist you with? Let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana Mohan Biography

I like to apologize for adding commentary as its violate neutral point of view. I request you to please accept the minor changes. It was the part of the earlier Biography before editing.

Career: Nehru often invited Kalpana, a trained Kathak dancer, to dance at the Rashtrapati Bhavan whenever dignitaries visited. Actor Balraj Sahani and Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai spotted the beautiful dancer and encouraged her to come to Mumbai and try her luck in films.

Filmography

1. Pyar Ki Jeet (1962), as Chitralekha | Romance | 1 January 1962 (India) Director Vasant Painter | Stars: Mahipal, Kalpana, Indira

2. Naughty Boy (1962), as Meena Sharma / Edna Wong | Comedy Movie Director Shakti Samanta, Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Om Prakash

3. Professor (1962), as Neena Verma | Comedy, Drama, Musical | 11 May 1962 (India) Director Lekh Tandon, Stars: Shammi Kapoor, Kalpana, Lalita Pawar

4. Saheli (1965), as Reshma | Romance | 1965 (India) Director Arjun Hingorani, Stars: Pradeep Kumar, Kalpana, Vijaya Choudhury

5. Teesra Kaun (1965), as Shobha | Action, Crime, Drama Director: Mohammed Hussain (as Mohd. Husain) | Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana & Shashikala

6. Teen Devian (1965) as Kalpana | Musical, Romance | 10 December 1965 (India) Director: Amarjeet (as Amar Jeet) | Stars: Dev Anand, Nanda, Kalpana, Simi & IS Johar

7. Biwi Aur Makan (1966), as Geeta Director: Hrishikesh Mukherjee | Stars: Biswajit Chatterjee, Kalpana, Mehmood

8. Tasveer (1966), as Piloo | Director: J.B.H. Wadia Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana , Helen & Rajendra Nath

9. Pyar Kiye Jaa (1966), as Malti | Director: C.V. Sridhar (as Sridhar) Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Shashi Kapoor, Mehmood

10. Nawab Sirazuddaula (1967) Drama | Director: Ramchandra Thakur Stars: Bharat Bhushan, Kalpana, Naseem Banu, Murad & Johnny Walker

11. Ek Bechara (1972), as Radha | Drama, Family | Director: S.M. Abbas Stars: Jeetendra, Rekha, Vinod Khanna, Kalpana, Pran, Bindu & Anwar Hussain

She has 11 films to her credits, all films are not mentioned in the Biography. I request you to please restore the info in a tabular format as original version with the hyperlink leading to the movie. The list is genuine.

I assured you this is not personal comment or commentary & does not violate neutral point of view. The info is available in the public domain. I can provide you with a link to verify the facts.

References Please add the link, as it was part of the earlier Biography. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0436200/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

I rest my case. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yashkkaryan, and thanks for the message. If you wish for this edit to be accepted, I suggest making an edit request on the article's talk page so that other editors can take a look and provide input and feedback if any problems are found. I'll let someone else approve the edit so that you get a fair review. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to message me and I'll be happy to answer them. Good luck to you, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection

Hi, I'm Jaxon and I was wondering why you protected "Splitting"? Thank you in advance! JAZHAZHANDZWIKI (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JAZHAZHANDZWIKI! The article you mentioned, Splitting, has not been placed under any kind of protection before. Can you verify that I'm looking at the right article? Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page Draft:UltraPlay

Hello, Oshwah.

I would like to create a Wikipedia article about my company UltraPlay and already disclosed COI. Upon creation this message showed up:

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 12:14, 18 October 2017 Oshwah (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:UltraPlay (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank)

I would like to create a wikipedia article for my company without any advertising or promotion. Would you please provide me with some info on the case?

Ultraplay (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC) UltraPlay[reply]

Hi Ultraplay, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your question and your request for assistance. In short, it's against Wikipedia's community behavioral guidelines to start or create an article about your company (or anything else that you have a conflict of interest with), or even participate in discussions regarding them. This is due to the fact that having someone closely associated or related to the article subject taints the content and makes it nearly impossible for it to be written in a neutral point of view and without original research being added to it. This naturally degrades the quality of the content, and it lowers the confidence that any readers have with the content (and Wikipedia in general) if this were allowed. We can't have that. The best thing you can do is add the company to the list of requested articles. If the company is notable enough to warrant its own article, another editor will undoubtedly create one. I also noticed that your username represents the company you are trying to write an article for. I hate to be "that admin", but I had to place a soft block on your account due to this reason. Your username, per Wikipedia's username policy cannot represent an organization, group, company, internet channel or team, or anything other than an individual person. Simply follow the directions provided to you on your user talk page in order to request your username be changed to something that's appropriate and in compliance with the username policy. Once this is done, your account will be unblocked without issue. Thanks again for the message, I wish you good luck with the company, and I hope that my response was helpful, answered your questions, and set appropriate expectations. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X1

May I ask why you protected Template:X1? It's a sandbox, and sandboxes aren't generally supposed to be protected. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery! OOPS! I thought that I was reverting and protecting the sandbox header; I didn't realize that this page was also a sandbox. I see now that this is clearly not the case and that I dun goof'd. I've removed the protection from the page. Thank you for reaching out to me and for letting me know, and I apologize if my protection of the page caused any inconvenience upon you. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving documentation for the PageCuration script

Hi! Would you mind if Wikipedia:PageCuration script were moved to User:Lourdes/PageCuration? The current location is slightly nonstandard for user scripts. See also the bottom of this discussion. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 04:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enterprisey! Congratulations on your recent RFA! I'm not sure if I left a message on your talk page to say this, so I'm doing so now. :-) I would wait for the discussion to play out and come to a close before deciding whether or not to move this page. Aside from potentially angering some editors and going against what consensus may be established there, it would also result in the script no longer functioning for most editors if we were to simply move it first and without planning ahead of time and giving everyone a chance to modify any function calls, links, or references to the script first. This has happened before many times; someone decides to move a highly used template, module, or script - and with absolutely no word or announcement given out ahead of time so that everyone could update their scripts and internal links first. It created a disaster as the template disappeared from many articles and user interfaces and people didn't understand why, and I've had to run in and move it back so that it would work again, and talk to the user and educate them on why we plan these kinds of moves first. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Congrats again on your adminship. The best advice I can give is to comment and behave in a "humble servant" mentality and never an "authoritative" or "scolding" mentality unless the user really isn't getting it, and use the powers you now have to benefit the community. Show everyone that admins can be good, reasonable, fun people to interact and work with and not only will the community (as well as other admins) look up to you, but they'll respect you when you "walk into the room" and add to a discussion. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was more about changing the name of the script, not where the documentation lives. That's something you did, as far as I know, without prior discussion? Moving the Wikipedia:PageCuration script back to it's customary place at User:Lourdes/PageCuration won't break anything :) — MusikAnimal talk 02:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ticketcity Article Question

