You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from May 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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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.
Hi Unmatched777 - These errors are showing up because it looks like you are pointing at (what is supposed to be) previously cited references by name using (for example) <ref name="BPI"/>, but you never actually defined that reference first. For me to help you fix that issue, we're fist going to have to use references that are not search results, but links to actual web pages (since searches can change, disappear, etc.) - do you have the links to the actual web pages that you're referencing? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Mark Tully personal life insert
Why did you remove the reference in the BBC article to Mark Tully's UK wife and Delhi partner?
It is clearly appropriate to be included under "Personal Life".
I am replacing your changes. I think you may be from India or biased in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.1.85 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! Ah, it looks like you added your changes using more than one reference. So long as it's sourced, that's completely fine by me. That's what truly matters - just make sure that you strictly follow Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. Thanks for the message :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
CHST article
I used to work at CHST-FM in London, Ontario as a promotions representative. I was just messing around on here and noticed that I could add some new information. http://www.jack1023.com/shows/ here's a link to all of the current DJs, I thought it would be cool if they were included!
Hi there, and thanks for leaving me a message! Sorry, but adding information to an article based on your personal knowledge or relationship with the article subject constitutes original research, which is not allowed in any Wikipedia articles or content. This is due to the fact that there is no way to verify the information added. Please review this policy, and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi!
Just wanted to say hi, Oshwah. ~ Rob13Talk 02:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Oshwah, does Special:Contributions/Wiki Cell look like a sock you know? It's kinda suspicious that they're already getting into AfD and using what seem to be, at a glance, good AfD arguments. I realize this could simply be an IP who recently created an account, but it's still suspicious. —Gestrid (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Chris "WarMachineWildThing": Mind pointing me to their master account? You can use {{noping}} to avoid pinging them here. That way, I can look for evidence and file an SPI. —Gestrid (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I saw. Thanks. I've been undoing an IP vandal on Oshwah's talk page that he blocked. The block expired and they went right back to vandalizing. —Gestrid (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is that, in my experience, most IP editors just give up after their first or (sometimes) second block. According to [the block log], this will be their third block. —Gestrid (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I know what ya mean. Kinda like my stalker, year and a half and their still at it. Nothing surprises me anymore, that's why I was being sarcastic, sorry. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"Talk to me 10:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if vandals ever get tired of vandalizing. —Gestrid (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi WarMachineWildThing and Gestrid - Sorry for the late reply to this thread. Has this been taken care of, or is my assistance still needed? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this[1]. While it is true that this particular disruption has only been happening for a day, Atkinson is a major referee in the EPL and as such a constant target for vandalism from upset fans. I would like to make a case for permanent pending changes at this page. Games are weekly and for a defined season so the disruption usually follows this pattern, hence why you only saw a day instead of the much more regular long term that I see. Much of it is relatively minor, but can be hard to pick up for the common vandal fighter (i.e. changing his place of birth to that of a team that he has referred). Sometimes it can be quite nasty though. I watch most referees pages and Atkinson is one of the more high profile and a therefore a common target. Also as a precedent many NFL referees (including all current ones) have indefinite permanent pending changes applied and they are relatively less vandalised. AIRcorn(talk) 10:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Aircorn - Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns. It appeared that the people disrupting the article were simply there to troll (I don't think it mattered which article that they were doing it to), which is why I gave it a short protection length - to encourage them to move on. It appears that it's all that the article needed, as they haven't returned since. However, if you do notice disruption return to the article, and believe that protection is needed, let me know and I'll take a look. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that they were randomly targeting this article. The usual pattern is that after a game those on the losing side are unhappy with the referee (because it is always the referees fault when your team loses) so they come onto wikipedia and vandalise their article. Semi protecting works somewhat as the next week there is another game and referee to complain about. What I am looking for is a more permanent solution to my watchlist being clogged up on the weekends. I think pending changes will work somewhat in this regard. I think I will take this somewhere else though as ultimately I would like all the currently active and referees of prominent tournaments under pending changes protection and that will need to go to a noticeboard. AIRcorn(talk) 05:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Per your recent block on 175.136.226.204, the user seems return again using a new IP (121.122.75.166) and leaving a personal attack message on my user talk page. Can you block the latest too? The user seems very stubborn as there is no ending with his childish behaviour resulting from his lack of competence and understanding. I just check the main article he previously frequently targeting and tag a numbers of IPs I found from the main account which seems there is a real connection between the IPs based from my suspicion on their similar behaviour. I hope you can take some action to this user and if he still attacking my user talk page, would you mind to give a semi-protection for at least a month and see after that if he still doing the same things again? Many thanks. Night Lantern (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This has been on hold for three days now. Would you take a look, please? :-) Katietalk 14:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Just Chilling, KrakatoaKatie: I took a look at the ticket, responded, and referred it back to Just Chilling (the reviewing admin). Let me know if any of you have more questions. I'm not proficient with UTRS, so please forgive me if I dun goof'd something :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Trying To Update The WAUF-LP Auburn Alabama Page
When I type in WAUF minus the LP, it brings back the old page that's no longer in use. I made some changes to the page, because their web site has been updated and the 96.3 FM Translator they were using is no longer broadcasting their program. I took off the logo, because of that change too. When I refresh the page, the changes will be seen. I was wondering if you could see about this issue and resolve it. Want to give your readers the latest info, on that LP station in Auburn. I know I've been doing some major updating, as of late, on here. Most of the info I've been providing is from the fccdata.org, radio-locator, Alabama Broadcast Media Page, Radio Insight and various other web sites, that pertain the to stations in question. This includes the WNWW updated info, I wanted to add to your site. I enjoy reading the site. Want to keep updating some, if you and the editors don't mind. Not trying to be a spammer on purpose. Want to give your readers the most accurate info, I can get for some of these radio stations, you have on here. If you want, I give you permission to create a page for WPJB-LP, 93.3 FM, Selma Alabama, Jesus Radio. This new radio station is catering to Christian Variety Hits and has 95 watts of power. Love the site. It rocks. My name is Dan Presley, the editor of some your info and owner of this new LPFM radio station in Selma and I approve this message.
