User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-07

You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from July 2017. Please do not modify this page.

These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes. If you need to respond to a discussion from here, please create a new discussion on my user talk page and with a link to the archived discussion here so I can easily follow, and we'll be able to pick up where we left off no problem.

Were you trying to send me a message? No worries. Just click here to go the correct page.

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Been meaning to give you this for quite a while. Thank you for your excellent, always well-considered, work on behalf of protecting the wiki and resolving disputes. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender - I really appreciate you for taking the time to leave me this, as well as for your kind words. I always do my best to keep neutral, help anyone and everyone who asks for it, and above all else -- be chill and respond to everyone with a fun and encouraging attitude. It goes a long way, and when it comes to helping someone whose frustrated and considering leaving Wikipedia - it makes the difference between his/her decision to leave and to stay... or at least I like to think that it does. Again, thank you for the wikilove. It means a lot to me :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wise words, Oshwah! I agree with you that a light and friendly touch is always appreciated, especially by less experienced editors. All too often people get too serious and gruff; this may sometimes be because they have too much on their plate or are experiencing the same problem for the nth time. I'm very glad you are able to keep your cool and respond neutrally, kindly, humbly, and even lightly, even when the shit hits the fan. That is an excellent skill and personality trait! Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The barnstar is well deserved. When you're doing enough to generate a fan club (Oshwah Licks Cocks,Oshwah still wasting his life on wiki), you must be doing it right :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hammersoft - Oh, those aren't even the good ones. There are some that still crack me up good when I read them. My fanpage will only keep getting longer ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

O_O That´s an... interesting use of the search-function. Respect to you, sir. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

HA! Right? ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that this barnstar is well-deserved. A member of your fan club stopped by to let me know. Your ability to defeat and deter ne'er-do-wells reflects great credit upon you and the Wikipedia community. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

IP block

Hey Oshwah. Could this IP please be blocked? They have been terrorising Kemba Walker of late. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible damage to your talk page

Special:Diff/788246351 is one of recent edits you made to your own talk page (that is: here), which you summarized simply as 'Fix grammar'.

But it seems it was not just a grammar fix, but you also accidentally removed some notes by User:Usernamekiran... (which he noted, too: Special:Diff/788262319). --CiaPan (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeeeeupppp... I did do that, didn't I? Joy... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: Should be  Fixed now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Texvn Engineering Services

It might be worth revoking talk page access for the account Texvn Engineering Services. They've started putting promotional content there despite my revert and warning (well, it was an edit summary, but still a warning nonetheless in my opinion). Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 21:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Jiten Dhandha -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Delta Kappa Epsilon Controversy Paragraph

Hello Oshwah,

I recently deleted a very misinformed and frankly destructive paragraph from the Delta Kappa Epsilon article. I am a member of the UC Berkeley chapter of DKE and I can 100% assure you that the paragraph is not true. First, our fraternity is not in rogue status with our nationals. We pay national dues every semester (brothers pay about $1,000 a year per brother for national benefits). We send members to our national conference every summer, and our president is always in direct connection with them. Our executive director, Doug Lanpher, came to our fraternity this spring when we recahrtered with the University of California. Also, the sexual assault claim is not substantiated. It happened many years ago and no one in our fraternity has been charged with anything. The whole incident was overblown by the school newspaper as they found a dorm RA's statement that 5 girls were at DKE during a cal football game and didn't remember the rest of their day. This loss of memory was due to drinking too much, the term is "blacking out". Please leave the good faith edit and let me remove that paragraph. I know for a fact that this paragraph and overblown controversy has done a lot to tarnish the reputation of our fraternity and the many smart, nice young men that are a part of our organization.

Thanks, Matt O'Driscoll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattodriscoll (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Mattodriscoll - You need to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding original research and conflict of interest, as your edits and personal relationship with this club contradict and violate both. Adding or removing content due to original research is not allowed, and we discourage (and typically revert) edits made by users who are known to, admit to, exhibit behaviors, or exchange messages that show that there is a personal conflict of interest with the article subject. Please review the pages I linked you to, and let me know if you have any questions about them. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. Thanks for understanding. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah,

The articles that are cited on the page are original and WRONG research. I was genuinely honest when I deleted that paragraph because its incorrect. I can't cite any articles because no newspapers write articles about a sexual assault being made up anonymously and never proven. I know you aren't going to change the way you think, so I'll just kindly say fuck you :)

I understand that you're frustrated or perhaps upset over the situation and the article, and I understand how important it is to you to want to edit the article to reflect what is believed to be true. The fact of the matter is that the policies and guidelines I referenced above aren't simply "my ways of thinking" nor are they an interpretation or version of policy that I just pick and choose to enforce because I feel like it - these are two of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that exist because of community consensus; they were created by the community and are active policies and guidelines that the community feels are important or required in order for the project's core principles and goals to be effectively achieved. It's important to understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about truth. I'm more than happy to review the article and remove content that appears to be original research, or are unreferenced and should be. But we don't have to resort to being uncivil like that to others, do we? Let's try and keep things professional and I'll be more than happy to take a look :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, I took a look at the contentious paragraph. I marked up the deadlink and tagged the next two statements as needing citations. All three statements are controversial and unsupported. I plan to revisit over time to see if someone else was able to cite them and delete if still unsourced. The rest of the paragraph is appropriately sourced and must stand as is dispite Matt's objections.

I just found a reference in Berkeley's student paper of how DKE lost collegiate recognition in 2008. I'm looking into how that relates to a lost charter.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 06:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The strangest thing just happened. While I was trying to come to a useful conclusion to the rogue paragraph, I found an unfounded statement added by an IP in the Founding section. That was all I did, I swear. This diff shows otherwise. I did not remove the tags or do that edit at the end. Can you see something I can't, like an edit conflict?  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 07:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

General sanctions issue

Hey. I'm out of town but could you look at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and compliance with the consensus required restriction on that page with the most recent edit? It's under general sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 - Sorry for the late response. I sure can! Enjoy your trip and be safe! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The person in question was indeffed so no point in looking now. But thanks! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Again, I apologize for the late response. Been busy the last few days. You're always welcome to let me know if you need anything else like this and I'll be happy to help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Block

Please, could you block again this guy? I have to clean after him again and again... --Norden1990 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Norden1990 -  Done; the IP has been blocked as an identified open proxy. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Page recreation

Hey, Oshwah,

I've been looking into a couple of accounts, and I was wondering if you could examine the deleted versions of the pages (and consider whether they are similar):

• Isaiah6101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yokohama2010 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Pages are Kingmax and Green House (electronics company). I'm considering making another run for adminship soon, so I can deal with this sort of thing myself More info on my talkpage. Thanks, GAB^gab 00:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GeneralizationsAreBad! Sure, I can look for you. There are some deleted contributions under Isaiah6101 for both pages. Comparing the wikitext between the two accounts on Green House (electronics company) gives me mixed evidence. Many of the subtle things I look for (exact spacing within templates, same wording, formatting, grammar, etc) do and don't exist. Comparing the latest deleted contribution of Isaiah6101 and the page creation made by Yokohama2010 show me that there's a probable chance that these two accounts are the same person, but I can't give you any certainty. Both accounts used <br> to create newlines within the infobox of the article:

Isaiah6101: products = Flash memory cards<br>[[USB flash drives]]<br>[[Portable hard drives]]<br>Card readers<br>[[Solid state drives]]<br>USB 3.0 adapters<br>[[Audio visual]] products

Yokohama2010: products = [[Secure Digital|SD cards]]<br>[[USB flash drives]]<br>[[Solid state drives]]<br>[[Hard disk drives]]<br>[[DRAM]]<br>[[Card reader|Card readers]]<br>[[USB adapter|USB adapters]]

But, as you can see, the rest appears different enough to where I can't assert for certain that these two accounts are the same person. The pages even list categories that are different, and in different order. The same applies to the other article, Kingmax. I have some evidence, but definitely not enough - sorry man :-/... I hope this helps either way.

And best of luck, dude! You're doing WAYYYYY BETTER on your RFA than I did on my last one... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll (hopefully) be able to check for myself soon enough. And regarding RFA: You stuck it out and got through, which is impressive in itself. Seriously. GAB^gab 13:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Duboius page

i deleted all the page by mistake. Restore this page please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuads3142 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Fuads3142 - I don't see any deleted history for this page... can you verify the exact title? I'll be happy to take a look and restore for you if you blanked the page and didn't want that to imply that you wanted it deleted... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fuads3142 - Never mind, I found it for you. I restored it and moved it to Draft:Daniel DuBois for you. This will give you all the time you need to expand the page, and will have experienced editors review it and help you before moving into the main space. Please let me know if you need anything else. I'll be happy to help! Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Again

I want to say thanks again for protecting my talk page. I'll let you know if anymore will happen again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

FilmandTVFan28 - You bet! Any time ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

injustice

Hello "Oshwah",

Does Wikipedia give you something when you block someone ?? I hope no, because you have blocked me without any reason. I have been blocked for vandalism. Vandalism ?? let's see who is the real vandal

I was fixing an information about an Helicopter made in Italy; a not really smart utent wrote that the Helicopter's place are UK/Italy. But this is not true, the Helicopter have been projected and built from an Italian company. The only thing UK have done is their own helicopter, the Italian company gave the autorization for make their own Helicopter, but nothing else. So you can understand that Italy is the Origin place.

Every time I changed it, the user change it again.

Who have been blocked ??? That person who was trying to help Wikipedia, and I have been blocked with ignorance cause you should speak with people before block them. If you continue to work like that, nothing will change and this Wiki will have wrong information for the rest of the time.

Now I want justice: That utent should be blocked or banned for vandalism, and these information have t be fixed

HELP ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeantBlackburn (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked Requests for JustDoltFettyg

Hello Oswah, I believe we met on Wikipedia because we had some issues, but I need to block this person, I would just like a request, it is because, he is just making changes and changes and ignores my messages. I ask that the Kyle Harvey Beautiful Loser Page is a Album but he is making too much changes, I need the admins to block him, as theirs and yours request I wish. But Thank You. His name is JustDoltFettyg

-Alex AlexWikiIDK (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

AlexWikiIDK - I found the article (Beautiful Loser (Kyle album)) as well as the account you're referring to (JustDoltFettyg). I can only consider a block if the user in question is repeatedly breaking policies or guidelines at the current time and that blocking would prevent further disruption to the project (meaning that other methods have not worked and the disruption will continue unless I do so). I see that the user made three edits to the article over two days. That may be considered borderline edit warring, but I wouldn't trench right over that line yet. Leave him a message on his talk page, point him to a discussion you (hopefully... lol) started on the article's talk page, and ask him to participate before reverting the article again. If that doesn't work, then let me know. Best of luck and happy editing to you! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem on mobile version

If the blocked user tries to edit their talk page, they won't let the user edit it on mobile version (if the user has access to editing their user talk page). On the mobile version of Wikipedia, it won't let me view the source of protected pages (if they exist). 64.237.232.143 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The mobile version of Wikipedia (I'm assuming that you're referring to the mobile website) won't have all of the links listed that the desktop or full site will have, but manually entering the URL should allow the user to do the same thing as if they're using the full site. If those users have trouble, they should switch to the full version. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection

Hey Oshwah, would you be able to have a glance at the protections I've done today and give me insight on whether you'd have done any of them differently? It's my first day with all these buttons, so I wanna make sure I'm not doing anything wrong. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Anarchyte - Sure! I'll be happy to! Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Anarchyte - I looked through the articles that you protected today. Most of them are obvious cases where I definitely would have done there same thing you did. I think that I might have considered adding pending-changes protection to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, but given the fact that this article could be argued as being under the topic of a "post-1932 United States politics" page (and hence under discretionary sanctions) I'm not against a semi-protection either. When it comes to articles under discretionary sanctions, I find it acceptable to apply page protection due to disruption, or any content dispute or edit war sooner than I would other articles. Because of this, I think the protection you applied was fine. What you or I would have done is a matter of judgment; I don't think there's a "wrong answer" between us here ;-). Welcome to adminship! And keep up the good work! I'm always available and my talk page is always open to you if you need any input or if you're not sure about something - I'll be more than happy to help! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Anarchyte - Rock on, dude. You bet :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A wise move Anarchyte. I was in the same position as you when I got the toolbox. I didnt know Oshwah at that time. But luckily, I knew Mz7. He helped me lots. In future if you need any help, and these two guys are offline, then you are more than welcome to ask me, or Clue the third. But never ask this guy. He knows a lot of stuff, but in case he doesnt, he keeps humming some nice music, while making you believe he thinking about it in depth.

I always wated to ask you Oshwah: May I know the meaning of your username please? —usernamekiran(talk) 12:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... heh, oh boy... here it goes. So... back when I was in college, I was quite drunk with a bunch of buddies on a Friday night at their house (and I might have had some "Oregon Legalization" as well... like a lot... lol). We decided to order Chinese food and have it delivered. We were drinking, partaking in "Oregon Legalization", and waiting for the food to get delivered, and while in our... level of sobriety (lack thereof) - we started to try and talk Chinese like the drunken idiots we were. Yes, I know what you're thinking... we were that stupid. I know :-). We ended up naming one another with "Chinese names". It eventually stuck, I was called that between my friends, and I use that as my usernames because when you look at it from an outside perspective, It's unique and mysterious and I like the fact that it is. Oh, and also because good times, YOLO, and all that jazz. HAHA! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

One final question for now, Oshwah and Usernamekiran, but when should an article be salted (specifically Skyline groups)? Is it up to admin discretion, or does it need to be requested? And if it's up to the admin, is it normally temporary full protection? I'd go for 6 months full for this example because it's been made by people that would be able to bypass semi, but I could be wrong. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, most admin actions are at your discretion. As for salting, I've always used indefinite full protection, I think, but I can imagine that a fixed duration could be useful for dealing with WP:CRYSTAL situations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

For me, it depends. The creation protection I usually apply is due to someone repeatedly trying to write their own autobiography with multiple accounts or something like that. In those cases, I just apply semi-protection for creation and for a week... it's usually long enough and takes care of it ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, Anarchyte - if you look through my logs, you'll see that over half of the page protections I apply are semi-protections and for just three or six hours. If it's an article about a school or something you know that kids would target, and it's all of a sudden getting hammered with childish vandalism, a small protection just for that long will make them give up pretty much instantly and it doesn't continue. Plus, a few hours later - it expires and all goes back to normal. So don't be afraid to throw a grey lock on an article like that if you know that it's probably just a bunch of kids or students just being kids... many RFPP requests for INDEFINITE PROTECTION BECAUSE OMG are easily solved with semi-protection for just a few hours ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That's some interesting history Oshwah! lol ;)
@Anarchyte: Like DoRD suggests, the salting situations differ with each case. If the recreation involves even a possibility of COI, or promotional intentions, salting it for a long time is appropriate. But then again, the salting is not an absolute solution. Like this person, he is a movie/TV show producer, and he contested some sort of election. So he was subject of coverage as "know your candidate" sort of articles. I recently nominated his article for AfD for keeping it on record: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. R. Manohar, as his previous article was deleted through PRoD. The first article was created by same editor, as "CR Manohar". They created the second article as "C. R. Manohar" even when the title was not salted. Same can be done with any page title: product/company/person. But in case it doesnt have COI, maybe a work of dedicated fan(s); then salting it for a month or two is good idea.