Hi Oshwah, I noticed you had previously showed an interest on editing a page I have a question about ( Ticketcity ). I have left an edit request on that page if you're available to help? Thank you NathanPeters406 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NathanPeters406! I most likely edited the page to fix obvious issues or to remove vandalism or disruption there. I'm by no means an expert on this article subject (TicketCity). :-) However, if you'd like me to take a look at your edit request regardless, let me know and I'll be happy to do so. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple:User:Oshwah (alt account)

Is this account yours on the Simple English Wikipedia? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thegooduser. No, it is not. The only accounts that I control are listed here, and at this time are just this account (Oshwah) and Oshwah-TEST (which I occasionally use on the test Wikipedia and maybe here to perform tests). Any other accounts that claim to be me and aren't listed on that user page I linked you to are almost certainly not me. I also create alternative accounts using this account, so the user creation log on the English Wikipedia would specifically state that "User account XXXXXXXXX (talk | contribs) was created by Oshwah (talk | contribs) (REASON)" and with an explanation and reason added to the log. If this isn't present, then don't assume it to be legitimate. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to ask an Simple English Admin to block it for impersonation? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thegooduser - If it's currently being used to cause harassment, disruption, or impersonation - sure! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whelp, It's was created in 2016 with no edits to the account, I think I should ask for it to be blocked so it won't cause any further disruption. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be blocked, since it's definitely a stale account - but I have nothing against you filing a report. Thanks! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP range block request

Hello Oshwah. I notice that you blocked this range for a week on February 13 for making unsourced edits. As soon as the block expired, they have gone back to making the same sort of edits. Please could you block the range again. Silverfish (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silverfish -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's privilege and favoritism

Hello Oshwah,

I want your honest judgement of the following issue. Please have a look at this (I commented because I was involved in a way, to begin with) and then read this. I would like to know your opinion. I believe this is problematic and really downgrades Wikipeidia's editing environment, the fact that it is a norm these days. This is a general problem and should be treated seriously. The editing hierarchy should be stopped. Sorry for bothering you. But I think it was much needed. It is not ANI or ArbCom worthy though.

Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImmortalWizard! Thanks for messaging me here with your request for my input and thoughts regarding the recent... drama stemming from a block placed on Beyond My Ken for edit warring on the Ben Shapiro article. I'll be happy to take a look at everything and provide my honest input and thoughts regarding the situation.
First, lets start from the beginning: Looking at the article's recent history, we can gather based on the edits made that a caption under an image in the article was under dispute. It looks like it started when the caption was modified by Shaddai Wright on February 14. Beyond My Ken ("BMK") reverted the modification about four days later. Sullay then stepped in and modified the caption shortly after, which was reverted again by BMK on the same day. ImmortalWizard (which is you) then modified the caption shortly afterwards, and was reverted yet again by BMK within the span of only about 15 minutes. Sullay then returned and modified the caption again for the second time, which was reverted yet again by BMK. BMK then went on to make two additional edits (here and here) immediately after that last revert. I have absolutely nothing against Beyond My Ken at all. In fact, he's always responded in a positive and appreciative manner when I've come to him and had to talk to him about some difficult issues - quite commendable. Unfortunately, though, based off the edit history, Beyond My Ken was engaging in edit warring and against multiple editors, and while I would've left a warning on his talk page first and gave him a chance to stop making edits to the article before blocking (I usually always do this to give the person a chance to realize that they've hit the gas a bit too far and to stop), the block certainly wasn't unwarranted. Since Sullay only made two edits to the same page during the dispute, I wouldn't consider that user to be edit warring until more actions were performed by him that directly affected the situation.
I typically leave edit warring notices on the user talk page and advise them to stop after they've published the third edit or revert to the page (which includes the original change if it's the user who made it). This to me is an appropriate time to do this, because in most cases, you're now venturing into "edit warring territory" after making that third revert. In my mind, it goes like this: I make an edit, someone reverts it, I revert it thinking maybe the revert was a mistake, unreasonable, or the person doesn't know what he/she is talking about and say so in the edit summary. The other person (or someone else) then reverts it again. At this point, it's not an isolated "revert" that might be a mistake, a situation where the person was just performing "drive by reverting", or anything that can be played off as a mistake, somebody doesn't understand, or whatever - it's now the other person defending their thoughts regarding how the content should or should not be published. At this point, you should know this and go through the lengths of starting a discussion and contacting the editor to discuss the matter (like what's stated here). If you make a third revert and override the other editor again and after he/she has potentially expressed an issue with your changes twice, you know that with this third revert - you should have either discussed it and have come to a consensus that your edit should proceed, or you're edit warring. I warn the user, and if it continues despite the warning I left, I feel that it's appropriate to proceed with action. While BMK wasn't warned first like I typically do, he's experienced enough to know about Wikipedia's policy on edit warring and an admin proceeding straight to a block justifiable. It's just not something I would personally do. I try to at least give warning first so that other means can be attempted before having to resort to blocking. It doesn't always happen, but given the circumstances - it's not always needed and certainly not required. In the end, it doesn't matter who is right as far as the content dispute goes, it matters that edit warring is avoided and the proper discussions and communication occur (per Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol).
The warning given to you about "grave dancing" is something you'll need to talk to TonyBallioni about directly. I think you were correct in your original response here with your main point that BMK was edit warring and over a content-related dispute, but I also think that your comment here could be interpreted as "grave dancing" by other editors upon their interpretation - especially given that you made an edit to the article that was reverted by BMK. It wasn't necessary, and after seeing that a user's editing or behavior has already been dealt with, it's always best to move on and to avoid piling onto the fact that BMK was blocked - which, in itself, never feels good to have happen in the first place. Responses in agreement or disagreement are usually appropriate, but make sure that you're not adding fuel to the fire. I definitely try never to use someone's edit count as a measure for disagreeing with someone or arguing a point about something unrelated to it. While edit counts are a rough measure as to someone's tenure and involvement with the project (which from there can be associated to overall experience, sure), it's not a reliable measure to use when gauging one's knowledge of policy, the quality of edits performed, and the user's ability to take on or complete a task properly on Wikipedia. A basic example: User A (with 10,000 edits) does not have the exact same experience, knowledge level, behavior, tenure, or aptitude as User B (who also has 10,000 edits) simply because their edit counts are exactly the same.
I hope that my response here was informative and helpful to you, and gave you a fair and rational explanation with my thoughts, exactly what was correct and correctly handled and why, and how I would've handled things if it were up to me. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Just move on, learn the lessons that you should take away from what happened, and don't hold any grudges. A term I often use to explain what I mean is to "take the meat and leave the bones". :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Oshwah. Just to clarify on the edit count thing: I wholeheartedly agree that at some point it doesn’t matter. My point was that someone with ~4k edits and a few months of active editing in the last 2 years telling someone with ~200k edits and over a decade of experience how to edit is going to leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. That’s not favouritism or privilege, that’s just having social awareness of what is likely to look really bad. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. I don’t have much else to add beyond what I already said on my talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TonyBallioni! I think that this clarification is exactly what ImmortalWizard was looking for. I appreciate you for taking the time to respond here and state your thoughts and input. My response above was not in any way an attempt to say or imply that your thoughts were wrong and that what you said in response was inappropriate. It was simply meant to give my input on the matter in general. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both you to take your time and thoroughly assess this situation. As Oshwah has stated, my comments were a bit too much and I should have just stopped and carry on my own business. However, I believe all of us have learned a valuable lesson here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ImmortalWizard - No problem; always happy to help! If you run into any more questions or if you need any more input or advice, please don't hesitate to message me again and I'll be glad to assist. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted a notification....(Muhsin ibn Ali) - again.