I found an issue going on with the article The Lego Ninjago Movie - someone has been repeatedly editing this article and putting in unsourced material, and have done so under multiple IPs. I had a check over the article's history logs, as seen here, and it seems that at first they added in a small amount, but when their edit was reverted to a previous version, they put it back in with additions, but no citations to source their input, before putting in their edit summary that the user who reverted them was a "cyberbully". It seems after this, as different IP users, they became aggressive in their edit summaries when returning the unsourced material:
"If someone does this AGAIN, I'm gonna kill them!!! I'm not playing idiots!!"
"You better not do this AGAIN or else your gonna get killed!!"
"Im gonna kill you!!!"
I like to ask if you could keep a close eye on this article, and keep a watchful eye out for this IP hopping user. I have a feeling that if he doesn't stop being disruptive and showing good behavior, that the article may have to go into semi-protection to put a stop to this issue. What do you think? GUtt01 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I spotted a sock vandalizing Oshwah's talk page a couple days ago, and they seemed interested in that topic. Could you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Percy7875 to see if it's the same person? I suggest requesting a CU at SPI to check for more accounts. Socking one time is not AGF territory. Socking twice is when AGF goes out the window. —Gestrid (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Gestrid: I checked that SPI you showed me, and I can't say for certain that it is the same person. GUtt01 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: Ok. I figured that was the case since the user the SPI is on didn't leave any edit summaries, but I figured I should bring it up just in case. I couldn't take an in-depth look at the user since I was on mobile, but I did look at the history of the page (just the history page, not any diffs) and figured it was enough to request WP:RFPP for persistent disruptive editing. As you can see, they semied the page for one month for persistent vandalism. —Gestrid (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Martin Sellner(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to be undergoing whitewashing attempts. Not sure if all the information is DUE. Would you please check? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jim1138 - Looks like things have calmed down, but I'll keep an eye on it. If things pick back up, let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
protection request
Hi - could you protect the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States page again? Your previous protection expired a few days ago and someone started vandalizing it again earlier today. Seems to be a chronic problem on that page. Neow (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Neow: Hi, this is GUtt01, and I took a look over this matter. It looks like the page is definitely suffering from vandalism again, possibly even persistent disruptive editing. I would suggest, in my opinion, that you put this page up for WP:RFPP ASAP, and that it be locked for longer this time, regardless of what level of protection is placed on it. Just note that this is a suggestion; you should keep an eye on the page for the moment, and if the editing of the page continues to be disruptive/vandalism, them put it up for recommendation for protection. GUtt01 (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Neow - Echoing what GUtt01 said above, it looks like the vandalism has stopped on this article (there are no edits to the article as of April 30). If disruption continues, and it's only by one (maybe two) people, report them to AIV. If it grows to more than this many people and at the same time, or if it starts occurring at an extremely high rate, let me know or file a request at WP:RFPP. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI, yesterday there was some more vandalism, and shortly after it was reverted, someone protected the page for 3 months, so all's well for now. Neow (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This account cause by following multiple reasons: crosswiki abuse, vandalism-only account, and long-term abuse. Thank you. - Rama Ybrahim (Talk) 14:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Rama Ybrahim: Done Various admins (mainly Widr) have blocked the accounts on English Wikipedia. If you want the accounts globally locked, I suggest you file a report here. Oshwah isn't a Steward, so he unfortunately can't block the accounts from editing on other wikis. —Gestrid (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I am starting to participate in AfD, and I feel like my constant delete !votes will make me look like a deletionist. I don't always want to vote "Delete", but there are some really bad articles out there which shouldn't be kept. I don't want to be a deletionist, so can I have some tips to prevent that? Thanks XboxGamer22408talk to me 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi XboxGamer22408! Thanks for leaving me a message with your question! In a nutshell (for most articles you'll see at AFD): You'll perform a search for reliable sources that are available (not what is currently in the article), and then use Wikipedia's notability guidelines to determine if notability is met and whether the article should be kept or deleted. Comments that users add to an AFD are done well if they refer to Wikipedia's various notability guidelines, and about things (with rare exceptions) that don't involve the article itself. You'll also know that someone made a good AFD nomination if the creator were to message and ask them, "what can I do to save the article from AFD?" and the response in return is, "Nothing" (in general). Echoing KGirlTrucker81, it's very important that you read WP:BEFORE, get any questions answered, and have a good understanding of everything in that section before you begin participating in AFD discussions. I'm available at any time if you run into any more questions - please don't hesitate to ask them here. Cheers! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Username question
Hi Oshwah! I'm back on Wikipedia after a six-week break and while I was on my break I thought about UAA quite often, since I often clean up the holding pen there etc., and my mind was going crazy with hypothetical usernames one might see at UAA that may not be blatant vios but may need looking at (as in the UAA questions at RfA). Here are some that I came up with:
My Point of View edits
The shoepuppet account
Not admin coordinator bureaucrat checkuser developer moderator oversight steward sysop committee or staff
Justin Bieber's Boyfriend
ANI user
{{g10}}
Unsourced, unexplained, or vandalism
Reverted edits by Donald Trump to last revision by Barack Obama
Monica Lewinsky stuff all day every day! WOOO
😵
Jag kommer att strypa vandalerna
Ошуа
If you saw those usernames at UAA (and none of the users had edited), what would you do? Linguisttalk|contribs 01:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Leave the lot for other admins to deal with! :-) --NeilNtalk to me 01:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Linguist111! These are some very good usernames that you came up with! I'll be happy to answer them and tell you what I would do:
My Point of View edits: Not a blatant violation, but worth talking to the editor about (mostly with NPOV). Maybe watch edits just in case.