For protection, I remember my first request at RFPP very well. Random IP users had added incomprehensible details on Ben10, and just kept on increasing that content. No matter how many times I tried to remove it, IP hopper kids, kept on adding them back. So I went to RFPP, and asked for extended protection for week to clean up, and stabilise the article. I know! A case of "BECAUSE OMG" lol (I was just a kid at that time in wikipedia experience). They gave the article semi protection for a week, and I cleaned up like 50,000(!). It was quite for a while, then one IP added some content from previous version (copy-paste). I reverted it. But after that, there wasnt much disruptive editing. Later on many other articles, I observed if it has been protected only for week (regardless of protection level), the vandalism, or disruptive editing decreases by like 90% for next 2-3 months.

And just in case if you guys are wondering, I am not an admin, never was, and probably will never be. I was referring to the buttons that kept on increasing along with my user flags. But I like to read wikipedia policies, essays, SPI cases, and page histories, and some more odd/weird stuff; I also never watch talkpages of good editors, but I do keep an eye on activity of problematic editors, and unofficially suspected sockpuppets. So yes, I have gained a fair deal of unusual knowledge lol. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Question

Are you, or do you know someone, who is good at NPOV stuff? I have been doing assessments for WP:Iowa lately and have come across several articles, take Kristi Hager for example, whose political stance section, at first glance, seems to be skewed towards one side of the aisle. Any thoughts? Dolotta (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dolotta: Since I'm going on vacation, I likely won't fix these, but here is a quick guide for political positions/voting: 1. Say what they voted for 2. Say why (and choose your wording carefully to make it clear that the politician stated it and it might be a good reason, might not) 3. State any criticisms of the politician's position (and include only those directed at the politician) 4. Include a response to these criticisms from the politician if you think it should be included (this is a judgement call). Of course, this might be a terrible guide, as the political bios that I work with get little coverage (as they are Japanese). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 13:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:

But I Don't Get It? I don't see how KuyaBriBri reported me for Abusing! I don't see how I changed it if I changed it because he is saying it I should a Mixtape. And I get reported for doing something on a page I created. I don't see how. I am 9, But I still am trying hard to figure out almost everything and I get banned for everything. I believe That it is Really Strict on Wikipedia but if You can, If you have the time... can you help me with some of the steps with Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWikiIDK (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

See the response I made to you in the next discussion below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Chat

And I don't get it? KuyaBriBri Gossips about me almost on Every Page! I get it. I vandalized stuff in the past but it's the past though... I learned my mistakes. He Moniters me on everything and deletes my page and I put PD Self on the page with an Image and I get in trouble for it, it makes me upset however I get gossiped talking how I should be blocked. I might take a break from Wikipedia. I get one person gossip and monitor me on every single thing and with people I don't know. And when @KuyaBriBri Wants to try and gossip like what I'm doing. I just don't. It's like. I can't take it and I need a break... when someone wants to report me, from the past and cause I'm editing a page I made someone Wants to Report me?!? That is messed up.... AlexWikiIDK (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Please see ANI report here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

AlexWikiIDK No one is "gossiping" about you, rather, editors are noticing that your behavior is not what is required from editors on Wikipedia. We have policies and standards, and you have to comply with them. So far, your inability to do so has led to one block, and your unwillingness to explain your behavior in the AN/I discussion above is highly likely to lead to another block if you keep on doing what you're doing. Being 9 years old is not necessarily an impediment to editing Wikipedia, but you must be willing to play by the rules of the game, or else you will be removed from the game entirely.

Your first step should be to go to the link posted just above this by KuyaBriBri, explain there that you did not understand how you were supposed to behave, but that you will now begin to try to learn and understand our policies and procedures and adhere to them. Next, stop editing for a while, and do just that -- read some policies (I'll post a Welcome message on your talk page that you can use to get to the most important ones), ask questions when you don't understand something, and don't start editing again until you're sure of what you're doing.

Editing Wikipedia to help improve the encyclopedia is a good thing, but editing it for the sake of editing it is often a bad thing, and that appears to be what you've been doing. We are not a MMPORG, or a fan Wikia, or Reddit - that's not what we're here for. Please follow this advice if you wish to continue editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi AlexWikiIDK You might find the information in Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors also helpful in understanding a little bit more about what Wikipedia is about and some things you should be aware of about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi AlexWikiIDK - I think you're referring to the discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents here that involves you. This discussion is not meant to "sit and gossip", nor is it meant to put others under a magnifying glass with the intention of intimidating or harassing them away from Wikipedia. This noticeboard exists for users to express legitimate behavioral concerns or policy violations, and with sufficient evidence and the intention of coming to the best possible solution that benefits the project. It also invites you to participate and discuss it openly with the community so that all participants can hear both sides of the story - this is why it is required for the person creating a new discussion there to notify everybody that the discussion directly involves... it's so that you are treated fairly and given a reasonably opportunity to respond and help us try and help you. Because this discussion is currently open and ongoing, I need to point you back to that discussion and ask that you participate there in order to fully resolve this situation. I obviously can't force you to participate there; you don't have to do anything you don't want to... but I highly recommend that you do so. It's for your benefit. Seriously, it is. So long as you're honest, do your best to help us to help you, and your true intentions are to help build an encyclopedia - you'll be completely fine and we'll do our very best to build you up and walk you forward. It may be frustrating or even perhaps upsetting, and you probably feel like you're under a witch-hunt... I understand completely how you feel. I ask that you try and look beyond those implications, and give the community a chance to help you. I hope to see you at the discussion. Best of luck to you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Huggle anti vandalism network

Hi again,

Do you know what it is and what it's used for? I've noticed it on Huggle, but nothing ever seems to happen with it. In fact, for the last few days, I haven't even been able to get a connexion. Do you know anything about this? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007 - I think you're referring to that chat window within Huggle. I think it's connected to a channel on IRC, but I don't know what channel it is. I've been meaning to ask the development team this exact question for awhile now, as well as if I could get access to it outside of Huggle (and maybe op privileges there) so that I can provide assistance and be available. I've maybe chatted in there a couple of times, and I don't think anybody responded. I do all of my Wikipedia chatting in IRC and in the English Wikipedia channels anyways, which is why I've been wanting to ask them but have never bothered to do so. If you're not on IRC and in the en-wiki channel, you should consider doing that. A lot of us are there; you'll definitely recognize a lot of "faces" ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this thread on an off-chance and remember wondering the same thing about that chat window, never seeing anyone using it. I also noticed that when I first started using Huggle I used to always see a list of users currently connected to the channel (i.e. using Huggle) however when I had a username change, I no longer saw that list of users. I've never used IRC so I don't know – maybe my new username is somehow technically inappropriate and won't connect me. Any ideas? —72 _talk 19:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've heard of IRC, but don't know exactly what it is. I still can't get a connexion to HAN. Is there maintenance going on? I've noticed other problems on Wikipeda lately too: half the time, the editor doesn't load when I try to edit a page, and sometimes Twinkle doesn't load when I go to someone's talk page. I have to refresh to get them to load. Is there something going on? Or are these unrelated? Have they gotten rid of HAN due to lack of use I wonder? Adam9007 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Need your Opinion on two versions of a sub-section in The Crystal Maze

Hi, I need a second opinion from someone to determine whether myself or an IP user are in the right over how a sub-section of information, regarding one part, is presented. I am concerned the IP user could provoke an Edit War here, so that's why I thought of you. I need to know who's layout is correct for this part of the article, The Crystal Maze - "Filming": "The Set", "The Crystal Dome":

• This is the layout set out by the IP User - [1]
• This is my layout - [2]

I honestly need someone to step in and check this; I don't believe the IP User is correct, but I really need someone else's opinion to determine who is correct in this matter. I've given the IP user a friendly request not to revert this, the first time they reverted it, and now a simple warning again; I just hope I was right to do so, especially with me telling them not to start an edit war over the matter. GUtt01 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I urgently need you to monitor this IP User, 79.75.0.42, immediately, as they have not heeded my warning, and reverted my edit a third time. I feel that they are now acting disruptively. GUtt01 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually i tihnk you've done the correct thing here, I posted on my page but you must have missed it, Your overall layout is good, but this section has run on sentances and poor structur. Hopefully once a third party has been sort we can continue editing as we have been, we compromised pretty well so far.79.75.0.42 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to discuss this civilly between one another is being attempted - this is awesome and it makes me happy to see this! I would take this discussion to the article's talk page here to continue resolving the concerns expressed by you both.

GUtt01 - Good questions :-)! When it comes to this sentence, I think both of these revisions leave the sentence worded in a manner that could be improved. In fact, I think the whole paragraph needs a touch up ;-). Why not instead write the sentence like this: "The switches and the bridge were both removed in the revised series of the show"? To answer your other question: per WP:TVLEAD, articles about television shows use the present tense when you refer to its existence, even if the show is no longer in active production of new episodes... which makes sense if you think about it. We don't point to an old Ford Model T automobile and say, "this was a car". We say that it is car. Ford just isn't making them anymore. But, like WP:TVLEAD also states, when referring to defunct information and details such as programming and broadcasting information, using the past tense is acceptable. "The show originally aired on CBS", "It consisted of three rounds". I hope my response here has helped answer your questions.

To the IP user: thank you for attempting to communicate here. Just for reference, make sure you read and understand Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, as doing this is not allowed and is a blockable offense if it continues after you've been properly warned about it. In this case, your revision is the latest one, but the warring has stopped actively occurring in a back-and-fourth fashion. Lets keep in that way, please ;-).

Let me know if any of you have any more questions or need more assistance, and I'll be happy to help. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My current revision is actually for in another section fo the article unreleated to the edit war. Thank you for taking the time to give your opinion on this, although Ironically the section you've suggested changing seems to be one that Myself and GUtt01 agree on.

The sections with the layout / content disagreement is this:

"* The Crystal Dome - The centrepiece of the maze, Designed to be a 16-foot-high (4.9 m) giant replica of one of the show's time crystals. For the original run, a small moat surrounded the outside rim, the host stood close by at a control table designed to hold the crystals, each crystal had a light under it's base which switched off at increments of five seconds, acting as the Domes timed countdown. Also on the control table were two switches that the host operated - one opened a panel on the Dome like a door, while the other raised and submerged a bridge that the team crossed to enter and exit the Dome."

And this:

"* The Crystal Dome - This is designed to be a 16-foot-high (4.9 m) giant replica of one of the show's time crystals, and situated within the centre of the Maze, with a special table designed to hold the crystals that the team had acquired that the host stood close to, with each crystal's space having a light under it that switched off in the style of a count down to indicate when an increment of five seconds had passed. For the design used in the original run, the Dome featured a moat around it, with the table having two switches that the host operated - one opened a panel on the Dome like a door, while the other raised and submerged a bridge that the team crossed to get in and out of the Dome."

Whichever is chosen i think we can both work together to improve the content here, I've started a talk page section explaining what i'm not liking, hopefully GUtt01 will do the same with my version and we can find a way of combining the bits we do like together.79.75.0.42 (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bijan "RythmiK" Williams

The article Bijan "RythmiK" Williams has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.

Threat of harm?

Hi,

What do you make of this edit? A serious threat or just silly vandalism? I suspect the latter but need to be sure. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Adam9007 and Oshwah: It looks like User:Ad Orientem just blocked them for 48 hours. 2601:1C0:100:EF1E:5C50:CA04:F35F:9FA (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Sorry for butting in but the thread title tends to grab one's attention and I'm not sure Oshwah is online right now. Based on their limited editing history this is just good old fashioned vandalism. I have blocked the IP for 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 (tps of Clue commons)

Hi Adam.

Like you said, it looks like silly vandalism rather than a serious threat. The section begins with "CB3 is ignoring my talkpage", and main body has stuff like, it is working for others, not for me. Maybe the vandal thought it was funny to add L3X1 would like to kill himself. But I am still not sure if it is an WP:EMERGENCY. Another opinion would be a lot helpful here. Any suggestion tps guys? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP edited L3X1's comment. Adam9007 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of that, guys. I am in fine mental health :). L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They made a total of three edits before I hit the "shut up now" button. If you look at the edits that preceded and followed the one under discussion I think it's pretty obvious this is just your typical low voltage troll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

With assertions like that, I feel I need to be absolutely sure. Better to be safe than sorry. Adam9007 (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) lol L3X1. We know you are fine, we were not syre about the troll's though ;)
@Ad Orientem: whats a low voltage troll?
@Adam9007: I am sure he was jusr trolling. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x a lot. No worries and well done to Adam9007 who did the right thing by raising a red flag over this. My only suggestion is that when dealing with something where your not sure if it represents an immediate danger, I'd probably opt for ANI over an individual admin's talk page unless you know they are online and active at that moment. Good job Adam! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

One slight problem: I'm pretty sure I've been told that it's not a good idea to post at ANI due to publicity, and that it's better to contact an individual admin . Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

L@Adam9007: Yes, avoiding publicity is second top priority. Instead of a random admin, find an online admin through history of ANI, AIV, or some other method; and email him along with {{ygm}}. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) yet again. Hmmm... I think I'd label that a judgement call. If privacy is a real concern (and with an IP I think it would be a low one if at all) that may be good advice. But if I suspected real danger, I'd probably be more interested in getting somebody's attention fast. Of course most admins have a multitude of talk page stalkers so your odds are good that the proverbial emergency flare will be seen and acted on quickly either way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 3 - I've rev del'd the edit and reported the incident to the emergency team. Yes... I am 99% sure that this is trolling. Of course. But we're neither trained nor qualified to make that true determination when it comes to this aspect, and the guidelines state that we must take every threat such as this as if they were with full merit. Sigh... yes, I feel like I'm wasting their time with 95% of the reports I submit, but this is our responsibility and we have to. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 If you didnt notice Oshwah, then: I dont stalk your talkpage, but Clue's.