I had hoped they understood...They did it again!.And here too!.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Lurking shadow! I've just left the user this escalated warning regarding his/her edits to that article. If this message and the urgency used in the wording doesn't correct the behavior, and if these edits continue on the article from this user - please let me know and I'll be happy to proceed to taking the appropriate next steps in order to stop the disruption. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Extreme Wikipediholic

I spend way too much time here... Hey, Maybe If I get a snow day the next day I can edit more! But I really need to get off, Any Advice? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thegooduser - Advice? Umm... like with anything else we find to be fun and hard to peel away from, just make sure that your time spent volunteering and contributing to Wikipedia comes with an appropriate balance to everything else in life. Make sure that it doesn't negatively impact your school work, grades, social life with others, or other aspects of your life outside of Wikipedia that are important and should be first priority. If you find that you're spending too much time on any activity in general (not just Wikipedia), I'd say that the best thing to do is set appropriate limits and hold yourself to them. Set a timer and log off when the time runs out, set a reminder that it's time to log off the computer when the time of day occurs (like 5:00 PM or something)... there are many ways to force yourself to limits that are hard to keep. Another important tip: Make sure that all of your obligations (whether it be chores, homework, or other projects and work) are done first before you decide that it's appropriate to get on the computer or the internet. A good quote to stick by in life and with managing your time is "you gotta eat your greens before you can have desert". This way, you won't allow yourself the opportunity to put off important things that must get done, and it makes sure that you spend the time necessary in order to complete those obligations instead of procrastinating and estimating how long it will take you to finish them later. Hope my response helps. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I spend all my homework time on Wikipedia- 4:15 pm-8:00 Pm and beyond, I end up having to rush my homework the next morning when I wake up, and sometimes I'll dream about Wikipedia. lol. I need to get off... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi, it's me again. I'd just like to thank you for responding to my email and unblocking me. Having spent the past couple of weeks in a dispute was starting to give Wikipedia a bit of a bad taste for me since it's the first time I've ever really been engaged with the site and its users. You've really made me realize that it's not all stressful and stagnant. Again, thank you for the quick and kind responses, I really appreciate that and am hoping if there's something I can do for you. Are editors allowed to give medals or likes or something to increase rep on here? Cheers.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]