The shoepuppet account: This would most likely be an LTA account (I see these all the damn time from LTA's) - but if you want to err on the side of caution (as we all should), wait till the user edits.
Not admin coordinator bureaucrat checkuser developer moderator oversight steward sysop committee or staff: Usernames can't be that long, but it would be blocked as a
Justin Bieber's Boyfriend: This is potentially libelous! I would immediately block the account, rev del and all logs, and bring the user to an OS's attention to be suppressed.
ANI user: This smells like a sock puppet account. Watch and see what the user does as far as editing.
{{g10}}: Same as above.
Unsourced, unexplained, or vandalism: Same as above.
Reverted edits by Donald Trump to last revision by Barack Obama: This also smells like an LTA account, but watch their edits and go from there.
Monica Lewinsky stuff all day every day! WOOO: Seems like a troll account, but it doesn't look like a UPOL in itself. Watch the user's edits.
😵: There is debate over whether these emoji usernames are appropriate, and I don't believe that consensus has been reached. Because of this, I'd allow.
Jag kommer att strypa vandalerna: Not an UPOL violation in itself.
Ошуа: Not sure what this translates into, but I'd make sure its translation isn't a UPOL, and then go from there.
Let me know if you have questions about any of my answers. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi thanks for taking the time to answer. About Ошуа, transliterated into Latin it would be similar to your username (О = O, Ш = SH, УА = Wa(h)).
Now, as someone who is at UAA a lot (cleaning out holding pen, reporting usernames), it would be good if you could come up with some hypothetical usernames for me, that I might see at UAA or Special:Log/newusers, so I could say what sanctions I would recommend, and whether I would report them or not. Linguisttalk|contribs 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Linguist111 - Sure, are you looking for typical ones I'd run into? Or are you looking for me to throw some curveballs? Where do you want me to list them? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Some curveballs, please. I don't mind whether you list them here or on my talk page. Linguisttalk|contribs 22:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
TurnStyle Music Group is my company, and I was hoping to create a page for it. Assumed I needed to make an account beforehand, and just named it after the company. Please advise on how I should proceed.
For this block, Oshwah [6]. Can you rev/del the edits, too? They included a private street address. I've also asked for page protection. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't yet think we need to protect this. As it happens that video, where his DNA is tested, made the rounds on Facebook yesterday or the day before. I did not know what he said about Rosa Parks until just now, and I am gracefully biting my tongue. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I declined the protection requesthere earlier. Only one user has caused disruption, which was blocked for edit warring, and no disruption has continued since. Protection isn't needed yet... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was looking at the edit history going back 3-4 days. Drmies, I'm happy to remain ignorant regarding anything and everything about him and what he's said. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Ned Kelly
Hello Oshwah, thanks for stepping in. While I do think I'm on the right side of this dispute, I acknowledge there's no excuse to edit war. I'm more than happy to join in on the discussion once it actually gets rolling, and if a consensus is reached that is at odds with my position, then I'll concede and move on. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
HappyWaldo - I appreciate your response, and I'm happy to see that you understand why I intervened and why the edit warring was disruptive. Remember that you can always report edit warring at AN3 and report other violations at ANI if needed -- but don't edit war. No matter how correct you may feel that your reversion is, if it's content-related and it doesn't fall into the exceptions, it's going to be seen as violating policy. Just be careful next time ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Ned Kelly Dispute
Hi Oshwah. Thanks for intervening in the Ned Kelly page. I had already taken the dispute to the talk page, and per WP:DR, first sort a compromise, and once that was not achieved, I escalated to the next level, to WP:3O. This was eventually actioned saying that the content should be added. I added the disputed content but the other editor did not accept it. There are no policy or style guide violations, but simply that the other editor just didn't like it and has ownership issues. I have tried adding images over the years onto the page, but they have been systematically removed, in favour of the images that he has added. I humbly ask that you further investigate the history of the page and reconsider the removal. Thank-you David.moreno72 10:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