You, and Ad Orientem have too many tps, I think CB commons needs a few. ;) I might stalk PaleoNeonate.

—usernamekiran(talk) 01:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'm reluctant to email because doing so would reveal my full name. Maybe I should get another address? Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Although I'm not an admin, only an assistant pig-keeper. —PaleoNeonate - 03:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

lol Paleo, I'm aware you, Clue the third, and Clue NG, aren't admins. (I use pop-ups). —usernamekiran(talk) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: I understand you. I had same concerns as you, then I changed my email. I don't know about Gmail, but most of other email providers let you operate an email with only first name. You can choose "adam9007" itself for address, and Adam as first name. If it isn't available on your preferred email provider, adam9007_9007 seems to be a good choice, or whatever you like. :)

btw, I use my other (this) email only for wiki. It is good for notifications too. I get notifications once every 24 hours. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: My email address itself contains my full name. I'm no good at thinking up names. That's how I ended up with my username here: it "identifies" me, and yet it doesn't, if that makes sense... (although it wasn't my first choice as the ones I wanted were already taken). Adam9007 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Your block for User:Malakai Bear

Hi Oshwah,

I happened to come upon User:Sro23/Clerking and couldn't help but notice that Bbb23 and Sro23 were questioning this block that you made, which dealt with this master account from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tzuxander/Archive. They were wondering why you abruptly disabled email and talkpage access for the sockpuppet account.

Also, I should mention that I'm the same user who had notified you of blocking IP addresses indefinitely awhile back. So what I learned from that, is that you appear to use a different blocking script than most other admins do, so you may not have intentionally meant to disable email and talkpage access for User:Malakai Bear. Just wanted to notify you of this in case if you wanted to clarify this with Bbb23 and Sro23 if you wanted too. Regards. 32.211.139.69 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Aww, shit... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Oshwah, I'm sure that it was an honest mistake; and besides, we're all human. :-) 2601:1C0:10E:A22E:5C50:CA04:F35F:9FA (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up (yet again). I'm not worried about it, as (you point out) mistakes happen. It's just part of my duty to do these things right, which is why I strongly dislike making those kinds of mistakes. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sooo sorry!

12 days ago you responded to me and I saw it but idiota me completely forgot to respond! And I used to have the Wikipedia app however it did not have an option for images. Now I just use the mobile version of the website so I do not have the image option either. However I do have an image now. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Dinah Kirkland - No apologies are needed :-). Let me know if you have any more questions or if you need help with anything. I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you will do! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing

hello dear oshawah

I created several articles but any admin didn't reviewed the articles.what is the problem.why my article does not reviewed? Bilkent Holding ‎ Vahap Kucuk ‎ Mehmet Cengiz Mohammad Fathy Saoud Sabah Al-Haidoos

best regardsMariya mon960 (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Bilkent Holding

hello dear oshawah

I created this article in English language.This article is also available in Turkish language on Wikipedia. i want to link these articles together for example in others articles which was created in several languages you can see all of articles in others languages at the bottom of right side of the article.I want to see the link of article in Turkish language at the bottom of right side of this article.

can you help me please?

answering to users is duty of the admins.i think Mariya mon960 (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: It isn't the duty of admins to answer to users. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mariya mon960: you should ask at the help desk or the teahouse for a faster response, or use the template {{Help me}}. Admins may take a few minutes to answer, or a few hours, days, or even weeks. It all depends on the backlog. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 01:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Tim Horton's?

Hi... Thanks for your communication, about your reverting an edit about Tim Horton's. However I didn't edit Tim Horton's. I do hope I wasn't hacked. Oh well....new security stuff installed...

216.211.14.209 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tbaytel uses dynamic IP adresses, which means they can change when your computer, router, or modem reconnects. When those notices were placed in February 2017, someone else was temporarily assigned your current IP address. There was no hacking involved. If you'd like to avoid seeing irrelevant notices, you can create an account. Happy editing! --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 17:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Frederick Noronha

Edit summary is adequate removed primary sources about himself ... 103.253.203.154 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I just updated your talk page. Apologies for the confusion. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No subject

MY Little Pony The Movie and The Lego Ninjago Movie aren't out yet. don't waste my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.7.183 (talk • contribs)

Draft:Fursan(leather Goods)

dear oshawah

this article was moved to to draft and on draft you should not use from tags

Jakred8 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScottBanks

Regarding the above, I believe I found some more accounts that you didn't list.

• Coonalert (talk · contribs)
• Pundekkar Amin Tak Mulia (talk · contribs)
• GeorgeZ1991 (talk · contribs)
• JTBarnum (talk · contribs)
• possibly Instrmntl (talk · contribs)

This appears to have been going on since March checking the history of this page (with some IPs) —72 _talk 21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

72 - Thank you for letting me know this. I'll take a look, and add them to the SPI I created if they're making the exact same kind of vandalism. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

See also BigIke (talk · contribs) —72 _talk 21:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added the accounts you've listed here (with the exception of Instrmntl; not enough evidence). Thanks again, 72 :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being pedantic, but Climb aboard the coon train (talk · contribs) (filter log)? —72 _talk 01:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's completely fine, 72! The edit this account made isn't similar or the exact same as the others that I've linked together on that SPI. It's definitely grossly insulting lol, but I don't have enough evidence to connect this account as one of the others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, they're blocked anyway so not much difference I guess. I'll keep a look out for any new ones :) —72 _talk 01:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, block-wise it doesn't matter. The account is all taken care of ;-). We just want to be mindful when adding anyone as a suspected sock to an SPI. We need to have evidence that asserts or directly connects each user we add to it, since by doing so we're asserting that they're the same person - it can be seen as an unjustified accusation (depending on the situation, of course) if done so without care. This particular situation, however, will be more difficult to most editors as most of the evidence (the diffs on each account listed) is rev del'd and (as sad as it is to say this...) this kind of vandalism is common :-/. So, no worries. I appreciate you giving me a heads-up about these accounts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, there's been another one. For future reference, should I report to SPI even though they're already blocked so an uninvolved editor can tag them as a sock, or...? —72 _talk 23:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It never hurts to create an SPI, 72. If anything, you help document and track the disruption - which certainly aids in helping admins and users to connect future SPI cases. I'll block a group of accounts that I easily know are sockpuppets of one another, and I'll still file an SPI retro-actively to document the socking and log the actions taken. However, in cases where the user is already blocked and sock puppetry or an SPI is listed in the user's block log, you probably don't need to create one, as one already exists and it would just make a duplicate. But in cases where you see sock puppetry-related distuption and can provide strong evidence directly linking multiple accounts together, and where attention is needed - yes definitely create an SPI. So long as you have proper evidence and explain your rationale for creating the report well, you're almost always certainly doing the right thing by creating one. Please let me know if you have questions about the SPI process, when to report, how it works, or if you need input - don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be more than happy to lend you a hand and answer any questions. Cheers, and happy Saturday ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for your help. I think what I mean is, in this specific case, if a new account is already blocked as "Vandalism only account", or similar, is it worth reporting simply to have the block log changed to "sockpuppetry" (or similar). In the case above, it doesn't seem as if this guy is going to stop which is why it might be good to acknowledge which accounts are him. You said here that I'd assert that this user is starting to exhibit long-term disruption enough for him to be considered one on his own., so I guess my question is should I report specifically User:WithJewsYouLose who isn't in the list at the existing SPI simply for record keeping, and to change the block log, or would that be time wasted? —72 _talk 00:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If the socking is in progress or ongoing by other accounts, then yes - definitely file one. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Request

If someone doesn't get to it first, would you mind deleting this when you get the chance? Thanks. 2601:1C0:10D:9105:6504:76AC:773C:626 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chuck beal

National hot rod association is the credible source . I know from personal experience but NHRA has posted to their website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.191.171.222 (talk • contribs)

Hi there! If the information is posted on their website, you should cite it in-line so that the content is referenced. Please also keep in mind that adding content and citing one's own personal relationship or experience with the article subject constitutes adding original research to the article, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Depending on the relationship or experience you have with the article subject, it could also constitute conflict of interest - so please do take notice and avoid these situations. If you have questions about these policies and guidelines I've linked to you, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for understanding :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Greeting Oshwah

Greeting Oshwah, I have been dealing with a user that has twice now removed the NASDAQ listing from WWE stating it wasn't traded on NASDAQ when on fact it is, I reverted and left them a message on their talk providing them the direct link to the NASDAQ listing. They reverted me stating No, it isn't. I checked out the link I was given and nothing was there. I restored the listing back, inserted the direct link in the article and left them another message on their talk page that yes it is traded on NASDAQ. Could you keep an eye on the article as clearly after looking at their talk page this isn't the first time they have removed sourced material. I believe I have done all I can without going to ANI.I have restored it twice now, started a discussion on the article talk, linked them twice showing that yes WWE is traded on NASDAQ. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi WarMachineWildThing! Welcome back! Well, the external link provided next to the infobox data about NASDAQ clearly shows that it is... so that's pretty clear proof in my book. It looks like the removal of the NASDAQ entry on that article has stopped. Definitely follow-up as you discussed with him by creating a discussion on the article's talk page about this - make sure to ping that user as well, so that they see that you started one. If he fails to discuss the dispute and continues removing the content, let me know. Cheers and good luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I have pinged the user to the articles talk discussion that I started along with leaving the direct link on their own talk page after both times I reverted them and restored the content. I just don't want to be hit with 3RR again, even though this is clearly a user removing sourced content it's not Vandalism. Which is why I am covering all bases, which is why I asked if you could keep an eye on the article as well. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all good, my man. Just be mindful when you revert people (especially repeatedly), and do exactly what you did in this situation - message the user on their user talk page, tell them about the article talk page, start a talk page discussion there, and ping that user. Don't worry about your past and that 3RR block. One block and for something like that is easy to overcome and after some time, nobody will use it against you. Just don't dwell on it and your contributions will show that you've learned from it. No big deal :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I will let you know if they remove it again after all I have done. Thanks Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks & Questions

Hi Oshwah -- Still trying to figure out the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia communication, so I don't know if my reply to you on my Talk page wound up on your desk or not. Pasting here for the sake of covering my bases:

"I am the sole user of this account, and its sole purpose is to update the United News International page. I am an employee of this company, and I made this account to update our very, very out-of-date page. In my revisions, I cited government filings and statistics, all of which are publicly available. I apologize if this presents any conflicts of interest (COI). I was/still am unfamiliar with the full breadth of Wikipedia's policies and was not aware this could present an issue; I only wanted an accurate, up-to-date page. Going forward, I will request edits rather than implement them myself. Again, sincere apologies."

Thank you for taking the time to look into my request for page protection earlier while we assess the situation in house. What course of action can I take if page vandalism continues? UNIacyr (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi UNIacyr! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your responses. Typically, unless you ping the user by using [[User:INSERT USER HERE|INSERT USERNAME HERE]] or (what's easier for new users) {{ping|INSERT USERNAME HERE}} - that user won't receive a notice unless they're watching that page. No worries though. I understand that you're the sole user of this account, but your username contains UNI inside of it, and it doesn't appear to reference you as an individual. I suggest that you go here and change your usernmame to a different one to avoid any confusion or issues in the future regarding it. Yes, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding conflict of interest, as well as policies regarding paid editing disclosure - if you're being compensated or paid to edit Wikipedia in any way, you must read and follow this policy and disclose this per our Terms of Use. I've fully protected the United News International temporarily until the content dispute that's occurring on the article has been properly resolved, and also due to the recent editing made by accounts that have or show a clear conflict of interest (one of which was yourself, the other being ForbesBuisnessJournal - who I blocked for having a disallowed username). Since you are employed by this company, I strongly advise you to edit a different article subject and topic that interests you so that you're following Wikipedia's guidelines. It will only waste your time otherwise, as the community typically reverts these kinds of edits. Please read through the policies and guidelines I've linked you to here, and let me know if you have any questions about them. I'll be happy to answer them and help you with anything you need. Thanks again for your message, for understanding, and for taking the time to read and understand our guidelines. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi ~Oshwah~, thank you again for helping clear that up. I believe I've arranged everything to be inline with Wikipedia policies now. I've added a paid editor COI on both my User page and personal Talk page, and I will add a disclosure to any edits I propose to the United News International page going forward. Would you mind taking a quick look into my pages to ensure everything's in order? Also, is this a disclosure that I should add to previous edits I made to the UNI page? If so, how do I go about that? Or is that something you or another admin can do? Sorry for all the questions, just want to be sure I'm doing this all on the up-and-up :) UNIacyr (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I also added the same COI disclosure to the Talk page of United News International, though I'm not sure if that's necessary at this stage. Any insight is appreciated. UNIacyr (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Trey burke

I know that trey burke is 6ft 0 in just let me change it it's true he even told me-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokokoko1133 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your swift responses to WP:AIV reports. I find that this time of day tends to be the dead hours for AIV (when Widr is offline, lol). Anyhow, usually around this time the noticeboard has a very large backlog, so thanks for all the hard admin-ing work! ;-) 190.46.233.97 (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! I, too, notice that there's a "dead time" when patrolling admin noticeboards tends to lower. I try my best to patrol during that time so that there's at least one active user keeping things in order ;-). Thanks again for the wikilove, and I wish you a great rest of your day and happy patrolling! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No subject

Hi, this is in regard to the revert you made on Ali Akbar Khan page. "Ustad" is a title conferred upon masters of Indian classical music (similar to "Pandit" in Pandit Ravi Shankar). If you notice the page of Vilayat Khan and others, you will also notice this honorific title of "Ustad". I felt it should be written as "Ustad" Ali Akbar Khan. If you think otherwise, please feel free to let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnyossarrian (talk • contribs) 04:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Lab Rats: Elite Force

Hi, Oshwah! Given that the disruption is repeatedly occurring and considering that the page has been protected before, with the last protection being for two weeks, shouldn't this semi-protection be for a month or so? My understanding is that each time a page is semi-protected, the length is increased until eventually it's semi-protected indefinitely. Thanks in advance! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Amaury - Yeah, you're right. The article was just recently semi-protected for a few weeks due to disruption (probably similar stuff). I extended the duration of the semi-protection I applied to one month. Thanks for messaging me with your concerns and input. Much appreciated ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Amaury - I wanted to add clarification to my response, as I failed to explain to you how I address protection requests and how I judge the duration in which I apply them.