Hi HueyXocoatzin! No problem! It's part of what I do on Wikipedia, I'm happy to do it, and I'm especially glad that it gave you some renewed faith in the project and the community. Trust me, not everyone here is hard to work with or uncivil toward others. Users will (typically) invest more time, emotions, responses, and arguments in discussions where there's disagreements than you do with discussions where there aren't. It's obviously much easier to remember the bad and frustrating disputes and editors than the others because of this. ;-)
It appeared to me that the edit warring was over a content-related dispute and not a case of blatant misinformation or vandalism being added by the other account. However, If you still feel that the other user is causing blatant disruption and adding bad faith edits in order to purposefully damage the article or the project, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if it's vandalism or spam, or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if it involves other things that need community and admin review, investigation, and action. You're of course not obligated to leave me any awards or barnstars; your kind thank you message was plenty good enough. :-) However, if you want to know this information for future reference - you can give someone "wikilove" by navigating to their user talk page, and clicking on the heart tab located at the top and next to the Edit, History, Read, and other tabs. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to do so. Keep outta trouble, participate and respond in the discussions regarding the disputes you're involved with, and report any blatant bad faith issues to the relevant noticeboard if you feel that it's needed. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I now see the distinction. What qualifies for vandalism needs to be blatant and easier to follow than a content-related dispute(?). I guess I'd need to have external input from other admins or users to determine whether the information put in by the disruptive editor is being misrepresented. Now that I think I understand the first part of my complaint, what'll happen to the mass editing and monitoring of related wiki articles that said disruptive editor did? Will that need to be resolved seperately? Is that a blatant form of vandalism or...?HueyXocoatzin (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]
Hi again, HueyXocoatzin! I'll explain the different terms so that they're clear for you: Disruptive editing is the general term to describe any kind of editing behavior by a Wikipedia user that's interrupting or disrupting progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. It doesn't take into account the intent of the user or the exact changes being made. Even if one appears to be trying to edit in good faith, their edits can still be considered disruptive if its repeated, and the user can be blocked if they continue to repeat the disruptive behavior and despite being repeatedly talked to and asked to stop. Vandalism, edit warring, adding unsourced content, editing against consensus, and violating Wikipedia's civility policy - are all different forms of editing behaviors that are defined by our policies and guidelines as being disruptive if done repeatedly.
Vandalism is where an editor purposefully and maliciously edits Wikipedia in order to be disruptive, destructive, or to cause damage or harm to the article, page, or the encyclopedia. Reverting blatant vandalism is an action that isn't counted as edit warring if performed, along with removing blatant copyright violations, blatant libel or violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or illegal content like child porn. Other reverts that are starting to become a back-and-fourth behavior between involved editors are considered "content-related disputes", and need to be resolved properly and through discussion and consensus, and by following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol. In a nutshell, if it's over content and not a violation of policy, it'll most likely be considered "content-related" - meaning that you (and others involved) can be held accountable for any edit warring that occurs. If you're not sure, don't revert it repeatedly. Start a discussion on the article's talk page and get help. This way, you won't find yourself in the "edit warring" pit again.
It's perfectly normal and understandable to be blocked for something like edit warring, so long as it doesn't become a repeated issue. The first block? It's generally seen as understandable by the community. Nobody is perfect. A second block over the same thing? It becomes seen by the community as more than just "one mistake" and something you didn't learn from last time. But, if it doesn't happen again - forgivable. No big deal if they were long ago. A third or subsequent block for the same thing? Now it becomes a repeated issue that's long-term. Definitely something you don't want to have happen. ;-)
Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Happy editing and best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I now know that the back and forth him and I were having in the talk page and edit summaries were content-related disputes. We should be focusing on building consensus, but that's clearly not happening any time soon between the two of us--no matter how much I repeat and recite information that relates to “new” arguments he makes. But this springs another question into my mind. Would it be against consensus to make large, new edits that are contradictory to a previous narrative in a given article without explaining it in the talk page or even the edit summary? For example: The article first states that X group of people in a country are a minority (and of course the sources behind this figure are reliable), but then they decide to edit-in a wall of text that states the exact opposite and is accompanied by reliable sources that have been misrepresented, i.e. their source supposedly uses “ambiguous” wording which somehow validates their point. Because before I came along to edit the article, the only reason there was a consensus is because the new editor--who initially went against the consensus--began to hold other editors accountable for what he never did, and has been doing so for almost two years on several (9) related articles. Because if this is against consensus, then those edits would go against policy along with them being a tendentious editor. Of course, the community would need to decide if his claims don't satisfy verifiability, which is why I'm planning on filing a dispute resolution request. Well, I'm still not very familiar with all the rules and protocols I should take because I've mostly been spending my time researching the content being disputed. Do you have any suggestions on what I should do? Cheers.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]
(talk page stalker) Why so impatient about it? Well If you want to how to make helpful and constructive contributions to Wikipedia, then please read all of of the policies and rules which I left on your talk page.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 02:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Very fair and responds quickly and kindly HueyXocoatzin (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again HueyXocoatzin! I appreciate you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar and for expressing your gratitude. As I said in my response in the discussion above, I'm happy that I was able to help you and that my responses and assistance gave you a renewed feeling of Wikipedia, the community, and being an editor and part of it all. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archived report at e/w noticeboard without "result"

Hey Oshwah, hope anything is going well for you. Just to let you know, i made a report about av 3RR violation some days ago : [3], but it was archived while the "result" section was still empty. This is the first time i see something like that. Thoughts ? Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikaviani! I'm doing well, thank you! I hope life is happy for you as well. :-) That's certainly interesting... I took a look and found the AN3 report in the archives and saw that it was moved there by Lowercase sigmabot III. I'd have to double-check and take a look in order to be sure of which is correct, but I thought that the bot only archived discussions either if they were marked as resolved and with a note inside the "result" portion of the section header (clearly this is not the case since it wasn't "resolved"), or if three days pass without any comments or edits being added to the discussion. Seeing that the last comment added to the discussion was on February 19 and the bot didn't archive it until February 22, this must be what Lowercase sigmabot III looks for before moving a report to the archives. The discussion must've just gone stale.
If the reported user (Sword313) is still currently engaging in edit warring and at this moment in time, and the report is still relevant given the information provided - I'd just create a new AN3 report, copy the original details and diffs you submitted with the original report, add any additional diffs, details, and evidence that occurred since the first report so that it's up-to-date, briefly explain that the first report you filed went stale without a resolution (add a diff to the original report in the archives) and that the user is still currently edit warring as reported, and submit it that way. If the user has stopped engaging in edit warring or the issues that caused you to file your original report, then I'd let it go and move on to discussing the dispute or the matter on the articles' talk pages. You can always file another AN3 report later if the edit warring picks back up again in the near future. ;-)
Please let me know if you have any more questions or if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) I hope my response here was helpful and that you have a great rest of your day. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Yes, as usual, your response is very helpful. Hopefully, it seems that the editor is not edit-warring now, so, as you said, let's drop it. I'll follow your advices if edit-warring resumes. I also wish you a great rest of your day. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikaviani - No problem. Sounds good to me; if it continues, let me know. Take care as well, and have a great rest of your day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to undelete a deleted article

Just now I saw that you deleted this draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Debayan_Official without any reason. As I found, it was an incomplete article which was still under construction. Immediately give a proper reason for it's deletion or undelete the article, otherwise I have to ask other administrators to take action. Wikieditor147369 (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor147369: The reason has been given in the deletion description, namely it is G5. For more explanation please see WP:G5.
And please do not try to frighten anyone with asking another admin to take action. Those who shout louder usually have less reasons. --(talk page stalker) CiaPan (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana Mohan page

Hi, Thanks for your response. I am glad you understood my point. I am just a fan & not an expert in editing. I trust your vision in editing. I request you to add these edit in her post.