David.moreno72 - Sure, I can take a look at the talk page discussion and provide input or mediate if needed. That's not a problem. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 12:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Oshwah. That would be great. Just for some background, this is not the first time we have 'locked horns' about the capture site and armour photos. See here The comment was 'why use image of (cheap looking) tourist exhibit'. Well that was what was there at the time. I don't pass judgement. Also, the area where the hotel was is just an empty plot of land with the occasional sheep to keep the grass down. Still, it's considered an important heritage site and is subject to protection. More recently, the '(cheap looking) tourist exhibit' has been removed and is now replaced with a more suitable monument. It may be small and perhaps unsightly, but it represents an important piece of Australian colonial history, and whenever I visit the site, there are always tourists in the area. Given that it is such a notable place, it deserves a photo of it's current state. With regards to the armour photo, the excuse given for it's removal is that 'images of steve hart and dan kelly's armour belong on their respective pages'. Well no. Yes there is a focus on Ned's armour, but the section does mention the armour of the other gang members. Also the photo features Ned's rifle (shown in the next photo at the SLV) and Ned's skull cap, which is also mentioned in the section. There is just no logical justification for it's removal. Given the editors previous history of edit warring on the Ned Kelly page, and the lack of any reasonable compromise of cooperation, not just with me, but with other editors, it would seem to tick all the boxes for ownership. The other editor has added about two dozen photos to the page, whereas I only have two on the page currently. I think I had at one stage about five or six photos, most of which have been removed by him. There are a number of photos which he has recently added that 'I don't agree' with, but I respect the Wikipedia process and other editors, but when I add photos, that respect is just not reciprocated. I even went to the trouble of going through the WP:DR process, and patiently waited for the 3rd party opinion. When that came though I was expecting the other editor to also respect the WP:DR process, so when they didn't, I made sure that I went through the process of reverting and warning. Given this current impasse, it would be great if you could provide input and mediation. To go though the entire process of WP:DR, over a just a couple of photos, in my opinion, is just ridiculous. I shouldn't need the 'permission' of an over zealous and uncompromising editor for what is a relatively uncontroversial edit. I look forward to your input. Kindest Regards. David.moreno72 14:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
David.moreno72, did this issue end up being resolved? I apologize; I became busy with work and real life and might have fallen off the wagon here... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I escalated it to an RfC, and it would seem that there is a consensus to add the image. Are you able to close the RfC. Cheers David.moreno72 00:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
There seem to have been a few inappropriate reverts, warnings, and lack of communication. It appears to me that Garnhami is making a number of good contributions.
Garnhami Made a few editing mistakes 12 which were reverted by David.moreno72 12 and warnings given 12 These might have been more easiliy resolved by advising Garnhami with a WP:IMAGES link. But otherwise were correct.
Garnhami then asked about it here which was reverted here with a inappropriate warning here.
Garnhami then correctly added a link here. This was incorrectly reverted by David.moreno72 here and a fourth level warning added here. I restored Garnhami's constructive edit here.
I left a message here which was not answered. Given David.moreno72's lack of a reply, I am bring this to you, Oshawah.
Garnhami's talk indicates a rather big upset here. I apologized to Garnhami here. I had also had other conversations with Garnhami about how to properly add the link. I noticed that Garnhami had figured out the problem before I messaged him.
I see David.moreno72's handling of Garnhami's as not-wp:AFG and wp:BITE. David.moreno72 could have pointed Garnhami to WP:IMAGE at the least. I realize that RCP can be aggravating. I would expect that David.moreno72 could have at least apologized. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks like David.moreno72 has since removed the templated warnings he left and apologized to Garnhami, which I highly respect him for doing - it's not always easy to own up and apologize for mistakes, and it's certainly not fun. We all make mistakes; that's not a big deal at all... how we learn from them is what's truly important.