In most situations, yes - you are absolutely correct. Administrators will typically increase the protection applied on an article. Before doing so, they'll usually verify that it's ongoing disruption that has continued to occur soon after the previous protection has expired. In many situations, an article that was protected for 6 months previously will get vandalized by a school or a small group of kids sometime later. In these cases, applying semi-protection for a year would be ridiculous (obviously... lol). Instead, applying semi-protection with a length of as little as three hours will easily resolve the disruption and will result in the users moving on and the page being left alone. I try to protect for as little of a duration as I feel necessary that will ultimately stop the disruption. However, in your case here - extending the protection was the right thing to do, and I didn't realize it until you asked about it ;-).

Anyways... just figured I'd take time to explain how protection pages generally should work - just don't be offended if an admin adds a protection for a very short time when you asked for much longer. There may be a reason for it, but you're absolutely welcome to message the admin and express concerns (like you did here) - :-D... I hope you have a great rest of your weekend, and I'm sure we'll run into each other again soon ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Batata Charbonier

Stop deleting other people's edits about her. Come to Puerto Rico and you'll see that those edits are true and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.227.81 (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake

Hey Oshwah, I don't think you understand my edit. I changed the hardest material "Diamonds" of 115 GPa to "Collin's Nipples." You have removed this because you think it was not constructive but you could not be more wrong. You do not know Collin. Have you ever heard the phrase "Nose to the Grindstone?" Well Collin's Nipples to the Grindstone breaks the fucking grindstone. You could trap collin in a diamond coffin and all he has to do to escape his take off his shirt and spin around. Seriously, he can cut toast with those babies. I wish you will rethink your decision. Best wishes, Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:c580:3fa:8100:4464:6e64:ebdf (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2017‎

A question

Hi again Oshwah. Just a quick question, when would it be appropriate for the image (File:Fellatio_1.jpg (NSFW for anyone reading this...)) added by [3], [4] to be added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list? I've seen this before and it doesn't appear to be even legitimately used anywhere. —72 _talk 19:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

72 - Good question. Let me read up on the policy and proper usage of this list and get back to you once I have an answer. Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

72 - The only problem I foresee adding this image to the list is that there are articles and topics on human sexuality where this image could be used legitimately. I wouldn't want such a modification to result in a false positive. Let me check the usage of this file, do a little more digging, and get back to you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

72 - Yeah, this image isn't being used anywhere right now. I went ahead and added it to the list along with some typical exceptions as well. Thanks for the suggestion - all set! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to it :) —72 _talk 19:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) I remember of some list of images which should not be used except in certain topics (which were specified), but I don't recall where this list was. —PaleoNeonate - 19:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate - Something like that does ring a bell, but I believe it was a list of formally restricted images - not a list that applied any technical ones... but I could be wrong. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually it could be the aforementioned MediaWiki:Bad_image_list, because I see that some specify where they can be used... —PaleoNeonate - 19:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate - Indeed, this list does technically restrict the use of an image in-line with articles, and it allows a list of exemptions where it can be used. I was thinking of something different, I presume. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic Politics

Oshwash, I was trying to update the Mid-Atlantic Politcs sections and then I made an error and figured it would be better to erase rather than leave it chopped up (as it appeared on the site). Sorry I didn't explain the reason for the removal. I didn't see your messages until after I did that. I didn't realize you had reverted it either. HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)HistoryTeacherVA

HistoryTeacherVA - No big deal :-). Rock on! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yolanda Saldivar

Hey there, Oshwash. According to this diff you protected the page. Muzikbot seems to think it's not protected and keeps removing the tag. Check on this?  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 02:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Myk Streja! Happy Saturday! Hope you're doing well :-). The reason that the bot is removing the lock small-icon is because the page protection expired and it is no longer under any kind of protection. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You know, I wanted so badly for the protection to still be there... How do I go about getting it back? The nutcases that think Yolanda is dead keep changing the infobox.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 02:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Myk Streja - The article is still under pending changes protection, so there's still some overwatch going on :-). Lets watch the article history and keep an eye on things. If disruption skyrockets, message me here and I'll extend the semi-protection. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns - I'll be happy to help you with anything that you need. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Oshwah. It's me again. There have been five edits by IPs over the last two days to this article claiming she's dead. After each one I spend time checking to see if she is. Nope, not yet. Please protect this article again.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 01:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism by "UK Latino"

Oshwah, in reference to your action HERE, first, thank you. Second, please forgive if I couldn't make this message any shorter.

Just wanted to add that it seems evident that this vandal ("UK Latino") is the newest sockpuppet version of IP 72.69.240.241, who first made his appearance at Ponce, Puerto Rico, HERE on 22 June 2017. Due to his vandalism, 6 days later he was blocked for 3 months on 14:37, 28 June 2017 by User:Widr admin.

Having been blocked at IP 72.69.240.241 on 14:37, 28 June 2017, the vandal then began vandalizing Ponce, Puerto Rico 2 hours later on 16:12, 28 June 2017 from a new IP (108.29.216.65) beginning HERE. You can see it's the same vandal because the vandalism is identical to that of the first anonymous IP 72.69.240.241 -- always oriented to (1) removing a photo of an Islamic center in Ponce and associated religious text and (2) changing the cited terminology of racial distribution in the city. BTW, both anon IPs are from NYC.

Having executed his first vandalism from the new anonymous IP, at this point, I theorize, the vandal stopped to think a bit and realized vandalizing from the new 108.29.216.65 anonymous IP would soon run the same fate as the first IP and, I theorize, he took a second look at the message given by his blocking admin, namely, "[Editing from this IP is] currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account." (See HERE). So he decided (I theorize) to experiment with vandalizing via a registered account. He thus created the "CaribbeanAmphibian" account, 22 minutes after his single 16:12, 28 June 2017 vandalism from his last-used IP 108.29.216.65 -- on 16:34, 28 June 2017 (See HERE). He thus began vandalizing the article using the "CaribbeanAmphibian" account until he was blocked for 24 hours on 23:19, 29 June 2017 by User:DMacks admin (See HERE). BTW, a regular practice by this vandal across all of his accounts (annon or not) seems to be to remove from his Talk Page messages from editors regarding his vandalism, apparently in an effort to improve his chances to vandalize for a longer time by (so his strategy presumably went) reducing the likelihood that future editors leaving him new messages would escalate their actions if they did not (check his talk page history tab and) didn't see previous messages about his vandalism.

In any event, the vandal waited out the 24 hours of the block (they were due to expire on 23:19, 30 June 2017) and, only 70 minutes after they expired, on 01:29, 1 July 2017, he again vandalized the article (See HERE). This time, he was blocked for 7 days immediately after his first act of vandalizing in the article. This block took place 83 minutes after the vandalism, at 02:52, 1 July 2017 by User:Materialscientist admin (See HERE) preventing the vandal from vandalizing the article any further.

Having now learned what fate awaits those who vandalize the encyclopedia via a registered account, the vandal then emerges less than 2 days later, on 02:29, 3 July 2017‎, as anonymous IP 193.109.199.145. For the next 26 hours, the vandal --apparently via IP spoofing-- vandalized the article using the following 6 IP addresses (See it HERE):

• 1) 02:29, 3 July 2017‎ 193.109.199.145
• 2) 18:10, 3 July 2017‎ 193.109.199.94
• 3) 19:39, 3 July 2017‎ 193.109.196.105
• 4) 04:00, 4 July 2017‎ 108.54.92.30
• 5) 04:17, 4 July 2017‎ 193.109.196.93
• 6) 04:53, 4 July 2017‎ 193.109.199.232

Realizing it was a case of sock puppetry, 2 hours after his last vandalism above, on 06:47, 4 July 2017, User:CambridgeBayWeather then protects the article from editing by non-autoconfirmed users (See HERE). The protection was for 7 days and was thus set to expire on 06:47, 11 July 2017. (User:CambridgeBayWeather also protected Puerto Rico (but for much longer) which was also being vandalized by the same vandal for containing the same religion/race info the vandal didn't like.)

Unable to attack the article, neither as an anon IP nor now as the (unconfirmed) registered user "CaribbeanAmphibian", the vandal once more waited out the 7 days --due to expire at 06:47, 11 July 2017 -- and at 18:51, 12 July 2017, emerges as "UK Latino" and begins vandalizing the article again (See HERE). This marks 20 days of targeted vandalism of the article by this vandal. As before, several editors undid/reverted his edits until, thanks to you, Oshwah, the vandal is again blocked (blocked for 24 hours) HERE.

I noticed however, that your block of this long-term vandal is only for 24 hours (see HERE). Perhaps you weren't aware of his long history of vandalism against this article (as well as the Puerto Rico article). In view of the vandal's persistent commitment to intentional long-term vandalism, I would like to ask you to consider (1) extending your block of this vandal to an undetermined amount of time and (2) protecting the Ponce, Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico articles also for undetermined amounts of time. I would leave it to your judgement what those undetermined amounts of time should be and/or if you may need to work with another admin, such as User:CambridgeBayWeather in considering my opinions here.

Thanks for your consideration. Mercy11 (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Mercy11. Things like that are not usually caught by admins on first glance but by the editors who regularly edit the page. Mainly because there was a large gap between CaribbeanAmphibian (edit) stopping and UK Latino (edit) starting. I wouldn't have noticed it without you laying this out. It looks to me like a clear case of sockpuppetry but a second opinion from Oshwah would be worthwhile. If this happens again you might get a quicker response by reporting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, but make it shorter. In this case I don't think that is necessary. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, no doubt. Looking at the article's history clearly shows back-and-fourth reverting of the same content by multiple IPs and users who I assert to be the same person. After 72.69.240.241 was blocked for disruption, the account CaribbeanAmphibian was created less than two hours later and picked right up where the IP left off - same disruption on the same articles, the works. In the case of this particular article, the reverting continued on with other IP addresses after CaribbeanAmphibian was blocked for edit warring - and up until CambridgeBayWeather semi-protected the article on July 4th. After it expired, the disruption continued with additional IPs and users and over the same content. The diffs here (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) as well as the timeline clearly show that there's sock puppetry and block evasion afoot. There's definitely enough evidence for me to take action on the accounts involved; I'm going to leave the IPs be, since the edits from them are now stale and blocking would serve no purpose. Lets keep an eye on the article, and if this continues by more accounts or IPs, let me know and I'll take a look. I'm going to hold off on protecting the article... for the moment ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ActuallyJohnCena

I've left a message on its talk page. --195.80.103.225 (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny thing about this, John Cena (or a rep) took the time to verify, via OTRS, the name User:ActuallyJohnCena1 one day prior to the registration of User:ActuallyJohnCena.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 14:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

IRC

I'm having trouble setting up an IRC account because my IP address isn't being hidden. I don't understand exactly how to log in, and it thinks that my username, MRD2014, which I registered, has been taken. Do I need to request a cloak? Is it possible that I can recover my username? Is it expired and do I need to something to take it? I'm so confused about how it all works and how everyone's IP addresses are hidden, but not mine. Would you be able to help me? I know I'm throwing a lot at you here. —MRD2014 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi MRD2014! Sure, I'll be more than happy to help you out with this. First, let me check the cloak status of your nick (which I assume is MRD2014... lol). Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MRD2014 - I see you repeatedly attempting to connect. Are you being disconnected? Or are you doing that yourself? What IRC client are you using? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MRD2014 - I just did an /ns info for your nick, and it definitely is registered. However it doesn't appear to be cloaked (have you requested a cloak? If not go here to do so). Just connect to IRC and then use /msg NickServ identify MRD2014 <password> after you're in. This will identify yourself by your nick. If you're still stuck - just connect to IRC under a different name and I can help you out once you join. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I requested a cloak and typed in the code above and it has now identified me. —MRD2014 17:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! I see that you're connected now. Welcome back! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Need help in OR dispute

Hi, can you please provide guidance on the "List of Countries by median wage" page. I am alleging that there is clear OR being done but author disagrees. Lneal001 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lneal001 - Sure, I'll be happy to help. What content exactly do you believe is original research? And why do you believe so? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The user is taking one set of data and combining it with another to achieve a result not explicitly mentioned in same source. In this case the user derives a median ratio, and multiplies that times mean annual wages to get median wages. But this ratio is in itself derived, and he or she assumes that it's an apples to apples comparison that one can simply multiply it against a new set of figures. The numbers derived by the user are nowhere to be found. They are original calculations. The OECD does not publish them.