Career: Nehru often invited Kalpana, a trained Kathak dancer, to dance at the Rashtrapati Bhavan whenever dignitaries visited. Actor Balraj Sahani and Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai spotted the beautiful dancer and encouraged her to come to Mumbai and try her luck in films.

Filmography

1. Pyar Ki Jeet (1962), as Chitralekha | Romance | 1 January 1962 | Director Vasant Painter | Stars: Mahipal, Kalpana, Indira

2. Naughty Boy (1962), as Meena Sharma / Edna Wong | Comedy Movie Director Shakti Samanta, Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Om Prakash

3. Professor (1962), as Neena Verma | Comedy| 11 May 1962 (India) Director Lekh Tandon, Stars: Shammi Kapoor, Kalpana, Lalita Pawar

4. Saheli (1965), as Reshma | Romance | 1965 | Director Arjun Hingorani, Stars: Pradeep Kumar, Kalpana, Vijaya Choudhury

5. Teesra Kaun (1965), as Shobha | Action, Crime Director: Mohammed Hussain (as Mohd. Husain) | Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana & Shashikala

6. Teen Devian (1965) as Kalpana | Musical, Romance | 10 December 1965|Director: Amarjeet | Stars: Dev Anand, Nanda, Kalpana, Simi & IS Johar

7. Biwi Aur Makan (1966), as Geeta |Director: Hrishikesh Mukherjee | Stars: Biswajit Chatterjee, Kalpana, Mehmood

8. Tasveer (1966), as Piloo | Director: J.B.H. Wadia Stars: Feroz Khan, Kalpana , Helen & Rajendra Nath

9. Pyar Kiye Jaa (1966), as Malti | Director: C.V. Sridhar (as Sridhar) Stars: Kishore Kumar, Kalpana, Shashi Kapoor, Mumtaz. Mehmood. Pm Prakash.

10. Nawab Sirazuddaula (1967) Drama | Director: Ramchandra Thakur Stars: Bharat Bhushan, Kalpana, Naseem Banu, Murad & Johnny Walker

11. Ek Bechara (1972), as Radha | Drama, Family | Director: S.M. Abbas Stars: Jeetendra, Rekha, Vinod Khanna, Kalpana, Pran, Bindu & Anwar Hussain

She has 11 films to her credits, all films are not mentioned in the Biography. I request you to please restore the info in a tabular format as original version with the hyperlink leading to the movie. The list is genuine.

References Please add the link, as it was part of the earlier Biography. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0436200/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

I have edited it to make as brief as possible, you can make the relevant changes & publish it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yashkkaryan! You're welcome and I'm glad I could help. If you create an edit request on the article's talk page here, myself or someone else will add it to the article assuming no issues are found. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help. Thanks again, and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. I have made changes in the edit page. please review it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Preston edit war

Hi. You recently semi-protected Billy Preston's article for "vandalism". However, edit warring over {{fact}} tags isn't vandalism - if it was, it means I should be in trouble for vandalising Wikipedia. Can you review this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie333. I meant to choose "persistent disruptive editing" but the selection must not have stuck or it didn't change. I updated the semi-protection, amended the reason, and added an explanation. Thanks for messaging me about this and for letting me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes more sense. I agree semi-protection is the way to go here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 - Yeah, sorry about that, and thanks again for the heads up. Some IP ranges were blocked, but others that were used were simply too wide and with too much collateral damage at stake to block... and this doesn't equate for any other ranges this user has access to. Semi-protection was the only sure way to stop the disruption. Hopefully it does... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For this. MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MelanieN! Thank you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar! it means a lot to me and I appreciate it greatly. I'm happy to see that my in-depth analysis and input regarding the situation has made a positive impact on more than just the user who it was in response to. I'm always happy and willing to provide my neutral analysis and input with a situation or event on Wikipedia any time it's needed. ;-) Thanks again, and I wish you a great rest of your day and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Barnstar

The Purple Barnstar
For always being cool and helpful even with all the vandalism on your talkpage. (Also welcome back from your short wikibreak) A 10 fireplane Imform me 18:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A 10 fireplane! It's good to talk to again! I hope things are going well and that life is happy and free of stress. :-) Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate you for taking the time to leave one. Vandalism on my user talk page is something that happens daily when I'm on Wikipedia. Instead of giving them exactly what they want by reacting to it, I just ignore them completely. Then they'll get bored of it and do something else. Usually works for me! :-) Thanks again for the barnstar; it really means a lot to me and I hope you have a great rest of your day! :-D Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Thank you same to you, its one of the negatives fighting vandalism. But the people you get to work with is awesome. Happy editing A 10 fireplane Imform me 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A 10 fireplane - You bet; glad I could be of assistance! A happy editing to you as well, good sir. Until our paths cross again... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully soon A 10 fireplane Imform me 19:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But of course! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for blocking a vandal Brainiac245 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brainiac245! I appreciate the message, the barnstar, and your gratitude! You're welcome; always happy to help. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
I think you deserve something greater than this. In addition to constantly fighting vandalism, you have kept your cool and have shown excellent mediation skills. Keep it up pal, and I hope you don't push yourself too much here! I know this is unnecessary, but I hope you cherish in real life. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ImmortalWizard! We meet again! :-) Thank you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar and for the very kind words. This is definitely an above-average amount of barnstars that I've received in one day (lol), but I seriously and sincerely appreciate it. Like I said above, they mean a lot to me. They put a smile on my face and they remind me that the things I do on this project make a positive impact to others. Thanks again, ImmortalWizard. I really appreciate it... very much. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox medical condition

This template has no uses within article mainspace.[4]

It was deprecated and replaced by a combination of Template:Infobox medical condition (new) and Template:Medical resources.