David.moreno72 - Just make sure that what you're reverting and warning users for on Huggle is really what you intend to do. If you're like me, I can plow through the Huggle queue very quickly. I occasionally (even to this day) have to remember to check myself and make sure that I don't go too fast - make sure you do the same as well. Huggle makes it easy to flip through edits and very fast - that can naturally be seen as a double edged-sword ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 12:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Here, here! —Gestrid (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
David.moreno72 Thank you. Especially for your apology. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I hate to add your various burdens, but I wonder if you could take a look at this page where a very new editor has rather 'gutted' the page (here) and removed various links and templates from the footer content also. I suspect there may be a COI but not sure. If they had not left a halfway reasonable ES I think I would have just undone it all. It's a bit more than disruptive in my view. I've left a welcome message at their TP pointing out the problems. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I took a look at the edit, and decided it's worth a revert. The explanation given (that it was "negative material") was clearly insufficient justification on BLP grounds, and the sourcing of that information looks pretty good. I've also watchlisted the page, so if this editor decides to war over it, we can take them to talk and try to squeeze a good explanation out of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 13:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Thanks. I'm afraid I was a little unsure of my ground! Eagleash (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I would have reverted that too. Aside from removing a bunch of content, needed templates, and page formatting -- the editor needs to explain his thoughts further on the article's talk page if this dispute is legitimate... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 13:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks
...for blocking the vandal with the long, long username. I appreciate the work you do. Dan D. Ric (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Oshwah, you said to contact you if the IP returned to edit Push (Bros album), and they have continued being disruptive and adding false information. I think the page's recent history should justify protection now. Ss112 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Ss112 - I just took a look and warned the IP for edit warring. I'll keep my eye on the article. Ping me again if things pick up again... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
RapidStrike - Ah, I'm sorry man! I mistook your edit as vandalism. Please accept my apologies and let me know if I can assist you with anything. Thanks for letting me know. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 19:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Re
Why not neutral? It is true and acknowledge on rationalwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.191.55 (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! My apologies if this is referenced elsewhere; I just saw this edit and was concerned that it may be reflecting a non-neutral view on the subject. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 19:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey! I was scouring the user creation log and I found a username that violates the username policy as it represents a living person with a Wikipedia article about them. The person's edits were in good faith and even constructive. What is the normal course of action here? (Since a direct block may dissuade them from editing again). I can disclose the name if you wish. Thanks in advance! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 22:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jiten Dhandha: It is generally ok, as long as they follow this: "If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person." If they are trying to impersonate somebody, then this applies: "Usernames that impersonate other people [are not allowed]". If the user shares the name of a notable but not well-known person, as long as they are not trying to impersonate them, then I believe that it is fine. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Jiten Dhandha - If it's an obviously famous person, or someone that's definitely notable and has an article (like "BarrackObama", or "BritneySpears"), then definitely report it. If it's something else, like a real name whose creating an article about themselves that seems plausible as far as notability goes, I tend to hold off. Either way, never hurts to report it if you legitimately believe that it's a UPOL violation :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I've reported the username to UAA. Best handled by those with more experience than me :) Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 22:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Reverting my edit
Sir, I am not vandalizing the girls gone wild article. I'm simply being more descriptive and it's entirely accurate in regards to the article I'm editing. If you can't handle these more descriptive, anatomical words, may I suggest taking the articles down describing these anatomical terms and actually shows pictures on there that would be deemed more inappropriate than a couple of words.
Push (Bros album)
The user whose edits you reverted is a sockpuppet/user responsible for vandalising several Bros articles over the last 6 months evading a block. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2a02:c7d:316f:6300:494b:d2f4:956f:e87. They keep adding bogus chart positions, certifications and sales figures to these pages. The 'references' they claim in their most-recent edits do not contain the information claimed, and wouldn't be considered reputable references for such figures if they did, as they are artist pages (I'm not sure what www.men.co.uk is, but I doubt it's related to Bros).Nqr9 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Nqr9. I have eyes on the article now, and I'll actively watch it for a bit. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Oswah - the source re closure of USAF bases in Thailand is in the article I linked in my edit, Mayaguez Incident. Please advise when you have restored my edits, tks. 68.56.244.2 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
Hi Oshwah, I don't think we have spoken before. How are you? It is a beautiful spring day here in Scotland. I had some content in my article Ettrick Bay removed by User:HappyWaldo. I have reverted it, but he is obviously peeved that I voted in the Ned Kelly RfC and taken action. I've warned him. I don't think it will do much. It is a brand new article as well. scope_creep (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
In the time he has been editing this, he is horsed the article. scope_creep (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed an image gallery and replaced it with a commons category per WP:IG ("Wikipedia is not an image repository") and MOS guidelines. It's a non-notable, generic looking bay, there is no need for a gallery. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Scope creep:@HappyWaldo: Okay, let me mediate here for the both of you, on this matter.
To Scope creep - It is a good idea to look at Wikipedia policies in regards to the use of images in an article, to make certain that they comply to them. If you are uncertain if they work well, talk to a Wikipedian here (not me, I'm not too well versed in the site's various Policies XP) and learn from them the best way to handle matters regarding images you wish to put in. Even if you are certain there is nothing wrong, it is a good idea to get a second opinion on the new article you created, just to be certain there are no issues, mistakes or problems with parts of it, or the whole article itself.
To HappyWaldo - If there is an issue with the images that Scope put up, discuss it with them reasonably, and inquire with others as to who is in the right on the matter; don't assume that you are. Just remember you came close to being blocked before; try to be reasonable with other Wikipedians and adopt a calm, civilised approach to issues you have with another Wikpedian's edits.