The rule says:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." Lneal001 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Alleged BLP violation involving James White (theologican) from jytdog

Apparently the National Review (leading conservative voice started by William F Buckley) is an unreliable source? Isn't wiki about providing a greater context and not intimidation from damage controllers like jytdog and the other "uncomfortable" contributors trying to silence a legitimate issue involving White?Liberty7777 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Liberty7777

I understand that you have an issue or dispute regarding whether or not a source is considered reliable not, as well as the content on this article. However, edit warring, incivility, and causing disruption is not the proper way to get your concerns addressed, discussed, and resolved. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines. It provides you with instructions and directions that you must follow in order to properly resolve your disputes and concerns. Furthermore, you need to be extremely careful when editing or participating in an article that's under discretionary sanctions (such as this very article - James White (theologican)). This means that this article is part of a very highly controversial topic or subject that's been determined to need extra oversight and strict enforcement of policies and guidelines in order to maintain order and make sure that all editors involved understand the topic area, what is expected of them, and what can happen if these expectations are not followed. Please take time to read these policies and guidelines as well. You can also find additional information regarding these topic areas by reading the notice left on your talk page regarding discretionary sanctions. If you have any questions about any of these policies or guidelines, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. Thank you for messaging me with your questions and concerns, and I wish you good luck and happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Gaaaaatatgdjfidirnnrkrorkrbrbbrndkldjevebe

These types of usernames are silly, yes, but not usually blocked if they have not edited disruptively; hence my decline (see also WP:UNCONF). Widr (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Widr - Ah, I didn't know that you declined a report about this user; my apologies if my action stepped on any toes. While the username policy states that extremely lengthy or confusing usernames can be seen as as problematic and are discouraged, you are correct in that the policy also states that having a username like this isn't typically grounds for action if this is the only concern about the account. Thanks for messaging me about this; I very much appreciate it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Mumbai Presidency

Please do not remove those changes, as It was Mumbai and it is Mumbai. People will get confused if city has two names. Officially it's Mumbai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.225.107.11 (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think what would be more confusing to readers is to have the information and name be different than what the article title is. It doesn't make sense to me to see these kinds of changes that modify the name of the article to be different than its title. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing and adding references

Hi Oswah I have noticed some factual inaccuracies and I am trying to edit the perampanel page. I am having troubling adding the references from peer-reviewed journals. Kindly assist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.221.96.58 (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! For help regarding how to add references and cite sources in-line with article content, simply visit and review Wikipedia's guidelines on how to cite sources. If you have questions about this document, let me know. Good luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an IP User to be monitored

Hi,

I found an IP User who needs to be monitored. I have given the user, 115.70.39.132, to not be aggressive in their editing summaries, and to not change something in an article, The Lego Movie, which is currently under discussion on its talk page between Wikipedians; the matter is on the layout of certain names in the infobox, which the IP User chose not to discuss about, but just change this without good reason or seeing if there has been consensus on the matter, while stating in their summaries the following:

"Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, good! Plainlist format, bad! I've had it with the plainlist format and I'm kicking anyone in the balls!"

"No more reverting, you stupid Wikipedians! This is ridiculous!"

I, myself, started the debate over the matter in question, after witnessing continual changes between two layouts used for the same two sections in the article's infobox, and felt it needed discussion because it had gotten ridiculous with Wikipedians editing it back and forth between one and the other. Anyway, could you keep an eye on them, please, and take action if they should act in this manner again, if possible?GUtt01 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GUtt01 - Sure thing! If you can keep an eye out as well, and ping me here if I need to jump in and take action. I'll make sure to pop in and check what's up a few times an hour. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Geoffrey alderman

Please reinstate geoffreys opinions on Palestine. These are factual amd documented. 82.37.236.149 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Leftist Propaganda Machine

Don't edit my stuff RedBloodedTeen. I am speaking the truth and if you don't like it then it sucks to be you. You are a disruptive and your vandalizing my page and you will be banned from editing if you don't stop. Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean its wrong. It's America I'll say what I want, where I want, and how I want. RedBloodedTeen (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) yes it is America RedBloodedTeen but here on Wikipedia you need to be Civil and have sources for your edits. Find such and your edits might not be reverted but some sources aren't the right ones and you still have a chance of being reverted or warned. Dinah In Wonderland 18:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@RedBloodedTeen: You obviously have never read the Constitution, which says the government can't deny your right to free speech (although you can't make threats and such, that is illegal no matter what). Wikipedia can deny your right to free speech, but not the government. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Monitoring Request - IP User 65.51.243.195

Thought you should know, that this IP User thought that they shouldn't have their Edit Warring warnings back on their talk page after I restored that and a previous message, and attempted to revert the restoration. They clearly appear to be acting uncivil, so recommending that they be monitored, as I fear they will not heed the warnings. GUtt01 (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: They've just attempted to revert the warnings off their talk page again. GUtt01 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GUtt01! Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on him. He is allowed to remove warnings from his own talk page, so I'm not concerned over that. The edit warring on that BLP article is what I care about the most; I'm sure he's frustrated or perhaps upset; I think that if we walk away and leave the messages and discussion at what it's at, things will easily cool off in terms of incivility. Let me know if he continues editing; I'll try and keep my eye on him when I can. Thanks for leaving me a message about this, by the way :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: He's done it a third time now. He is not heeding what he is doing. He claimed his reversion was because I "referred the matter to another", but that doesn't give him the right to remove the warnings. I think you need to step in now, before he gets too big an ego on this affair. GUtt01 (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I advise that we just leave his talk page alone for a bit and see if he stops trying to modify it as he is. The less opportunity to give him reason to be disruptive and angry, the more likely he'll either stop, follow the rules, or move on... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to talk about my edits

I am frustrated that my edits to the Catahoula Cur page are being dropped (accept the little dig I put in there, I under stand that). The vast majority of the page is incorrect and based solely on info from Don Abney, a puppy miller who published a book and used that as the references for the page. The wiki page is giving all sorts of horrible info to new owners of the breed and causing them to get working dogs as "good family dogs" when in fact they are not in most cases. They are high up keep, can be very aggressive especially to strangers and foreign animals. It is causing dangerous comditions and dogs to be dumped in rescues and shelters. If you want the REAL info, talk to Renee M L Jackson, she is a fifth generation Native American breeder of Catahoulas, from Catahoula Lake and the President of the WCA, Working Catahoula Association. She can give neutral and accurate info, and doesn't produce blind and deaf pups to fund a rescue for profit business...unlike Abney. We are working to have Don Abney, his associates and his "rescue" shut down and convicted of all sorts of things, from abuse and neglect up to tax fraud for false use of 501(c)3 status.

Edit: I heard from Renee that she has been granted editing status on the page. FINALLY SOME TRUTH TO THE PAGE!! Sorry if I was doing it incorrectly. Directions are not that clear to those who don't live on wiki....

Thanks 74.140.145.222 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 74.140.145.222 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Kotick

Hi, you just reverted a large edit I did on obby Kotick. I'm sorry I didn't leave a good enough edit summary, but I am actually making a purposeful edit to fix a big problem, and left an explanation on the talk page. Could you restore my edit, or do I need to do it myself? Thak you! Yosshi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosshi! (talk • contribs)

Hi Yosshi! - I restored your edit back to the article. Let me know if you need anything else. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of person from Dickson Collage page.

Hi Oshwah, I am concerned as to why you removed the name 'Levi Regan' from the Dickson College Wikipedia. This bothers me as Levi Regan is a Dickson College Student and as a concerned parent in the community it saddens me that the Wikipedia page does not display any current students although it does have Jackie Chan. Peace out and hope to hear from you.

Dude2007 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Christa Rigozzi

Hello I noticed that you had deleted my Infobox and edits too Christa Rigozzi and I understand why. However I saw the need for the Infobox and other materials for the page. I had not yet put a reference, and was going to do so. I had not yet added

to the article showing users my intentions and that proper linked and referenced materials would be added.

Good day. DeAllenWeten (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DeAllenWeten! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your explanation. I went ahead and restored your edits back to the article (minus the last edit made, which added unreferenced content. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to help you. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ken Mettler

Thank you for your help in revdelling that page. I'm glad we caught that in time. GAB^gab 00:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad - You're very welcome, and I agree :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Station Fire Memorial Park

Hi Oshwah. Could you add a non-free use rationale for the use of File:Stationfirestart.jpg in Station Fire Memorial Park? Personally, I think this might be a bit hard to do per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI since the file can be seen in the article about the fire and there is a hatnote directing the reader to that article where they can see the file. Perhaps an actual photo of the park itself or something like File:20031113 Station Night Club Memorial@COMMONS.jpg would be better to use. However, if you feel the fire photo is needed please add the rationale for its use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly! Thanks for removing the image. To answer your question, it's not. I can easily find other images to serve the purpose that I was intending. I originally added the photo to visualize the event in which began the subsequent events which led to the park's creation. I feel that the image ties the section well, but it's certainly not needed. Thanks again for catching my use of the image and for removing it and letting me know. I very much appreciate it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That's on me

Oops looks like I was restoring as you were protecting sorry about that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No big deal :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Heath SlaterMR. JL (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for experimenting editing on "Heath Slater". I'll use the sandbox from now on, unless I have a constructive edit.

Battle of Hydaspes

Hello, sir this is regarding your reversion of my edits on Hydaspes. Sir, I have only added a paragraph worth of content containing the major portion of the events of the battle to bring to the fore the entire picture of the battle.

Most people do not understand what prevailed in the battle or the relationship between Porus and Alexander that progressed in the battle itself except the maneuvers that do not explain what were the critical defining events. Kaushik Roy is a military historian focusing solely on the battle not a actual historian elaborating on the events within. For every single statement made in my edits, I have given Sources, such as PLUTARCH, Agnes Savill a renowned western author acclaimed for her Alexander the Great's biography and K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, on of the most respected and acclaimed Indian historians to ever live. Please check this out again. I am currently restoring my Edits, but you may suggest changes in language tone. I have not used any personal comments but directly copied what was written from the source books like "Age of Nandas and Mauryas", "Life of Alexander", and "Alexander the Great and His Time"

Question

So after dealing all the nonsense I was looking and this edit on a users page struck me as odd considering the user who made it is a confirmed sock. Which leads me to think this is a sock as well. Never have figured out how to file an investigation. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - Ah! The place you're looking for is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Add a report there for sure. If you have questions about how it works or need help with filing a report, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Cheers :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely need help, it's confusing me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing - Okay, so first what you do is find the sock user that's the oldest. You do this by opening each possible sock account's contributions page, and click on "logs". The account creation log should be there. Find the account that's the oldest. This is what you enter into the text field when you open a new investigation. You then list all of the other accounts in sockaccount1, sockaccount2, etc in the SPI. Add your evidence (don't sign it), and press "save". The templates will take care of the rest. Let me know if you have more questions, and I'll be happy to help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok so I'm not adding to the archive investigation then or am I? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you use the "how to open an investigation" text box to create your SPI report, it'll save the page to the right place and you'll need not worry about where it should go. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Iovine

Hi, somone again added "italian" to Jimmy Iovine even though he is Jewish. Can you please fix this? Thank you. Also, the user is clearly using multiple sock puppet accounts. 2604:2000:F20E:2800:B5B0:24B0:7ADC:30D4 (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Add an edit request on the article's talk page for me, and I can definitely take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I decided to remove some old (as in +5yrs old) messages from points that are no longer valid on my Talk page, and these seemingly got reverted by your bot. Would did I do wrong. Surely at some point we can remove old talk items ??

Moa999 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Moa999 - Yeah, no, you didn't do anything wrong. I dun goof'd and made that reversion by mistake. I've of course restored your changes and I apologize for the mix-up. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help you. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sinbad

Hi. I erased the section on sinbad, because I feel it is written in a very negative light. Yes, sinbad did evade taxes but he worked through it. He's a good guy who messed up. Why should we broadcast it on Wikipedia? I like to see the best in people.

Sincerely, Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4BA:6830:518D:3136:F8B0:1D72 (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine "whose a good guy", nor is it up to us to "see the best in people". As an encyclopedia project, we must write articles to reflect a neutral point of view. That means that we write about all sides of an equation and give due and proper weight to all viewpoints. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, and let me know if you have any questions about it. I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Justification of the edit

I deleted that portion as the women of the temple did not have prostitution as a 'sacred duty.' They were often misused as prostitutes in various parts of India. However, there is little to no actual evidence of this being true for Odisha. Therefore whatever is written in that section is not reliable content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5206:EC6D:B1FE:E84:370A:E7 (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Just letting you know: When you find something that you believe isn't accurate, or should be deleted otherwise, you should also start a discussion on the article's talkpage and explain your rationale and supporting arguments to justify the removal. Repeatedly removing the material in a back-and-fourth manner is disruptive. If you have any other questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding editing on TATA Pixel page

I was just checking, how editing works on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.16 (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries. If you want to make test edits, you should make them here - not on actual live articles. Let me know if you have any questions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

MY PAGE

HI I'M A NORMAL GUY BUT YOU GO AND DELETE MY PAGE AND I DON'T KNOW WHY PLS CONTACT ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

User:JoshuaxavierJoshuaxavier (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Joshuaxavier It could've possibly had to much information or was laid out like a social network profile. I'm not sure because I haven't seen it but that's my guess. Dinah In Wonderland 14:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Joshuaxavier - You should read and understand Wikipedia's policies on user pages (specificallywhat is not allowed), and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for the message and I appreciate your understanding :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sinbad

Hi. I erased the section on sinbad, because I feel it is written in a very negative light. Yes, sinbad did evade taxes but he worked through it. He's a good guy who messed up. Why should we broadcast it on Wikipedia? I like to see the best in people.

Sincerely, Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.196 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

See the response I made your post above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No subject

Can I cite another wiki page as my source? Thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taninc (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is taninc. Thanks for yor suggestion on the edit of Chris Wu page. I would like to ask if I can cite another wiki page as my source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taninc (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Taninc unfortunately not. I have once and I was told it was not acceptable. It is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone that put anything they choose so it can not be used as a source. Dinah In Wonderland 19:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct; you cannot use other pages on Wikipedia to reference content written on another article. Instead, you should reference the source(s) that the original page is referencing with the content you're looking to cite from, or locate reliable sources and add references to both pages (kill two birds with one stone and improve both of them) :-). Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. Cheers :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Lodi Unified School District

Information on Lodi Unified has been added from our website. The information regarding the First Babtist Church is erroneous and should be removed. It was added by a disgruntled citizen. How to I go about getting that area removed from the LUSD page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligirl50 (talk • contribs)

Hi Caligirl50, and thank you for leaving me a message regarding your concerns. I appreciate you for bringing the copyright violations to my attention; I didn't realize this until you said something :-). It looks like this matter has been resolved and an administrator has removed the copyright violations and redacted the revisions from public view. If you have any more questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to respond here and let me know. Thanks again, and enjoy the rest of your day. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't Delete my Publication

Hi Oshwah,

I actually work for Youth for Christ at their national office and was editing their page. I can add a citation if you put my edit back up. But all of this information can be cited as coming from www.yfci.org. Please put my information back up,

Thanks, YFC Staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by YFCedits (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts' Burrel'

Hello I saw that you reverted my edits in a page about a city called BUurrel. I wanted you to know thayt I libe in this city and those thimg Which I wrote there were just some things which Iadedd and know fotr certain to be true. I wanted you to help me writr e good edits. THamsk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjusi L (talk • contribs) 21:02, July 18, 2017 (UTC)

@Marjusi L: I found a citation for "city of apples" so that's back in. I also placed the reference to the stadium more appropriately. The bit about the prison is more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia, so it's better left out. Oh, and the entry for Feride Kurti now gives her credit as a songwriter. I listened to one of her performances on YouTube. She is impressive.