Thus redirecting to "new" was perfectly fine. We do not want to drop the "new" as it brakes all the inter language links and stops the translation tool from working. The change you made[5] does not really cause any issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Doc James. Okay... that makes much more sense compared to what I translated from the discussion. I've rolled back the edit I made and struck out the portion of my response detailing that I've modified the template. If it's deprecated and not being used, it should be redirected; you're absolutely right. Thanks for the message and the explanation. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, appreciate it. This was the completion of a massive 3 year effort by Wikiproject Medicine to update our infoboxes to human understandable information. Glad to finally be finished :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James - No problem; like I said, I appreciate the message and the explanation. I bet! A project requiring three years of planning and proper execution in order to update and move things over like this would definitely feel satisfying to finally be able to declare it as done... well done and congratulations! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReQuest Dance Crew

Hello yes, it was a simple accident my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbridges97 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gbridges97 - No worries; accidents happen and it's not a big deal. If you need help, let me know and I'll be happy to lend you a hand. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Point of Rocks

Hi! You left a message on my page about an edit I made to Point of Rocks. This was intentional, not an experiment. Did something go wrong on the page? Thanks. --Rivkid007 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rivkid007 - One sec; let me take another look. Stand by... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rivkid007 - Nope, it was a mistake on my part. I thought that your edit removed more than just that parameter but part of the next one randomly, and thought maybe you were testing something? Anyways, I obviously misread your edit; you did it correctly and I've reverted it back to the article and removed the notice I left. Please accept my apologies for the mistake on my part. If you have questions or concerns, let me know and I'll be happy to discuss them and help you. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raining barnstars

Yo Oshwah, What's up with all these barnstars raining from the sky. It seems you are fast turning from "Oshwah" to "Osho". Mediation is still ok, but please stay away from meditation. We still want you here as an admin. Good job --DBigXrayᗙ 06:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, DBigXray... what if meditation helps me to mediate? :-P Thanks, man! Don't worry, I don't plan on disappearing anywhere. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lulz, whatever makes you happy and keeps the pedia ticking ! --DBigXrayᗙ 08:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray - Thanks man, and same to you! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about potential conflict of interest/undisclosed paid editing

Hello,

I originally made a similar post to the talk page of another admin, but after not receiving a response for several days, I discovered that the admin whose talk page I had posted on has apparently taken a break from Wikipedia and is no longer an active user, which explains the lack of response, so I am asking you about this instead. I hope that is okay. I don't know if this is exactly the right place to bring this up, but I am (relatively) new to having an account on Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly sure where to raise this issue. Sorry if this is the wrong place to bring this up.

I have ran across an editor who I strongly suspect is involved in undisclosed paid editing or some other form of conflict of interest. All their edits appear to have been made, either directly or indirectly, to very subtly improve the image of drugs marketed by a drug company called Vanda Pharmaceuticals, or to harm the image of competitors. I first noticed some odd edits on the article Non-24-hour sleep–wake disorder, and I looked at the person's other edits, and found a rather clear pattern. They have made edits that appear to be designed to improve the image of the Vanda Pharmaceuticals drug Tasimelteon, and to delete information about Melatonin, which is used to treat the same disorder.

I then looked at their contribution history and saw that this user had made edits to similarly improve the image of the anti-psychotic drug Iloperidone. I was curious if this drug was also made by Vanda Pharmaceuticals, so I looked it up, and in fact it is. And actually, those two medications are the only two drugs that Vanda Pharmaceuticals currently even markets/produces.

This person also made edits which appear to be worded so as to subtly harm the image of Rozerum, which is another drug that competes with Tasimelteon. This person has not made any edits at all which are not related to either a drug made by Vanda Pharmaceuticals or to a disorder which one of their drugs are used to treat. I found this highly suspicious, and can't really think of a reason someone would have this pattern of editing unless there is an undisclosed conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Any of their edits taken in isolation seem relatively innocent, but the pattern of editing taken as a whole definitely seems suspicious.

I did my best to manually revert the most offensive of this person's edits, while trying to make the relevant parts of the articles more reflective of the facts that are stated in the given references so as to give accurate and unbiased information about all the drugs, both the ones made by Vanda and the competitors. I also left a message on the user's talk page about this, immediately before I messaged the other admin. The editor I am talking about is user:Courtney828. They apparently haven't made a user page, but their edits can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Courtney828 and their talk page where I left the message can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Courtney828

Have I followed proper procedure for something like this? Is there more (or less) that I should do/should have done? It appears that the person has not made any additional edits, roughly coinciding with when I posted asking them to explain their edits on their talk page, but I would like to know if I handled this correctly in case I ever encounter a similar situation in the future, or in case they do eventually start making similar edits again. In my view, this sort of thing is more harmful than blatant vandalism, because vandalism is usually easy to detect and even easier to reverse, but this sort of subtle abuse of Wikipedia is harder to detect and more likely to remain part of an article for a long period of time. Thanks. Vontheri (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vontheri, and thanks for messaging me here with your request for input, advice, and help with this situation. No apologies are needed at all; if you need help with something, please don't be afraid or hesitate to reach out to me and ask for it. My talk page is always open to you and you're welcome to message me here any time you need or want to.
I definitely understand your suspicions regarding the users edits, and given that they're subtly making improvements to articles regarding medications and drugs provided by one company, while removing and making other subtle changes that are negatively impacting drugs in competition. These are surely not unreasonable, and I would definitely file a report at this noticeboard so that it can be looked into by other pairs of eyes. Make sure to describe each edit in detail, and include diffs with each edit so that other editors sand patrolling users there can easily follow your thoughts and statements. If you see or feel that edits made by the user are not appropriate, or violate a policy such as Wikipedia's neutral point of view (even indirectly) - I don't see a problem with reverting those changes at all. Just make sure that you include an explanation in the edit summary, avoid ][WP:EW|edit warring]], remain civil at all times, and I wouldn't imagine you getting yourself into any trouble. :-)
I hope this response had all of the information you were looking for and that it helped point you in the right direction. If you have any more questions, or if you need more input or advice - please let me know and I'll be happy to help. Thanks for your diligence and dedication to spotting these potential problems and taking the effort to do the right thing and help put a stop to COI and undisclosed paid editing violations. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response! I will file a report at the noticeboard that you mentioned. I don't get the feeling that the editor I was talking about is likely to make any more edits though, at least not with the same account, as they have been inactive for quite some time now. It's good to know that you welcome any questions. Now I know who to turn to if I have any more questions in the future. Vontheri (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Who doesn't love berries. It is better than a barnstar. Would you mind if I stalk you?
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 08:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Masumrezarock100! I never say no to a bowl of strawberries! Thanks, man - I appreciate it a lot! Sure, you're of course welcome to talk my user talk page. Just be helpful and kind, and keep the environment open, positive, friendly, and collaborative. That's all I ask :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Oshwah, you must have been very hungry when you were replying to Masum Reza above? You ate one ‘s’... Those strawberries arrived just on time! --CiaPan (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's true then it must be a coincidence.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 13:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding your close of "Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict"