If the two of you approach this rationally, I'm sure that you can resolve this like respectable gentlemen. ;) GUtt01 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah. I just wanted to give you a head up before it gets into edit war territory that HappyWaldo is now suddenly disputing the number of victims in of massacres in Australia . He states that there needs discussion at the talk page, but is not doing so. Also the linked article has not been edited with any reliable references, nor any consensus achieved. When you can spare a moment can you please intervene before it gets out of hand. Thank you David.moreno72 13:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The source I provided is a journalist's review of a documentary about the massacre in question. He reports that there were 12 victims. The source you provided is a social justice opinion piece linking to a dead (archived) website that cites an unnamed "old fella" who claims "four hundred people killed that day". The same opinion piece also links to Wikipedia articles. The first source is obviously more reliable, and I don't think it needs to be stated that a death toll of 12 is far more likely than 400. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Doc James - Heh, the edits I made were probably all reverting vandalism... I can pretty much guarantee it. But you're welcome, nonetheless ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
That counts too :-) Important work reverting vandalism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
AmirFreeman2006, please see your talk page. I should have left that message when your page was deleted, but I must have forgot. —DoRD (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
CSD'd again per G10. Cut it out, AmirFreeman2006, or you'll end up on the receiving end of a block, I'm certain. Patient Zerotalk 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
YGM
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Marchjuly, I got back to you and responded to your email, right? Please confirm; I want to make sure I didn't forget to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
You did respond and I sent back another reply. Thanks again for your assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Marchjuly - You bet. I'll double check and make sure you didn't need anything else in your response. Been busy in real life; excuse any delay in a response if I owe you one ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Prinsipe Ybarro! Sorry for the late response to your message... I've been busy lately and I'm just now catching up on messages and emails. Looks like this user was blocked by another administrator, and the disruption has stopped. If you need help with anything else, please don't hesitate to reach out to me here. I'll be happy to do so. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit I made in April 2017 on the NYSE page
Virtually all the edits I make on Wikimedia products (Wikipedia and Wiktionary) are GRAMMATICAL changes because it's blatantly lucid that most users on here know very little grammar. Kindly make it known why the edit I made was referred as a 'test.' Thank you.
first of , I would like to deeply apologize for sudden writting on Q28450975 Dragonica Mobile SEA page , secondly , personal targeting may unavoidable for some reason , but , real name never spoiled for privacy.
it just too much things that happen here , and ingame players can only silent as victim , so , writer here just trying to represent the cries of gamers / players , hope you and wiki admin could understand.
again , Sorry , and so many thanks for the time given to post some knowledge to this article.
writer gonna get rid all of the writing as soon as possible after related person involved reads the article.
if there's any credit , let it be taken for wiki or social donation instead of given to personal , or perharps spread to the following victim players inside the game as reimbursement or cashback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.125.87.159 (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Creating user talk pages for extremely bad user name blocks
When you block an account which you intend to RevDel the creation log, please don't leave a tal page message. Any user you would feel the need to do this to is probably such a bad name that no admin would even consider an unblock, and you just create extra work for completing the hiding of the account - deletion of the page and RevDeling of 2 log entries. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Od Mishehu - Good point, I guess there's no point of letting that user know that "Hey, that username isn't appropriate so I blocked you". At that level, they know this and it only makes work harder for us. I'm going to have to modify my scripts for this situation. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007, Linguist111 - Looks like this has been taken care of. Sorry for the delayed reply; I was at the office when you left this. Don't hesitate to message me if you need anything else. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
They were deleted by SoWhy under U5 rather than G10, so maybe they weren't attack pages? Adam9007 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Nah, I wouldn't call it an attack page. U5 was the option I would have deleted it under as well. It's broad on purpose and for a reason ;-). Let me know if you have any more questions about this, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist where I can. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, me and Linguist111 took "dumb" as an insult. This reminds me of an instance a while ago when an admin disagreed that a page having nothing other than a description of a film as "pants" is a G10. Are these insults not offensive or negative enough to be considered G10? Adam9007 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Linguist111! Good question! So, as we both know... a G10 or an attack page is "a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced", according to the guidelines I linked above... of course ;-).
When I picture an attack page, it's a page that insults or threatens the subject ("[Person] is a trash whore who nobody loves and should back the hell off or face consequences...", or "[Noun] is a dumb pile of garbage that eats people and casts poop on humanity"), or is a BLP article that's entirely negative in viewpoint and/or makes unreferenced negative accusations or statements about that person. To TL;DR my interpretation: It exists with the unambiguous intention to harm the reputation of the subject, or insult/threaten/degrade the subject or BLP, and with content that clearly shows this intention.
User pages (like this one) can reaaaalllyyy teeter on the edge when it comes to being "an attack page". To me, a user page that just says "is a dumb cartoon" with nothing else for context, or your example above where an article was created about a film with the description of just the word "pants"... those don't come off as attack pages. Deleting per U5 was "the safe option" in this situation with the user page, and I'm not sure what the hell the other example is about... lol. The words technically could qualify the user page as an "attack page", but if you see the spirit of what it's trying to define as an actual attack page, I think my thoughts will make sense.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or need more help with anything. As you know, I'm always happy to lend a hand! Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
"Pants" is a British informal word for "rubbish" or "worthless". Me being English, I immediately understood the film example to mean "This film is rubbish". Just as I understood "dumb" to mean "stupid". They're both insults. But doesn't G10 also mention disparagement? I'd say both "pants" and dumb" (in the sense of "rubbish" and "stupid" respectively) are disparagements. Or are they, as you say, edge cases? While we're on the subject, what about words that are commonly used as insults, but are not necessarily so? "Gay" for example (I can't help but think of that word after the commotion on my talk page about my use of it a few days ago ). Although, having said that, I suppose "dumb" also fits that description... Adam9007 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 - AHH! Good call on the translation of "pants" - I learned something new today. Given that information, I could see how G10 could be justified or argued in that example (of course, without actually seeing the diffs... I'm just making an observation with what you're telling me here). ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I checked, and there's definitely no other meaning of the word: just the British meaning, the American meaning, and the British informal/slang meaning of "rubbish", so it was almost certainly an insult. Adam9007 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
(pinged) My two cents: G10 encompasses all kinds of subjects but, like Oswah, I think the intent behind it is and was to delete pages that have a potential negative effect on real people, no matter if you are attacking them directly or indirectly by disparaging their company, organization, etc. In this case, I think it was not really aimed at the makers of Bob the Builder as people but was merely misplaced rantings about the perceived "dumb"-ness, using Wikipedia instead of a private website. Basically, my approach to judging G10 (and I think Oswah shares it based on his comments above) is whether the content could possibly be grounds for legal action if posted on another website. Regards SoWhy 07:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy - Yep, that's a good way to explain what I was trying to get at as well. Thanks for the input ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 07:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
AIV
In regards to the message you left when I reported IP 112.120.148.39, he isn't adding correct information. Players are not nominated until a week before play begins, which in this case is September. He is just adding random players and assuming that they will be nominated in September. But there is no sourcing for that whatsoever. And this was also vandalism. No walkover occurred. Actually, the match is taking place as I write this. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Adamtt9! Thanks for responding to my comment at AIV. Since this IP appears to have stopped editing, I'm going to hold off on taking action. However, if things continue, do let me know. Thanks again for your message. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
MjolnirPants - Of course; you're very welcome. Don't hesitate to reach out to me any time you need help or any kind of input. I'll be happy to assist with anything you need. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Daniyal Waseem
Hi,
I removed notice since i know the the facts personally.