PS Sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ instead of your name, etc. The system will fill it in automatically from there.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked user

Hello, Oshwah,

I’m hoping you can help me sort out a confusing situation with some new editors (at least two, maybe 3) who have been working on several biographies of art curators, developing a draft I had created on Deana Haggag. There were two IP editors (199.72.21.233 and 98.223.173.63) and one registered editor, User:Unitedstatesartists. I caught and removed some copyvio edits, and noted that the subject of the Haggag bio had recently accepted a curator position at “United States Artists” in Chicago. I left copyvio and COI notices at the talk page of Unitestatesartists. Here’s where it gets confusing: one of the users registered as Notfacebook7, and it looks like the previously registered user Unitedstatesartists changed usernames, becoming Morton lotus. Since there is a block notice on the user page of Morton lotus (as a promotional username) I’m wondering if the promotional name that should have been blocked was the previous account name, Unitedstatesartists? I think these editors are sincere and well-intentioned, just learning the Wikipedia ropes the hard way, making mistakes while trying to contribute, and I would be sorry to see them so discouraged they gave up editing. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Grand'mere Eugene, and thanks for writing me a message with your questions and request for assistance. Looking into the Deana Haggag article and the user accounts you mentioned, I do notice a few things that may have caused you confusion. The Unitedstatesartists account was blocked for having a username that appeared promotional or in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. The account has since been renamed to Morton lotus. This is why you're being redirected to this account's talk page when trying to navigate to the talk page of Unitedstatesartist. Are there still edits by any account that contain copyright violations that I need to look at? If you could provide me the URL to the exact diffs, this will help me to investigate each edit directly. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah, I've been vigilant about checking new edits on the Haggag article for copyvio using Earwig, so that piece is ok. I think I was not clear articulating my question clearly, so I will try to state the issue I am concerned about more carefully. When I go to User:Morton lotus, (the new account for Unitedstatesartist), there is a message indicating the account has been blocked. The message on the page User:Unitedstatesartist just says that account is not registered. I suspect your intent was to block the Unitedstatesartist account name, rather than blocking "Morton lotus", and that gremlins have subverted the wikicode? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something? Is there a reason that the new account is still blocked? Thanks for your help. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Please see talk page. Thanks in advance. TesLiszt (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi TesLiszt - It looks like this has been resolved. Let me know if it isn't or if you have questions or concerns about this. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Google article appeared to be hacked

Hi there.

So, today something weird happened on the Google article. The whole page redirected to gnaa.press. It didn't occur as part of an edit. I experienced it, and there were comments on Google's talk page about it. According to Wikipedia, GNAA is Gay Nigger Association of America, an "Internet trolling organization". It appears to have been fixed and I can't reproduce the issue, but I wanted an admin to know. LocalNet (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted a similar complaint here about the Netflix article. I assumed it was some kind of odd spamming, but now I see it appears to have been a genuine issue. I haven't personally experienced the phenomenon myself as yet. - BilCat (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet and BilCat: See here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi LocalNet, BilCat, Anarchyte - Thanks to all of you for messaging me about this and for mentioning it. As stated in Talk:Google, the issue was caused by vandalism made to a template that provided link navigation for many articles. I'm (unfortunately) quite familiar with this kind of vandalism and I've seen and resolved it before. On top of reverting the vandalism and blocking the user, the protection applied needs to be changed to template protection - especially if the template is used on many articles (like this one). The vandalism edit that created the issue also needs to be rev del'd immediately. The first time I caught and resolved this exact same template vandalism, I did some searching and found a reddit discussion where people were asking for the diff on how to do this on other templates. The redaction I made to that diff saved the project from a ton of future vandalism - so definitely strike that kind of high-impact vandalism out! Thanks again for messaging me about this vandalism. If anybody runs into this again, let me know. I'm familiar with chasing down problematic / vandalized templates and getting the problem resolved. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah. I've reverted minor cases before a when template was vandalized and others couldn't find the problem. In the Netflix case, the problem had been solved before I ever saw the vandalism, so I didn't have any idea what had happened. If I do see this again, however, I'll be sure to contact you about it, and if you're off-line, to find an admin who can handle it ASAP. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Violence threat

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=prev&oldid=791391269

Does this need to be revdelled? Can you or any admin talk page stalker look into this? Emergency have been notified. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does. I'm on it. WP:911 notified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits revdelled, 911 notified, users indeffed, and page protected indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - Thank you for handling this for me while I was away. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

NP happy to help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Socking?

Hello Oshwah, I just notice you blocked Akshaya Home for using promotional username and I just want to inform you that it was their third account. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. was blocked last month due to their promotional username and then they registered as Akshaya Uncompromise who was blocked by Alexf. AH was registered recently and recreated the same article again so I think we can change his block to sockpuppet of Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. and delete Akshaya Pvt. Ltd as G5. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Most recent article deleted.Socks tagged. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 17:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Discrete investigation of multiple users who disruptively edited a Wikipedian article

Hey, I blush over what this will send you to, but could you investigate the users who had their edits reverted on this article, please? I have a sneaky suspicion that a user made multiple users simply to be disruptive and change this article in some way (what exactly, I can't say, since their edits have been crossed out in the article's history), and that while a number of them were blocked, I think that all of them should be checked to see if they are a sock puppet of the first user that was disruptive on that article and had their edits reverted. Don't know what else to say, only if the users who reverted can shed light on what they had to revert considerable times before calling in for a request of protection on the article. GUtt01 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) See #Violence threat above. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GUtt01 - Thanks for the message and for the heads up about this. The users you're referring to are definitely sock puppet accounts of a long-term abuser of the project. I've modified the blocks on them to include this information. If you see any kind of threats of harm towards one's self or at others (even if in general or if you're absolutely sure that it's someone whose vandalizing or trolling), please report these to Wikimedia's Emergency Team. Instructions are located here. The page is now indefinitely semi-protected, so this should at least slow down this person's attempts to repeatedly vandalize this article. Again, I appreciate the message and the heads up; you're always welcome to reach out to me if you need anything. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and (as always) happy editing ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers in Canda - Richmond Review

Richmond Review was shut down in 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/richmond-review-newspaper-shut-down-by-glacier-media-group-1.3163789

Next time don't tell me that I'm "testing" and made a mistake.

I removed Richmond Review from Richmond in the List of Newspapers in Canada page

24.87.84.166 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, I thought you might have been testing, since your edit here only partially removed this newspaper from the list and without including an edit summary. In the future, you should include edit summaries with your changes and explain what you're doing. This way, you'll avoid any potential confusion and other editors will see and understand what you're doing and why. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also, what you actually did with this edit is change [[Richmond, British Columbia|Richmond]] to [[ond ond, British Columbia|Richmond]], which was not constructive whatever you intended. General Ization ^Talk 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note!

Hey, thanks for reaching out. I'm a brand new editor, and I've been working on a cookbook author's page -- Anne Willan is her name. I'd love for you to take a look at those edits, should you have time.

I would like to have an article about myself on Wikipedia. I've had quite a bit of media coverage during my 25-year career in news media that meets the notability standards of Wikipedia. I would really appreciate it if you would take the time to advise me on this...or perhaps even help me with the article?

I can see from your user contributions that you're a very experienced Wikipedia editor. Marthaholmberg (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @Marthaholmberg: I guarantee you don't want an article about you in Wikipedia. People think they do until they realize that they have no control of it and any number of people can say what they want about you. Further, Martha Holmberg fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. She publishes and she goes on media like NPR but no independent reliable sources are writing about her. Typically, anyone that's a writer or a journalist won't be notable because the story shouldn't be about them. 99 times out of a hundred, we shouldn't have a biographical article about someone until long after they're dead. To write anything sooner is probably irresponsible. (The last two articles I wrote are both biographies about living people and I tried to be careful with them; most Wikipedians should avoid this.) Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Sean Spicer

Hello. I'll notify you about the protection of Sean Spicer when the ECP ends. Cool? --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

George Ho - Perfect :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. 18 hours left. --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

George Ho - Let me know after the protection expires and if disruption is at the point where I need to take another look. I'll be happy to do so then. Thanks again for keeping an eye on the article :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome again, and thanks again. I was gonna notify you beforehand, but I realize now that the protection expired already. :D --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Almost forgot to say that original semi-protection would have ended in February 2022(!). --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Rat Rod

Hello Oshwah,

My edit on the tern Rat Rod is valid because I am one of the founding members of the Shifters So-Cal car club. I lived this lifestyle for years,and live it to this day. 99% of the information on the Wikipedia Rat Rod section is totally incorrect,and I am here to set the record straight. You continuously delete my factual history of the term, and even though you state that you find my foundings "below neutral" I am once and for all standing my ground. Ask the editors of Rodders Journal (Steve Coonan) , Hot Rod, Rod & Custom, Traditional Rod & Kulture, Continental Restyling, and Hop Up, and they will gladly explain the Rat Rod origin. I have every single magazine article saved in my archives, and will prove to the world where this term originated. I can't believe that the Shifters So-Cal car club has not received credit . The majority of people that write about this sub culture were not around in the late 1980's or early 1990's, so they go by what others have stated. One of the Shifters founding members Anthony Castaneda (may he rest in peace) coined the phrase, and before then the word did NOT exist. Freelance photojournalist, David Featherston did an article on the Shifters in August 1993 Rod & Custom magazine. In the article it stated that Rat Rods were traditional hot rods that lacked certain elements like paint and/or upholstery. Anthony was quoted as stating that there were Rat Bikes in the motorcycle world, and our cars that we built were similar creations of the hot rod world.Many books,magazines, and television programs featured the Shifters for years afterwards, and this subject came up a lot. You should give the credit that we well deserve.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:335e:4f90:e061:4f38:600a:8d09 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2017

Hi there! There are a number of things wrong with the edit you made here to Rat rod. First, the edit was worded to reflect a bias or particular point of view. This is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's policy on writing articles that are worded to reflect a neutral point of view. Second, the fact that you're a founding member not only shows that you have a clear conflict of interest with this article subject, but the content you added is unreferenced and can be considered original research, which is not allowed on any Wikipedia articles. Please review these policies and guidelines that I've provided to you here, and let me know if you have any questions about them. Thank you for the message and explanation, and I appreciate your understanding. Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Oshwah, I can validate all of my comments, and as an editor for a major automotive publication, can write a proper description of the Rat Rod origin. I ask you to please allow me to prove my case.

Appology

I would like to quickly say that I am sorry, the edits that I made were based on my opinion and have no place on this website. I will not do anything this mindless in the future. I do not know what got in to me. I am just so sorry. Not only did I say stupid things but I took time away from you, and that is not acceptable. I also appreciate your commitment to very politely message me about my mistakes. I have the utmost respect for you my good sir. Taking time away from your day to help the people of the internet make sure their information is accurate. You are doing a great service to us all. Let me just say once more that I am very sorry, and I wont let it happen again. I would also like to say I am sorry for not doing this the right way but the way I am supposed to reply to you doesn't make sense to me. It's not your fault though I am just getting older and I dont quite understand the tech these days.

Love, BobbyBoy

About a revert you made

Hi, Oshwah. I noticed you restored what I would consider rather questionable material. It looks to me like a bunch of self-promotion based on someone's Twitter feed and YouTube channel. Was that your intention? It just seems odd to restore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Definitely a mistake on my part. I definitely didn't mean to revert that... I think I accidentally reverted this as opposed to a different diff that I actually meant to. Thanks for pointing this out; I've rolled myself back :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I do the same thing sometimes, which is why I asked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - As do I, as you can clearly see ;-). Thanks again for letting me know - much appreciated. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

He is not one of the last wet plate photographer in the world. This is very false.

Andre Roberson

He is considered one of the best active defenders in the league, why was my edit removed? I could find 10+ articles that show him in the top 5, I never said the best. I said one of the best and top 5 is included.

Hi there! The content you added didn't cite any references. If you do this, you'll be golden. Read through that guide, and let me know if you have any questions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Tammuz

I am Dumuzi, you will listen to what I have to say. I have spent years wondering why the internet cannot fathom that I still exist. I no longer wish to live unknown to my children. My edit to my own page - tammuz - was struck down by you. Immediate reversal is required. Your compliance is not optional. Thank you. Dumuzi the Sheppard. (While verification is imposible, I must insist that you have it within you to comprehend that I can and do exist. Why would I be doing this otherwise. If you passed god on the street, would you believe you saw him? Think hard before you destroy precious information child. You are loved.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.161.8 (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent Edit by Doctor of Directions to Chillum, MD

I did explain why I removed it. I think the historical houses description box would be better placed on the Lewisdale, MD page instead because the Green Hill House and Green Hill Overseer's House are located in Lewisdale, MD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor of Directions (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I edited the article of Child_pornography_laws_in_Japan

I am sorry, I edited the talk of the page, so please look again. クライフ真琴 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Emoji Movie

Hey, why did you revert my edits on The Emoji Movie? I added it as “Trivia” which was changed mere minutes later by another user to “Promotion”. I think it is an important fact about the movie because the YouTuber unintentionally led many people to discover the movie and is now called the “#1 fan” by the film company. --Adrio (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Adrio (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

On the matter of other people's discussion

Hello, Oshwah

I am a firm believer that other people's discussion threads must not be removed or closed unilaterally.

But this has a prerequisite: One person must not become a lawyer for another and open discussion threads on their behalf without their explicit consent. Administrator Samsara is not my lawyer. I told him loud and clear that I don't want to file an ANI case at this time. He seems to have done the exact opposite.

He can file as many ANI case as he wants. Only he must not include a hint of me unless it is relevant.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa - This situation seems very upsetting and frustrating to you, and I completely understand. I'm definitely curious and will be reading up with exactly what is going on here, but you can't keep reverting and re-closing a discussion on ANI like that. If you don't agree with the ANI filing, say so or don't respond or participate. You've said that you brought your concerns directly to Samsara repeatedly; what did Samsara say in response to your concerns? Can you point me to where this took place? I'm happy to look into this if you'd like. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa - It looks like User talk:Samsara#Microsoft Office 2010 protection is the discussion you're talking about? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for understanding. Yes, it is very frustrating. Unnecessary combative actions are being taken in a way that imply me as the main mover! I want to edit Wikipedia peacefully, discuss the disputes out (even with malicious stalkers, if they switch to actual discussing) and if some admin made a heavy-handed protection, I just want to peacefully wait it out. Not editing Wikipedia for a couple of days isn't a bad thing. All these will be unjustly put in my record.