You wrote "Many users agreed that this article can be reasonably attributed as being under the WP:ARBIPA topic" [6], but the thread is about any article that is related to the India-Pakistan conflict; also, some editors are calling for specific criteria to determine which articles that refers to and how narrowly or how broadly to cast the net. Can you clarify what you meant by rewording your close to encompass and address these points/issues? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softlavender! I've gone back and clarified the closing statement I made. Looking at it again, I agree that I definitely butchered what I was trying to say and probably caused some confusion. Thanks for letting me know about this, and I apologize for any confusion or frustration that my closing statement may have caused upon you or anyone else. Please let me know if the closing comment still has issues, or if I can do anything else for you. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender - Okay, I clarified it even further after letting it bother me over and over again... lol... hopefully it's a lot better and much more clear now! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't really specify who is going to place the ECP or when or on which specific articles or under what circumstances. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender - Administrators would obviously place the protection to the articles. ;-) I'm just messing with you, but the discussion and the proposal that is now in effect is that:
  • All anonymous users, and all accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any articles if they are determined to be under the WP:ARBIPA topic (any conflict between India and Pakistan), and:
  • Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict.
Closing a discussion and determining consensus does not give me the power to invoke or add changes to anything being discussed; my responsibility is to make the appropriate determination if consensus was reached in the discussion regarding the proposals and hence whether or not they now apply as a community-enacted restriction. Obviously, when we say "enforce", it means that protection will be applied following violations to the restriction and in order to stop further violations. Admins aren't going to run around and pre-emptively protect every single article just because it falls under the topic. If anything, it would be too much work and time to do that. :-) The specific articles it applies to would be determined following the process used before - a discussion and a determination made by the community if it's deemed to be necessary.
The spirit of the matter is that the editing restriction is solid and defined, while the authorization of protection may be less as solid. In the end, this discussion just formalizes an editing restriction and that administrators have appropriate freedom and leeway to apply page protection when necessary to enforce the restriction. There of course are examples of good and terrible interpretation and application of this, but I believe that most admins who have the appropriate judgment and knowledge in this area will follow it well, and those who don't won't cause major issues. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"All anonymous users, and all accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any articles if they are determined to be under the WP:ARBIPA topic (any conflict between India and Pakistan)." That's not actually true, nor was there any actual consensus for that short of applying ECP to an article; nor did you give any way of "determining" or state who "determines" whether an article is directly or remotely or tangentially "under the WP:ARBIPA topic (any conflict between India and Pakistan)". "Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict." Your close does not state that, and that was precisely what your close needs to state. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender - I've shortened the statement to quote precisely what was approved by consensus, and it includes the statement that was missing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the dispute in the article Demographics of Mexico

Hello, I see you are an administrator and have now participated in the dispute, however, the description of me and the conflict given by editor Hueyxocoatzin is unfair and far from reality thus I'd like to explain myself and the situation better: Since Feb 3 Hueyxocoatzin has been doing large scale edits under questionable claims [7] and in consecuence, I've been restoring to the version previous to said dispute (this one [8]) as the dispute resolution protocols assert, has to be done (since some days ago I‘ve been restoring to a version to which I have made some modifications in an attempt to discourage the other editor from edit warring, but it didn‘t work [9]). The core of the problem is that Huayxocoatzin holds to a source published a while ago whereas I hold onto newer ones (one directly cites and reworks/corrects the source he is holding to), this point seems, would need extensive discussion and even participation of volunteers. However that’s not the only thing he edits, what is the most problematic is that he keeps removing material that has nothing to do with his claims regarding historic data and is also supported by multiple reliable sources: As can be seen in all of his reverts [10][11][12] he keeps removing phenotypical traits in Mexicans such as the frequencies of light hair and light eyes under the argument that "dark blond/light brown hair isn't a white trait" [13] I think that argument, alongside other assumptions he has made on the basis of racial purity [14][15] to remove figures that were published by Mexico’s government itself about skin color are the kind of arguments that have no place on Wikipedia. What I am supposed to do here? I can’t stay with arms crossed while he defaces the article with that kind of arguments, specially when he stopped replying to the talk page days ago [16]. What do you think? Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohi Day

You have suggested that I add a source to my edit on the article "Ohi Day". I hadn't done so because there is no source. My edit was adding something that is common knowledge in Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristinaK1756 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You still need a Reliable Source. What if I don't live in Greece? How do I know that this is true. Please cite a Reliable Source. Thank You. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is kinda feel like original research and just so you know no original research on Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 03:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CristinaK1756: I have edited your entry a bit – there's no need to use an external link format when you need to point at the Wikipedia's own article, the ordinary wikilink works just fine (please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style). --CiaPan (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CristinaK1756, Thegooduser, and Masumrezarock100:, who took parts in this discussion, also Materialscientist, who did another revert: I've found & added some sources. Hopefully they're reliable enough...? Please see Special:Diff/885014715 --CiaPan (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to article Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi, I believe my edit came from a neutral viewpoint as I simply copied what is in the preamble of Alcoholics Anonymous. This is the first cited reference in the article. I did not change the cited reference. I just used its own language. The preamble is the document in which Alcoholics Anonymous defines itself. Lwoodyiii (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New IP sock?