Some of the links are old since free internet is not a given right everywhere in the world.
However if you feel that this article is should be deleted I respect and have it deleted completely rather then up their with notice.
Hi NamraNaeem - Welcome to Wikipedia! So... there are a few things you should know and understand when it comes to editing articles. First, when an article is tagged for deletion (either with a speedy deletion or articles for deletion discussion tag), it must stay on the article. There are instructions provided within the tag that tell you exactly what you need to do in order to properly contest or discuss the deletion.
Your message above also states that you have personal knowledge of various facts and information. Please understand that personal knowledge, experience, relationships, or references cannot be added to articles (it's considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia). Using that same personal knowledge is also typically interpreted by the community as an invalid justification or reason for a particular decision or viewpoint; please understand this.
While references and sources that link to websites on the internet do age with time (and hence the risk of becoming removed or lost increases with that age), we are currently in the process of implementing tools and automation in order to archive these references and replace dead links with references to those archives. So fear not! This is a known issue that's in the process of becoming much less of a concern as we roll out tools and bots that will fix this. If you have any more questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask me them. I'll be happy to help you further. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Really
Do you understand the severity of your actions, you wrote that Adolf Hitler made a Jew eradicating space ship. I'm not sure you understand that you shouldn't be vandalizing Wikipedia, people use this as a resource for education and what you are doing hinders their ability to learn. Stop doing it or I may have to enforce a ban upon you. Science guy435 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
We can't have that. Thank you for your concern, Science guy. I have enforced the ban. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
No subject
I am new to Wikipedia and I noticed you changed my edit on Dallas Clark and you asked for a reliable source. I do not know how to add a link to show where I got my info from — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb3025 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Caleb3025 - Welcome to Wikipedia! No problem, remember that you can be bold and add improvements where you feel they need to be! Just remember to understand and take feedback as you learn (such as in this case) :-). Check out this guideline on adding references in-line with text. It will show you how to do this, as well as where to enable tools that make doing so very easy! If you have questions after reviewing the guideline I provided above, let me know and I'll be happy to help you further. Again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your stay! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Bandeirantes
Keeping slavery associated with the Bandeirantes is a modern political move, not a historical fundamental truth.
Hi Adam9007! From my 15-ish seconds of research (lol) looking up the phrase "InfamousCriminals" and "Infamous Criminals", I would say no. This is not a role account. Those are accounts with usernames that can imply shared use due to it stating a given position or role within a group, organization, or company... roles that can change from person-to-person or be a title given or used by more than just one person. Examples of this are usernames like "MicrosoftCEO", "McDonalds.PR", or "ToyotaCustomerRelationsBoardChair" - names like those. The plurality of "Criminals" could give concerns, but it's nothing I'd chase nor sound alarm bells over. Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. If there's something you think that I missed with your question and username above, don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It's their userpage using "We" that got me suspicious. Adam9007 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 - Yup, I just saw that too... The "We" in that sentence changes things. I'd warn them about the user page and what you saw, and educate them on shared accounts; that definitely is a different story now that I take that into account... Other than doing that, lets wait until the user edits and go from there, or see what happens. Good call. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Can I not do that with Twinkle? None of the templates listed there are appropriate. Will I have to type my own message? Adam9007 (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 - Since it's not the username in itself that's causing the concern but the use of "we" on their userpage, I'd go with a custom message to voice the concern about the account being used by more than one person. If you wanted to talk to the user about a username violation that's borderline but not UAA reportable, you do that on Twinkle by selecting Warn. On the Warn window, select "Single issue warning" --> "Username is against policy" (fourth from the bottom), then type in a custom reason (don't include punctuation or a space after the last word, and don't include signature - that's added for you). That's how I do it. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not the username itself, so the latter is not strictly speaking the right thing to do. I've left them a message, but I'm no good at this sort of thing, which is why I searched (in vain ) for a suitable template. Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Ha, no worries my friend. We're were all new at doing it at some point in time ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's hope I don't become good at it: if I think I'm good at something, it will turn out I'm not good at it at all . Anti-vandalism for instance . That said, I haven't exactly been gay lately, so that is probably a major contributor to my cock-ups. Adam9007 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007, don't beat yourself up and let yourself become drained or emotionally tied-down over past mistakes. You're doing exactly what you should be doing here and now, and that's what truly matters; it will help you to look forward, move on from them, and come out from under any rut that you feel you're under... and much stronger and with much more experience than when it started.
