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 75.70.153.199 (talk) at 00:40, 15 September 2020 (→‎Three strikes for a sock). 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.


Editing (2)

Hi Oshwah,

For a long time I have used Wikipedia and donated, but only today have attempted to edit something. As such I had some general questions for you as it relates to editing a page.

When a page is locked, is there a way to suggests a edit? I only ask because I recently read a statement which I found concerning on Wikipedia and the page is locked (I went ahead and started a “talk” thread related to it as I figured that may be a relevant way to start).

Does anyone with an account have the permissions to lock a page? I can see the functionality of this tool and was trying to ascertain more information on how it works. Also if I did not sign this post correctly please let me know, I am trying to understand the nuances of Wikipedia still.

Thank you, JDFE24 (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer these questions, if you don't mind, Oshwah.
  1. You can request an edit on the talk page of a protected article. Be sure to come with sources to back up the changes you want made.
  2. Only administrators can protect pages, and even then there is a policy in place about when to protect and what level to use: WP:Protection policy. You can request a page be protected or unprotected at WP:Requests for page protection.
Does this help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JDFE24! Welcome to Wikipedia! Jéské Couriano beat me to the punch and answered your questions above. Though one thing that was missed was that you'll want to make an edit request on the article's talk page. See the instructions for more information. Please let us know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to help you! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

Oshwah, I forgot I closed a browser and accidentally posted logged out. Could you please revdel 977267784? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indignant Flamingo -  Done. In the future, you should email these requests to me instead of posting them here. This talk page is watched by over 1000 accounts; they get notified when edits are made here. When you post requests like this publicly, you will almost certainly trigger the Streisand effect. Users will see the change notification, read your message, and quickly run over to the edit to read the information before they lose the ability to see it... That's obviously no bueno. ;-) You're not in any trouble; I'm just looking out for you is all... Anyways, I suppressed the edit for you and hid the information. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Forgot to reply to this.) Oshwah, I appreciate you. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indignant Flamingo - No worries, and you're welcome! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulling by shill account Theoracle102

The fake account Theoracle102 has been leaving constant messages on my talk page and trying to make shill edits to the company they work for The_Blackstone_Group

I noticed you also left a message on my page following a edit war warning.

Very surprised that no on thought to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Theoracle102 it is extremely clear this is a fake account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmcdermott (talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colinmcdermott! It looks like you've followed up on the Conflicts of interest noticeboard; perfect, that was the right place to report this exact issue. Keep the discussion updated, and please let me know if I can assist you in any way. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oshwah and sorry for the hassle. Colinmcdermott (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update to the "Shema Yisrael" page

Good Afternoon Oshwah,

It seems that you deleted my update to the "Shema Yisrael" wikipedia page. YOu stated that you thought or it looked like a test. It was not a test, so maybe I did it wrong, but as a Hebrew School teacher (Kitah Dahlet, grade 4) all I wanted to do was add the Hebrew for V'Ahavtah. That's it. If my students wanted to look it up as we learn about it, I wanted them to see the Hebrew. Now they can't/won't. The Hebrew spelling can be found in the Siddur Sim Shalom that we use, or any other.

Yours, TansTia — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansTia (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi, thank you for your contributions. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia works with sources, not with what users think or know. If your edit was legit, then i suppose that you should be able to find some sources to support it. Do not hesitate if you need further help (to cite the said sources for example). Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TansTia! As Wikaviani said above, Wikipedia works from verifiability; you need to cite sources and make sure that the sources you cite are reliable. Otherwise, the content can be challenged and removed. See the policy pages I link you to here, and let me know if you have any questions. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2601:1C2:4E00:B89:D079:95A0:153D:FC43 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

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

Hi there! Thanks for the cookie! I appreciate it a lot! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce template size