Howdy. I'm little curious about 114.246.233.6 being a possible sock, of those IPs you recently blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You should link to this IP like this as you know he/she is not a registered user. Anyway you should ask this question to a checkuser not to an oversighter.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masumrezarock100: Actually, Oshwah is a good person to ask, not because he's an OS, but because he's an administrator apparently familiar with a related IP. What would a CheckUser do? That said, thank you for indirectly bringing to my attention Mohammedbhaq (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A checkuser has the right to look into the IP address.
Sincerely,
Masum Rezatalk 05:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A checkuser has the ability to look into the IP address, but they don't necessarily have the right to do so. They need a justifiable reason, and unfounded suspicion is not one of them. Every time that a checkuser performs a check on an IP address, that action is logged; and the checkuser may be called into account at a later time if they cannot give a satisfactory explanation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. But in case of sock puppet investigation, it is totally legal.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 16:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually what I was thinking of. I rarely check an IP at the request of a user because there's always a risk that doing so may result in disclosure of a named account, which is prohibited by policy. It's better for non-CU admins to check IPs. There's nothing wrong, for example, with a non-CU administrator saying it's obvious that x IP belongs to so-and-so. I can say that too but not if it's the result of a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was wondering why even administrators stalk themselves.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 16:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Roberson Tigress69

We have a newly-registered user, Cindy Roberson Tigress69, who has zero contributions but early today thanked a bunch of people including you and me. Since they thanked me three times (01:36, 24 February 2019; 02:12, 24 February 2019; 02:14, 24 February 2019), each for a revert of edits by three different IP users, it's got me wondering. Any ideas? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Suggest CU? I'd be interested to know how a new editor with zero contributions even knows about the "Thanks" feature: it's a completely arcane thing for the WP:READER to come across by accident, and IP editors don't see it, so they couldn't have already known about it.
Or perhaps they just saw it on their screen and it fascinated them to such an extent it drove all thoughts of editing from their head. ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the logs, hisher main targets are newbies to experienced editors even administrators. I guess heshe is not a sockpuppeteer. HeShe may be here only to thank people. I think we should guide himher properly. Please don't take hisher thanks as offence.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 15:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You use gendered personal pronouns five times (three different ones): I don't know many males that are named Cindy, or who use the appellation "Tigress", so he or she is not necessarily a "he". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't look at the name properly. Well as long she is not impersonating a girl and cross dressing, she is a girl. 😁
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 16:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello Oshwah, I would like to inform you that I am an editor with autism and OCD. Hope you can give some advice. Regarding my current situation, everything is fine and I am trying hard to connect with the community. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImmortalWizard: Why March 1 is special to you?
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masumrezarock100: That's just a reminder for myself to do something. I tend to forget things. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sorry for your situation. 1st March is also special to me as it is my birthday.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 15:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masumrezarock100: great to hear that! Wish you an advanced happy birthday in case I forget or get busy! Just today I found out that User:Titodutta (another Bengali user) and I share the same birthday. Funny isn't it? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well unlike him I don't want to become a vegan. I am totally a non-vegetarian.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 17:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

creating new sandbox

Hello,

I have completed the training for creating a new sandbox and editing other people's articles. When I click on my username, I can't change the URL to create a new sandbox.

Thanks,

Kmr104 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Kmr104[reply]

Edits on WP:Service awards/Table

I wonder somebody could check this. An editor called User:SportsFan007 recently added a new award in this page. As the templates and file links is red, I reverted all of his edits on that page. But some hours ago, he reverted all of my edits. As I don't want to engage in any war, I am here to seek help and advice.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 01:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100 and Oshwah: For the record, I am more than willing to remove my edits until the award is created (and this award is due to be created). Thank you in advance!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]
@Masumrezarock100 and Oshwah: I have hidden my edits until the award is created. SportsFan007 (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]
@SportsFan007: Is there any plans or discussion to create this award? If not why bother adding and hiding it? Someone will add the award if it is created.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 13:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masumrezarock100: There’s a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Service awards#The 18th founding anniversary is coming up—time for a new level of award? SportsFan007 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

Are you still available?

Good evening, Oshwah. I asked you a question on the "Thank You" thread I started some days ago[17]. I'd really appreciate it if you'd respond soon. Thank you and I hope you've been having a good day. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]

re: Special:Block/Best_astrologer_9587271222

Did you see a better way to manage some of this? Getting some global-level noise about this rubbish, though it seems to be restricted to enWP and hiWP from first level of investigation. I am not wanting to reinvent what defences are taking place, though if it helps we can look to some global title blacklist measures if thought appropriate. Ping me if you think that there should be additional resources be thrown at this. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ActuallyLiamNeeson

Just thought you should know I think you blocked the real Liam Neeson [18] (1:55) when he went undercover for GQ on youtube. JamesSenpai (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or not [19], but perhaps at least someone who briefly was in the same room. WP-policy-wise, it runs into username and maybe MEATing. AFAICT from the video, they never actually edited the article though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to User surevey 1

Hello! There is an ongoing survey going on at User:ImmortalWizard/User survey 1. As a fellow Wikipedian ImmortalWizard would like you to answer some questions. It wouldn't take too long, and your participation will be appreciated. Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
hi Mr.Saqib Ghafoor 19:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit to article Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi Oshwah, Was wondering if you had the chance to look at my edit yet? Thanks! Lwoodyiii (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi Oshwah, can you pls nominate Robert McClenon for adminship as he is a very experienced editor and will be one of our best admins.42.110.132.255 (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the socks. Aren't you? Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 04:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, I don't know who this editor is, and they have no reason to think that I will unblock them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry helper, again

Hi Oshwah, it seems Henry helper (talk · contribs) wants to be unblocked; he claims he doesn't know how to use Template:Unblock. Could you sort it out? I dunno how to deal with this stuff. --Biscuit-in-Chief (Talk – Contribs) 15:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell

Dear Oshwah, I've leaving Wikipedia and making 4 requests:

  • Block my main account and this alt account indefinitely
  • Delete all pages in my userspace excluding ones related to user scripts and user (talk) page
  • Protect all my script description pages (can be found at User:Abelmoschus Esculentus/Scripts)
  • Remove all my flags

Hope you will honor my request.

Sincerely, ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk to me) 15:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=885522098"