...repeatedly. I certainly didn't say "repeatedly".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa - I need you to provide me with the name of the articles, the diffs, URLs - basically the direct evidence you have. This will help me with where to start digging and the relevant places I should read up on. Can you provide those to me so that I can help? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me; direct evidence for what? Samsara's action? or the harassment case by the stalker (for which I don't want to file a complaint)? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies; your interaction with Samsara was what I was referring to :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Aha! That's what I am talking about. You expect there to be a significant record of interaction. That's exactly what normally there is, when admin warnings, protection and ANI are involved. And that's the distressing thing:

One day, I am doing normal ordinary editing, following the concept of WP:BRD; reverting one inappropriate contribution to the Microsoft Office 2010 article and one controversial change to the Windows XP article, for which I opened a talk page thread too. All ordinary. I go away and when I come back, BAM! Both articles are protected! I have received an official admin warning that two other editors also feel isn't right! And FleetCommand has emailed me for the list of IPs that this certain hound (we call him Flyboy) has used! I am thinking: The equivalent of nuclear war must have happened in Wikipedia. Admins never resort to such extreme measures normally.

So, I say to myself: Play cool! Be calm! Do not do anything rash. So, in my only message to Samsara, I write: "I personally do not insist that you lift this protection; it is suboptimal but not a catastrophe at all. (If the situation was serious," implying that it isn't, "I'd have presented my evidence in ANI and asked the admins who previously dealt with the person to reduce the protection.)" [5] The next thing I know, he has filed an ANI case and says "Codename Lisa has suggested ANI as a venue", the exact opposite of what I asked! This is exactly what would have happened if I had written: I personally insist that you lift this protection; it is a catastrophe. (Otherwise, I will present my evidence in ANI and ask the admins who previously dealt with the person to reduce the protection.) Can you see how these two seemed like cause and effects to me?

The whole distressing picture is: I made two ordinary reverts in two articles; in the space of two days, I received admin warnings, article protection and was sent to ANI. Can you feel how this picture resembles what happens in horror movie?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, guys. Do you mind me butting in? (If you do please feel free to revert.) I believe Codename Lisa is negatively impacted by the past experience: I remember an admin once opened a discussion pretending to represent Codename Lisa. But I don't remember the details. It was years ago. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, he didn't pretend. He was acting in good faith, thinking I would open the discussion. Are the details relevant here? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa - Okay, so I see that Samsara fully protected two articles you recently edited and reminded you on your talk page to take any disputes to their respective talk pages. Alright, no big deal... I'm still failing to connect where things go from here and to the filing of the ANI in which you stand against, and what led up to the need to repeatedly revert the ANI close. I understand that the situation as well as Samsara's message might have frustrated you; I'm just trying to work to connect all of the dots. I hope you understand :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You say you don't see how it looks like a horror movie from my perspective? Hmm... Well. I guess that's the way things are. The question is: What should we do about it? I don't suppose The Prince and the Pauper can be of any help here.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I commented on the ANI thread earlier and asked Samsara to provide some input regarding the situation, and it looks like the thread has since been updated with a lot more more information. Instead of letting our frustrations get to the best of us (I understand that it can be very difficult; trust me) and allowing ourselves to get too hasty, perhaps we should talk things out on the ANI so that we can come to a peaceful resolution that satisfies both parties (or as much as possible). I urge you to take a few and relax if you need to. Everything is going to be okay; we're doing our best to try and help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Help improve the article

Help please improve the article Pechkurou_Aleksey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nati Vadinaeva (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Monsta X

There are IPs on it now. You might want to consider protecting it. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

My name is not dave - Way ahead of ya ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Balmaha edit reverted

Hi, I made an edit for the Balmaha page to include information on the boatyard under "facilities", because currently there's no mention of it. Considering it's the main visitor attraction by the lochside in Balmaha I don't understand why it isn't mentioned at all. Why would you delete an essential edit on facilities under the facilties headline

146.198.7.41 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) because it was un-sourced and therefore cannot be in the Article. Dinah In Wonderland 13:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message here. There are a few things wrong with the edit you made here to Balmaha. First, the content isn't referenced and appears to be based on original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia articles. Original research is content that's referenced off an editors personal experience, relationships, findings, and references (even if its published). You can also call it "citing yourself". This is not allowed because such content cannot be verified for authenticity or accuracy. The content you added also seemed to reference a non-notable company, which isn't relevant to the article subject itself. It also seems to be intended to advertise the presence of the company. These are the reasons that I removed the content you posted. Please review the policies and guidelines I've referenced you to here, and let me know if you have any questions about them. It's important to know and understand them, as they must be followed in all edits and changes to articles. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding orphan articles

Hey! I recently got interested in de-orphaning articles and I found that there were quite a few pages that were wrongly tagged as orphans or pages that were de-orphaned without having the tag removed. Would it not be more efficient for the orphaned articles category to list articles based ONLY on the tool: what links here (of course, keeping in mind that redirects and disambiguation pages do not count)? My understanding is that the category holds articles based on that tool as well as manually added tags. And to solve the problem of wrongly tagged orphans, there could be a bot that goes through the list of tagged articles and check's if their names exists in the category. Am I missing something here? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 12:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, disregard what I said there. I'm guessing the category holds the articles only based on the tags (although for some pages, even though tagged, the tag doesnt seem to be visible). Regardless, there could still be a bot that works at removing orphan tags (which would ultimately fix this problem). Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 13:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries; just let me know if you change your mind and need my help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that. Had a bit of a brain meltdown there. In my defense, the "invisible tags" threw me off. For example, here, the orphan tag is clearly visible after it was added and here, it isnt (even though the tag does exist in the source code). Any idea why that is happening? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 14:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible case of COI at page Mirtazapine

Requesting full page protection of the Wikipedia page Mirtazapine and also requesting investigating possible case of COI in the edits of the page by user Jytdog. I have nothing personal against the editor but given his recent vandalism like edits and his history I have strong reason to suspect a biased POV or COI is in play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.155.168 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've re-applied semi-protection to the article (which recently expired not too long ago) due to continued repeated and persistent addition of unreferenced or poorly referenced content per WP:RSMED. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers! 112.79.155.168 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Vicente Guerrero's birth date

Vicente Guerrero was baptized on August 10. In those days, babies were baptized days later. Historians believe he was born on Aug 9, and named after Saint Ramón. The priest may have written Román instead of Ramón.

Ref. Vicente Guerrero, El Consumador (Herminio Cávez Guerrero, 1971) Also Wikipedia in Spanish.

Kind regards Rodulfo Araujo

Urgent Help needed - User is reverting my edits, believing he is correct, and claiming I am edit warring

Hey, I need you to step in right now, because a user is believing I am not correct with an edit I did to an article. The user, Davey2010, is reverting my edits with a reason that is totally rubbish. He wants to send the matter to the talk page, but logic dictates that this is pointless. Allow me to reveal to you the message I wrote on his talk page about this:

"Hi. Please understand that I cannot agree to your reasoning for reverting my edits to Rogue Traders (TV series), because there is a serious issue here that you are not understanding, so allow me to explain.

The episode list should be focused on the show's run between 2001 - 2009, when it was an independant programme and not a part of BBC's Watchdog, after the latter was revamped with a new set up. When Rogue Traders was merged to Watchdog, the programme ceased to be nothing more than a multi-part segment of Watchdog. As such, the Episode List as it is, is not only incorrectly set out, it does not correlate with the programme during its independent run on BBC 1. Keeping it on and saying "as no episodes are on the actual Rogue Traders website meaning the pre-watchdog eps may have just been put on the Watchdog website" is not a good reason at all. What is there must be deleted; the only episodes that should be there are those from the 2001-2009 run, not during the Watchdog era; those ones are films for the Rogue Trader segment, not of the programme itself.

I will revert again, but if I see you revert this one more time, I will refer the matter to another. I will not agree to your reasoning on this, but it is incorrect."

He obviously didn't read the message I sent him, and instead just went on to revert the edit after I reverted his reversion. I logically looked over the information and noted that the episode list referred to films that were made for Watchdog for the Rogue Trader segments; the two programmes were merged together, with Rogue Traders regulated into a segment section of Watchdog. Thus, when the merge occurred, the programme of Rogue Traders ceased to be an independent programme. I need you to step in here and determine who is right with there editing.

P.S. the user has decided to put me up for Edit Warring, when he shouldn't have, because he is involved in the matter as well.GUtt01 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Oshwah: Of course, you protected the wrong version. I was about to revert to status quo ante. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yarr! Thar be no such thing as te right version! Not with ye gold lock! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - See the response I made at the edit warring report. I saved you both from getting clunked with the mop (lol); can you two try and work things out while editing the article isn't an option (for two days)? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I just hope he realises the logical sense of my reasoning - you can't put up an episode list consisting of episodes after a programme ceases to be, even if they are for films used in another programme that is has been merged to.GUtt01 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - Just go about the matter peacefully and keep your responses respectful and polite. Remember that Wikipedia is not about winning; it's about working together as a team to find the correct, right, or best solution for the issue at-hand. I'm sure you both will do just fine. Good luck, and I'm here should anyone have questions :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

{ping|Oshwah}} Matter is resolved. I wrote up something on the Edit Dispute, on the article's talk page, and just found this response:

"I'm so sorry!, I've only just twigged what you meant - The Rogue Traders ended in 2010 so therefore this list is incorrect, unfortunately I couldn't really understand you which didn't help but regardless this was my error entirely and so I sincerely apologise for it, Thanks, –Davey2010"

It seems, from this, he misunderstood what I was meaning with my reasoning. Glad he finally understood. I would have hated this to carry on into further arguments over something that was simple to understand. Phew.... Hopefully, that other user, Chris Troutman (who you used Pirate talk with, which I admit, made me laugh, cause I didn't expect that XD), understands the reasoning too. GUtt01 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait. GUtt01, Davey2010 - Awesome! So the matter is resolved? I can remove the full protection on the article? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep all resolved - I was simply blind and failed to look at the article properly so my fault entirely, Yep it can be unprotected :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Heyyy! That's excellent! Cool deal -  Done. I'm glad you both managed to figure things out and walk out happy and at peace at one another. Next time, make sure to ask one another for clarity before letting things escalate as it did here. You both were at one another just a bit ago, and I (fortunately) closed the AN3 before another admin did - else that woulda sucked for you both. Anyways, glad all is well :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood :), I will say in my defence I've had a seriously crap week and a lack of sleep certainly doesn't help and infact it's probably the main reason for the whole thing tbh, Anyway I know I clearly had God on my side today! , Happy editing! (and thanks for saving the day!) :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Davey2010 - Always happy to do it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

JuiianPema sock accounts

Oshwah I should let you know that JuiianPema has two more accounts and jumps between them to edit. They're Juiianpe1 and JuiianPe. Nuobgu (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nuobgu - See the response I made to you on your discussion at WP:ANI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Beyhadh

Hi In Beyhadh Wiki please update Piyush Sahdev as the Negative lead and I have sources that confirm so please update the page and protect it from vandalism Anu1999 (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

http://m.abplive.in/television/beyhadh-devon-ke-dev-actor-to-make-huge-entry-post-leap-507391

Please use this reference for Piyush Anu1999 (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please reply back

Anu1999 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Getting vandalism alerts despite not editing articles.

Hello, I was surprised to see an alert about editing an article that I didn't edit, specifically the one about Gladmar, Saskatchewan. I think this is probably because I'm on a mobile data connection. Is there any way to stop receiving these alerts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.132 (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 207.164.79.132: The best way to stop receiving these alerts is to register a username. That way, you won't be sharing your identity with ill-behaved strangers. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Getting vandalism alerts on my article

Hi Oshwah, about the message you left on my user talk page. The article I am accused of violating is a mere translation of the one on the bg.wiki page. It stood open for discussion on the en.wiki talk page for a week and nobody commented or objected on it. You can see it for yourself here. I would not call it unsourced or poorly sourced because all submitted sources are from the official annuals of the Bulgarian Football Union. On the other hand, the sources submitted by the user rebelheartous are from a site known for its bias and dubious interpretations. It is written by fans who are not impartial regarding the matter therefore not trustworthy. There is still an ongoing discussion here which is far from over. I see the user rebelhaertous as the real violator here. He led an unsuccessful editors’ war https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0:%D0%9F%D0%A4%D0%9A_%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5_(%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0) and he is not allowed to violate the article on the bg.wiki page anymore. Recently, he even tryed to reignate the war on the bg.wiki talk page but he is not getting the attention he wants anymore. It would be odd to have two different articles on the same subject, don’t you think. Best regards Okalinov (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sean Spicer protection

Hi, Oshwah! A few days ago you responded to an RFPP request for additional protection for Sean Spicer, adding extended-confirmed protection for three days. The article was already under long-term semi-protection. When the EC protection expired today, the semi didn't kick back in, and there was immediately a vandalism edit. Did you mean to remove the underlying semi protection, or was that an artifact of the system? I intend to keep an eye on the article and put semi back in if needed, but I thought I would ask if it was actually your intention to remove it. (There had already been a suggestion at the talk page suggesting that the existing semi-protection, which was until 2022 if you can believe that, might be dropped after he is no longer press secretary.) Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN! I just increased the protection to extended confirmed at the time. If the underlying semi-protection also expired, it was the system that did so; I didn't manually remove it. I've been keeping my eye on the article (as are other people), and if vandalism or disruption continued at a high rate of speed, I was going to throw on the lowest protection necessary to stop it (whether it be semi, extended, whatever). Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. It's good to run into you again. Hope your day is going well :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It certainly isn't going to need 5 years' worth of protection in any case. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Varying levels of edit protection (semi, EC, full) cannot be on a page concurrently. Extended-confirmed-protecting Sean Spicer overwrote the semi-protection that was already in place. —MRD2014 23:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Basking Ridge

Basking Ridge, New Jersey

Hi. As I said in the note, the company is actually World Media Group, LLC, not "Lawyer.com". http://worldmediagroupllc.com/ . If you think it belongs on the page, that's fine, but shouldn't it be under the company's actual name?2601:401:503:62B0:305F:B3B4:1EBB:E24 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Westervelt Cameron House

I am trying to update the description of the Westervelt Cameron House.... Not sure why you found this description to not be helpful?