Hi Oshwah, Good day. I am seeking a tehncial editor would advise and help on re-coding some of the templates to be more efficient or rewriting them as modules. If you know any editor who is willing and free, pls let me know. Thank you. Stay safe and best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopeia - LOL sign your edit you rookie! :-P Anyways, I don't know who may be available, but I can certainly ask... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)
Cassiopeia - It's okay... I did the same thing yesterday... LOL :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Osh and waiting for the good news. Rookie signs here :) Cassiopeia(talk) 04:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MusikAnimal - Who or where can I refer Cassiopeia to? I want to make sure that he/she gets the resources they need... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either but the someone at WP:VPT surely will. I'm not very adept at Lua myself. — MusikAnimal talk 18:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American English

Hi Oshwah, could you look at possible semi-protection for American English? We've had at least 3 separate IPs from different locations in England making the same types of deletions in the past several weeks. One IP (the second) opened a discussion on the talk page, but meanwhile a third IP has shown up to delete the same material. I don't see a better option than a semi for several weeks, but perhaps you know of one? (Other than doing nothing, which is of course a valid option too!) Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat -  Done for two days. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! BilCat (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat - You bet! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Bent on Police Killings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EastTNPoliceStories can I have some eyes here? account keeps adding things that would be considered news, and feels like they are refusing to listen to what anyone is saying. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 17:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LakesideMiners! Sure, I'll look into this... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you help me from the heart.

Hi Oshwah

The thing is, there is an editor who. It violates the rule of the three reversions (3RR), the editing war (BRD) and acts of vandalism, as if the Wikipedia were your private home where you can do what you want. His name is Akerbeltz. Enter the Basque Mythology page, look at the history and you will see what is happening. This person makes fun of everything and does not admit as a reference a book and author that is as a reference in the national libraries and universities of the world: National Library of Spain, National Library of Germany, National Library of Albania, National Library of Russia, National Library of Japan, Royal Academy of the Basque Language, University of Barcelona and a long etc. Please do something and fix it. He acts like a tyrant with no respect for people and no respect for Wikipedia rules.--Edgeblack (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to tell you. Like the editor (Akerbeltz), the administrator always gets his way, as the other administrators always act on his side to protect him. You know he uses that "my friends' friends are my friends" and here, as in politics, he pulls and uses those friends to do whatever he wants. Many people have denounced him and nothing is ever achieved, so it is normal for him to believe that Wikipedia is his home and he does what he wants. Now, for example, you have already managed to make the reversion in your favor and protect the page. Those new to wikipedia like me who have no privileges, no friends, and on top of that we don't know and can't do those things, we always lose and the only option we have is to withdraw from Wikipedia. It's not fair. Greetings and thanks. Here as in real life the same people always win.--Edgeblack (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(by talk reader) @Edgeblack: Rather than continue to edit war, why not discuss on the talk page? Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources and the consensus of editors. You don't need to blame Akerbeltz as if the community is just doing him a favor because he's an established editor and you're new. While we're on the subject, why wouldn't we favor our established editors? This encyclopedia exists because of editors who write articles year after year, not the drive-by folks who don't like what they see. How would Wikipedia, as an institution, continue to function if we buy your sob-story about how unfair it is to you, the editor posting what looks like spam? Don't you think we find your behavior offensive, making this noise about favoritism? If your goal was to gain pity, maybe consider how many thousands of editors cry tears annually over their inability to get their way. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edgeblack - I understand that you're frustrated, but continuing to edit war, pointing fingers, and accusing other editors of treating Wikipedia as their "private home", and saying that they "make fun of everything" isn't helping your case at all. It also doesn't help when you point fingers at the administrator and automatically say that they "always get [their] way", and that he/she recruits friends to come to their defense to smother an editing dispute. Administrators are senior-level editors who are trusted by the community to set the example and not to use their tools where they are involved. Did you cite the book properly? Just because it's a book doesn't make it reliable. There are many people who publish books; that doesn't mean that the information within it is automatically true and correct. Don't combat what you believe to be "politics" with politics. You know how to resolve disputes properly; you need to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello

nice to meet you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bello habeeb (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bello habeeb! Welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to meet you too! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Nice to see you again !!!
Thanks for the PP at 9/11! ~~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mitchellhobbs! It's nice to see you again as well! Thank you for the kind words! When it comes to discretionary sanctions, I felt that 2 weeks of semi protection on those articles was the right thing to do. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hello, you've taken care of lots of protection requests, so I'm asking you if you could take care of this too: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Dredg. 151.21.72.247 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! This request has been declined by Woody. Unfortunately, this is where the case must be closed. Unless you have a reason for me to look into it despite the fact that he did so? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've read just now your reply, I'd already written a message in Woody's talk page, I'm telling you the same things I told him. There're lots of different IPs who continue disrupting the page since months. Even if it's true this disruption doesn't happen multiple times a day, during the last months the only edits in that page were vandalisms and rollbacks, and the anonymous vandal has been using very different IP ranges. If that page isn't protected he'll continue doing the same thing using new IPs. This should be a sufficient reason to semiprotect the page in my opinion, I hope that you'll concur with it. 151.21.72.247 (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-file for page protection and ask for pending changes protection. I didn't think that the article needed either, but you'll have a better case if you ask for this rather than semi protection. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion! Where exactly should I request for pending revision protection? The page you've linked there isn't used foru such requests... Well, if I ask you what you told me where you'll tell me, will you change the protection level yourself? 151.21.83.222 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can request it on the same page you requested semi-protection - here. :-) To be clear: I don't think this article qualifies for pending changes protection, but I figured you could still request it, and I'll let another administrator review it. This request will be more likely to be considered compared to semi protection. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I'll try following your advice, thanks again! 151.21.83.222 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not promising anything. I'm just helping you to make a better case than your previous one. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No subject

Hello, I'm back for another reason regarding the same issue. You're a longtime admin, I thought that you could give me some good advice about this situation.

  1. A cross-wiki vandal, probably an LTA, has been disrupting for over a year the page Dredg and other similar pages, both here and in other wikis.
  2. The vandal must Italian because he's been using Italian IP ranges starting with 151, included mine which starts with 151.21, but not only mine.
  3. After the latest vandalism, the user who reverted him last week asked to protect the page.
  4. An admin, Ohnoitsjamie, has declined the request and, instead, blocked the most recent IP range used by the vandal, 151.21.0.0/16, which is mine too.
  5. When I noticed that there was a partial block on my IP range I asked for an unblock, because I'm not that vandal and because the better solution to counter the vandal is protecting the page instead of blocking a single IP range and other single IPs, but the request was rejected.
  6. Meanwhile, the vandal has continued creating disruption in the same page from different IP ranges, even yesterday too.
  7. I asked to protect it in the RFPP page but this request was rejected too, as you know.
  8. Today I followed your suggestion and asked that particular type of protection, another admin granted the request.
  9. Guess what: Ohnoitsjamie unprotected the page and modified my IP range block to prevent me from asking for more requests (he'd already increased the block from 6 months to 2 years after my first request, even if there was no reason because my IP range was already prevented from editing that page and because no further disruption has been created from this IP range since then).

Now I'm going to speak frankly. I don't think that Ohnoitsjamie's behavior has been correct since the beginning, he's been interfering even after the page had been protected even if he had no reason to do it, and to me it looks like he's more interested in frustrating me than in the sake of the project (why on earth unprotecting a page which continues being disrupted by new and new IPs?!). But I know he isn't the owner of Wikipedia, he's one admin among hundreds. His way to deal with this issue is "his" way, not everybody else would have acted in the same way as him. The advice I'm asking you is this: what can I do to have a fair judgement about this story, to have my name cleared (for him I'm still the vandal who did this and this and all the other similar vandalisms just because one of his IP ranges matches with mine), to have my IP range unblocked and that page protected? I hate the vandal who caused all this to me, so you can imagine how being accused to be him and have to undergo the same punishment as him screws me up. I'm not the vandal, would I ever ask to protect that page from all anonymous if I were the vandal who keeps switching IPs? Ohnoitsjamie is as human as us, he isn't infallible, I'm sure he's a good person but in this case he got wrong and he's persisting in his error. I'd like to be freed from his error, do you have any advice to help me succeed or there's no way this error can be reviewed and remedied? 151.21.66.141 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is tedious forum-shopping carried over from here. This user seems to be upset that the partial range blocks that only affect them have not been expanded to full semi-protection, for reasons that are beyond me. It's quite obvious it's the same person (all ranges geolocate to the same region of Italy); I can't imagine how an "innocent" user from the same IP range in Italy would be interested in the editing the page of the same obscure band. I'm very close to upgrading the partial block to a full block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYC

Can you take a look at the page history of A Division (New York City Subway) and B Division (New York City Subway)? An editor keeps re-adding a fork of another article and has been reverted by myself and two other editors. Cards84664 16:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cards84664 - Blocked for edit warring. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna need a longer block for them, they still don't seem to understand the concept of edit warring. Cards84664 16:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cards84664 - I've blocked the user for 72 hours for edit warring, and I detailed for the user what he/she needs to do in order to properly resolve the dispute. I also warned the user that their next block will be indefinite if they fail to follow proper dispute resolution protocol and if they continue to engage in edit warring and disruptive editing. Keep me updated; if the user does this again, please let me know and I'll handle it. :-) Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neelam Dogra

She does not work for Indian Railways. She drives a bus in City of Edmonton in Canada. The facts are wrong. What proof do you need?? Sindy5659 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sindy5659! Please make sure that you understand Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and that you review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for more information. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gronex HR Training Academy

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cahk -  Done. I can't believe they came back after two years to advertise on their user talk page... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My resources are deleted.

Hello, I shared a total of 4 information on Medes with sources, but a user after me deleted them each time.Unfortunately I deleted 2 sources by mistake while trying to specify these sources again. For this reason, you perceived my actions as Vandalism.But I was not the one to do the vandalism. Please review. And I want the protection of the Medes page to drop on condition of control. I have resources to share. Resource sharing (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Resource sharing! Thanks for the message. Looking at the revision history for the Medes article shows that someone (presumably you?) repeatedly added content to the article that many other users had concerns with. I saw that you started a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm glad you did this, but I recommend that you add more in-depth information and details to your discussion. Describe that you were the IP user (if this is true) that was editing this article over the last days, and describe the information you were adding and why. You should also ping the other editors that reverted your changes, so that they can respond and explain. This will help make sure that any concerns are discussed, worked out, and resolved peacefully and by consensus. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit about the Qanun article

Hello, i just got your message about my addition to the Qanun article. As you know there were this section with notable players and i added another name to the list, you have written that it's inappropriate. Would you please enlighten me why would that be inappropriate?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.28.102 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The reason I reverted your edit was due to the external link that you added with the content. You should instead list the name, and then cite a reference to a source that's reliable. This will resolve the issue as well as contain the information necessary in order to support the content that you're adding. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three strikes for a sock

Hello again. The user I asked you about last month has once again been socking. Now that they're site-banned for WP:3X, is there a notice that should be posted to their talk page or any other procedure to follow? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Technically, WP:3X requires that a user is confirmed socking by a checkuser on three separate occasions for a 3X ban to apply, and this user seems to have only been confirmed once. The other times they were so obvious that it would actually be against policy to check. I suppose that's a loophole in the policy, maybe. To answer the question, there is a |banned switch in the {{sockpuppeteer}} template which can be used to indicate when a user is banned for repeated sockpuppetry. For a recent example of its use see User:J-Man11. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector - I agree that this can be seen as a loophole and potentially problematic. I always thought that with the 3X policy, by spirit, obvious socks that didn't even need Checkuser confirmation could be included in the count. However, I would understand how we could not make this assumption given the specific wording of the policy as it is now. Perhaps we should consider a proposal to amend this policy with that information and see what the community thinks? What are your thoughts? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


September 2020 - Beleive all Women

The phrase is explicitly identified as incorrect in the article. Using it incorrectly at the top constitutes bias for the incorrect usage. The article fails to meet Wikipedia neutrality standards.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=978450218"