This outstanding property is centrally located in the Village of Ridgewood, Bergen County, New Jersey. Situated less than a mile away from the town center and public transportation to New York City, the Westervelt-Cameron House, is Northern New Jersey's most sustainable, historic home. This estate was built ca. 1767 by the Westervelt family and later expanded ca. 1800's by the Cameron dynasty. Added to the National Register of Historic Places on January 10, 1983, Eco Ed Schwartz spent 3 years, from 2006 to 2008, meticulously restoring, renovating and expanding this home.

Custom designed under the guidance of a Feng Shui master, this home offers an exquisite combination of luxury comforts with sustainable features while keeping its historical charm and character.

This is the most historic and sustainable home in NJ PLUS people need to know that you can have a home built in the 1700's that can be sustainable and comfortable!

Hey, you around?...

Not sure Genius is getting the point. Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink! Joy... I'll keep an eye on the account. Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that's gone on far enough. Talk page access revoked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Another thing I was thinking....perhaps not a first-timer to the WP-Vandalizing Rodeo. Shearonink (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink - It's possible. I'd need to see evidence before I go diving though. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know...it's just kind of a thing that makes you go "hmmmmm..." Shearonink (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink - Always ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Man, I just took a look at the user's talk page. I can't believe they thought they were being clever at trying to change a message on their unblock request to suggest it had been accepted. I mean, when they did it the second time, they made certain it said it was accepted, but failed to remove the message saying it had been declined. Not very bright, and not very smart in my opinion, to try to think they could get around the block put on them. Nice work putting a stop to that - if you get blocked and you're request is declined, you don't suddenly fool people into believing that was not the case. GUtt01 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation

You have just undone an edit of mine, making the false accusation that it was not explained. It was explained in the edit summary, and even if it hadn't been, it would still have been a clearly necessary improvement to the article. This is the second time I've encountered you reverting my edits without a good reason. I see this huge message at the top of your page promising to treat people with respect. Undoing people's work out of sheer carelessness is not respectful. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was my mistake and I apologize. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. I'll be happy to assist. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Same editor as 112.198.71.125, whom you already blocked

Can you block these IPs: They seem to jump around a lot...

112.198.102.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 112.198.102.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 112.198.102.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks. 180.183.86.173 (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The IPs have been range blocked. Should be all taken care of :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Was just about to say that 112.198.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) had been range blocked. Thanks, anyway... 180.183.86.173 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Grim95O

Grim95O (talk · contribs)

Just curious,

But what was your rationale behind your 31 hour block of this user? As far as I can tell, this user's only edits indicate WP:NOTHERE, and I would have expected them to be blocked as a VOA. Cheers. 82.42.229.131 (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I accidentally clicked wrong and didn't apply the "indefinite" duration and applied the block without realizing it.  Fixed - thanks for letting me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do you block my students?

Why do you block my students? They contribute here fully following the policies and supervised by me. They never violated Wikipedia's policy. Alexios Strategopoulos (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Oshwah, I don't think you called this one correctly. Obviously I have a dog in the fight at SoWhy's RfB being co-nominator, but TRM is absolutely on-point when he says that SoWhy is allowed to have a life outside Wikipedia and is allowed some reasonable latitude in when he can get to answer questions. As you can see from the preamble to this, the timing of the nomination was largely down to when Dweller could get online, which he is finding difficult owing to off-wiki problems. Telling BU Rob13 to just chill for a bit is not insulting, nor is it belittling. I don't know if you've got kids, Oshwah, but mine absolutely come before Wikipedia without hesitation; I would love to sit down and bash out about 10 GAs in the next fortnight, but it's not worth the neglect my family will get out of it. Having a life outside Wikipedia is important. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - The feedback and responses left on The Rambling Man's talk page agree as well. Sigh... it appears that I may have. I think the best thing to do is to apologize and shake hands with those who I frustrated, take the feedback and input to heart, learn from this, leave it, and move on. I always try my best to do the right thing and keep the community's best interest as the basis for my actions, but as you can see... I'm far from perfect. I appreciate your message, your input, and your feedback. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely loved both of those posts, Ritchie and Oshwah. Huge kudos to you both. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dweller - Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That was good of you, too. NB you're obliquely referred to (not by name) here. Doubly worth mentioning because it's possible that you may have a valuable insight to give there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

In reference to the warning sent on "Laurel Castillo" page.

Uh, in reference to the warning sent earlier today for editing "Laurel Castillo" page, i just wanted to say i'm new here and, had some trouble navigating and getting used to it. It wasn't intentional and i wasn't aware that it constitutes vandalism. Hope that clears it up. Nikk001 (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nikk001, and welcome to Wikipedia. Of course; we were all new here at one point ;-). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. If you need to do any sort of testing, use the sandbox to do so, as it won't make changes to any articles that are live. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Vikram Vedha (film) plot summary

Hi Oswah, I have written a plot summary for Vikram Vedha but it keeps getting truncated down to 4-6 lines by nameless (IP address only) people - not constructive edits ... Your help please in (preemptively) blocking potential vandalism.. Thanks!

Frisco danconia (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access?

Hello, I noticed User:International Security Agency Services is misusing his talk page. I restored your revision, but it appears s/he made five different revisions. Can you consider revoking his talk page access?

Thanks,

Ups and Downs (↕) 17:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, can you turn on autoblock? He appears to be doing anonymous editing as well. Ups and Downs (↕) 17:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat

Based on their other edits, some of which I've reverted, likely just vandalism, but better safe than sorry. See [6]. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Amaury - Thanks. I've rev del'd the edit summary. Can you email this to the emergency team for me? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I just blocked the IP. But as I see you are on it, I will step back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - Nah, no worries at all. You did what I was about to do. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If you need someone to notify WP911 I can handle it. I just don't want to flood them with the same report. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - Go for it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, AO! Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how. First time I've come across something like this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Amaury - Well, there's a first time for everything, right :-)? The thing you want to take from this is this: if you see someone posting anything resembling a threat of harm (either to one's self, or another person), report it to the emergency team. Even if it surely a vandal or a troll, we treat them all the same. We're neither trained nor qualified to make that determination, so report each instance... as much as a drag as it can be :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course. So just write a brief summary like I did here and let them handle the rest? Is that correct? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Easiest thing to do is to send it to the address specified, put "threat of harm" in the subject heading and then just write see (link to diff) in the text and sign your name or user name. You can add a few words if you like. They will take it from there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Escape the Night

I see that you have locked the page. I approve, but I would like to request that you restore the Season 2 progress chart, which has mysteriously disappeared. 71.206.172.121 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Make an edit request on the article's talk page here and I'll take a look at it :-). I just need an official request in order to make sure that my edits are not viewed as favoring a certain side or viewpoint over the situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Edit request has been sent. 71.206.172.121 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! Someone will review your request and respond to it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Need your opinion on layout of Infobox for article, The Lego Movie

There's a bit of discussion going on in regards to the layout of certain information in this article, mainly within it's infobox. Wikipedians have constantly changed from one version to another and back again, and its getting ridiculous. The two version are as follows:

1.
Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

2.

• Phil Lord
• Christopher Miller

I am more in favour of the second version, because it separates these two names; I'm wondering if this is what infoboxs on films is meant to be set out like, and not the format in the first version. In any case, there is a user I found who seems not to be willing to discuss this on the article's talk page. Joeymiskulin has reverted this to the first version three times without going to the debate on this matter in the talk page. His edit summaries raise questions on his behaviour. His first puzzles me:

"GUtt01 told me that no one must revert this again but I'm reverting this unacceptable thing for good and no disastrous train wrecks! I warned him!!!!!"

I have never told him personally about not reverting this, not even on his talk page, nor have I been warned by him, not even on my talk page. He also seem rather aggressive with this; disastrous train wrecks is quite strong a word, when in reality, the constant changing between the two versions is getting ridiculous. His other two edit summaries were:

"Stop reverting the thing, I am serious!"

"This is not to be reverted so that is not under discussion, but it will to be reverted!"

Quite frankly, I'm concerned that the user might begin an editing dispute. Therefore I need you to look into this and provide input on the matter. It's necessary to determine this; if the user won't listen to the reason of viewing the talk page and provide their opinion on the matter, then a third party has got to be involved before it starts an edit war.GUtt01 (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The user has reverted the infobox to first version again. I've reverted back, but I need you to intervene ASAP, before this becomes an editing dispute. The user needs to discuss this over on Talk Page; he isn't and simply is reverting back now. I think it's a joke that he Thanked me for a previous edit on that article in regards to a different section, if he is reverting the infobox layout without discussing it. There is a need for discussion on the matter, no matter what he thinks. Please step in, before he starts an edit war.GUtt01 (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

He's not going to revert this no more, but his attitude when he stated this is not quite... desirable. I don't like to make someone mad, just because they wouldn't see reason to discuss this.GUtt01 (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi GUtt01! Sorry for the delay responding to your request for assistance. Do you still need my input and help on this article? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's fine now. If you look to my last response, the user stopped reverting the layout, although their response is not really... something I wanted them to feel like. Yet, in any case, I wouldn't mind you investigating the layout matter above, if you could please. GUtt01 (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - Ah, I understand your previous response now. Sure, I can take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - The only question I have with the infobox involves this edit for example. The directors, etc that are being added back... are there references supporting this information? Other than that, I don't see any problems that stick out at first glance :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I suspect that some Wikipedians should have done so in the first place. Other than that, you see no issue at all between the two layouts?GUtt01 (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 - The layouts themselves? No, I see no issue. However, I'm not an "infobox professional"... lol. The infobox as it is now seems formatted okay; it renders and displays just fine - unless you were referring to other concerns with the content that's inside of it maybe? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I just couldn't understand why some Wikipedians switched it back and forth between the layouts, which is why I stepped in and put a stop to it by stating how it needed to be debated, because of how ridiculous it was. Besides, I prefer the second version because it separates these two people; I don't believe that any other infobox on films puts two people together in this style, as I believe that the respective individuals for each role need to be kept separate in film infoboxs. Did you know that the two directors have a shared article page that has some slight issues in it?GUtt01 (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The possible reason may be that the content added to the infobox wasn't referenced. I did notice the article Phil Lord and Christopher Miller and I also thought that an article about two different people was strange; I don't think I've ever seen that before. Usually people who aren't notable for their own article are merged with a different article title (like a company, event, etc) - but definitely not combined or merged with an article another person... I'll take a look at that. I definitely believe you; I'm sure it has numerous issues :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Indeed. I mean, the only time I would suspect an article should talk about two people together is when they have worked together on the same thing, such as a comedy duo (like Stanley and Hardy, for example). In such an article, their should be separate pages for each person, where their personal life and background are discussed, and the page on both detailing the work they did together on various projects. Happy to see you wish to look into this.GUtt01 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I added a comment to the article's talk page here. Someone has already asked about why there's one article about two different people and suggested splitting them into separate ones. I agree that this should be done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

NealeFamily's request at WP:ANI

Just a quick note — the reason NealeFamily couldn't create Sir Charles Forbes was this. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Yup, that would do it! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Javi Manquillo and Nathan Tyson

Sorry I left my computer logged on and these edits were not me?!

Battle of the Hydaspes - Just checked this

Hey, did you know the reversion you did of an IP's edit on Battle of the Hydaspes, was reverted by them? Apparently they stated this in their edit summary: "I have restored my edits and spoken in the Talk and I am open to instructions to improve the language further to create a more neutral tone".

You think they were right to do that, when you reverted their edits for not maintaining a neutral tone?GUtt01 (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I'll let it stand. If no one else has an objection then I'll leave it be for now :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Check out the tone in the main article itself. There is no degradation or over-patronizing of either the Indian Side or Greek Side. Only extra parts have been added and improved. The original article is the one that has no neutral tone, with almost overwhelming representation of Greeks slaughtering Indians back to back with zero mention of important casualities on Greek Side or the proper results of the war or the atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.97.45.62 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Article on Ted Kaczynski

There was a minor semantic change and a large content removal made as per this diff. The semantic change is not in line with the citation and sounds like original research to me. The content removal is unwarranted. The editor claimed in the edit summary that a "normal" article wouldn't include citations by others about the subject. I don't believe there is any policy supporting that contention. I've start a discussion at the article's talk page. I'm not sure how to follow up with this one. I doubt he's gonna roll over on my say-so. How can we preserve the article's content?  — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 21:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Huggle keeps crashing

Hi,

I've noticed that Huggle is occasionally for some reason unable to display the history of a page, and sometimes Huggle crashes when this happens (it's happened to me several times). I've only noticed this after upgrading to 3.20. I think it might have something to do with the Editbar (what's that used for anyway?), as I think it's only been happening since I enabled it. Has this ever happened to you? Could this be a bug, or is there something wrong with my computer? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

query wrt changes to xim page

Hi,

There were some changes i made to the XIM page as i thought it removed the misleading details. However, the same are getting restored everytime. May I ask you if there is a reason behind this ? I am associated with the institute and would not like misleading details to be present on the page.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.32.213 (talk • contribs)

Hi there, and thank you for leaving a message here with your questions and concerns. Sorry, but editing a page where you have a conflict of interest is a behavior that's not encouraged by the community. This is due to the inability for those users to maintain a neutral point of view with their edits. Any content added can also be cited as original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia articles. Original research is content that's referenced off an editors personal experience, relationships, findings, and references (even if its published). You can also call it "citing yourself". This is not allowed because such content cannot be verified for authenticity or accuracy. If the article contains content that is unreferenced and controversial or negative, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks again for the message, and I hope I've answered your questions :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

CSD of impersonation pages

Hey Oshwah,

Just a heads-up: some of the impersonation accounts which serve no useful redirect purpose were missed out in the MfD nomination re the SGK socks so I've speedied them. I don't envisage any protest but I thought I'd let you know.

Thanks :) - DrStrauss talk 20:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh joy. Thanks for the heads up. Will keep an eye out :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion

This latest IP edit and summary should probably be removed from public view due to potentially exposing personal information. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)