You're asking questions and getting clarification on things that you're rusty with, unsure of, or need someone to translate and explain in simple terms... that's surely something that the community will see as a great thing, and certainly something I'd ever use against you! Nobody should feel guilty or bad, or be scolded or given flak for asking questions or asking for help. Keep this habit and behavior close to your mind, keep that habit up so it becomes second-nature, and you'll be fine. Time will go by, people will move on, and you'll learn lots of cool new things... a huge win/win for all. My talk page is always open to you, and you're always welcome to come to me with questions or input any time you need it. No judgment ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The last time I used Huggle, I got blocked. Oh dear . I fell into the trap of reverting a policy violation with gay abandon. After that, I think it'll be a while before I trust myself to touch Huggle again . The thing is, mud sticks. With that and me being on the verge of a topic ban regarding CSD, it's no wonder I'm feeling bad and not sure whether to trust myself. I'm fearful I might cock it up and get blocked again. Adam9007 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Understandable. Huggle is a very fast and efficient tool that's very powerful. The double-edged sword with having such a program in the tool belt is the potential to screw up in a large quantity before the problem is realized. Shoot, I've made accidental reverts and changes simply by having Huggle in the foreground instead of my browser, and believing that I was typing a response in a form... I was actually hitting Huggle hotkeys and spewing out warnings and reverts... lolol.
If you're someone like I am... you're probably someone whose really eager to help, loves what you're doing, and has a high desire to move up in the ranks and become the "go-to guy" and all-around liked by the community... but find yourself being told by others (maybe in real life, too) that you take things on or make decisions or changes too quickly, or you catch yourself making assumptions in order to go quickly and get things done. I'm not trying to make assumptions about you at all (LOL)... I'm trying to describe how I am and where I find myself as far as pitfalls go. In my past, I would tend to get overly eager to participate and help, become the best, and master all of the things... that I'd go too quickly, make bad assumptions, and make mistakes that I wouldn't have otherwise had I just slowed down and taken an extra second or two... toned myself down a few notches.
If what I described about myself in past (and recent times) also describes you, then the best thing you can do for yourself is to take on new tasks one-at-a-time, and become a master at that area for awhile before you decide to take on another new area or task. Do tasks in that area "the long way" (manually without automation) for awhile, understand how things work under the hood and why it's important to get right - before you consider moving to automation to increase productivity. And (of course), ask questions if you're not sure and don't make assumptions. Do those things, and I believe that you'll wind up to be less stressed and much more successful in gaining back trust and expanding your experience and knowledge. A major part of becoming a highly wise editor (and really, a person in general) is understanding your limits and how much you can take on simultaneously, as well as acknowledging that you're not sure about something and asking. Some of the feedback that others have given you have... heh... been quite stern and pretty harsh. Do your best to take the meat and leave the bones; don't dwell on the situation and what-not, but take the feedback left for you and use it to move forward.
You can't change the past... Close the door behind you. Look forward. You're doing what you should be doing now. Keep it up. Time will pass. Now take what tools and feedback you've been given, hold them tight. Now start walking forward.
This page contains numerous errors, omissions and incomplete information.
My edits which you have removed were good.
They were correct, readable, complete and where applicable supported by inline references.
I did not remove referenced information, and only removed information that was incorrect to replace it with correct.
I was not playing around, and I do not understand your accusation of such.24.129.225.118 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Please explain your reasoning, or was your reversion in error?24.129.225.118 (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm not sure what happened, but it looks like the removal was in error. I've undone my removal of your changes and restored your previous changes back to the article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I apologize for the confusion. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns. Thanks again! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Have a great day!24.129.225.118 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks again for letting me know. I apologize and wish you happy editing. You should consider create an account! There are many benefits to doing so! Give it some thought, and let me know if you have any questions. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Solved the mystery. I had written in harmless context the scientific term "opposite sex" and no doubt that one little 3-letter word is most frequently added by persons of dishonourable intentions and flagged with prejudice and without closer investigation of circumstance. I'll look into the account thing.24.129.225.118 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
High quality work on WP:UAA! Thank you, Oshwah. Cheers, FriyMantalk 10:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi FriyMan! Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! I also owe you a big "thanks" for all of those reports you've been leaving at UAA; they've been quite helpful :-). Keep em coming! ...And don't hesitate to message me here if you have questions or need input over any usernames you're unsure of. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 10:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
changes
Hi Oshwah,
Thank you for your message. This edit is correct, as Dersim is the actual name or Tunceli. Dersim is a province, with mainly kurdish people living there. Dersim is the original name but it has been changed by the turkish government. The reason behind is, that Kurdish people were not allowed to speak their language. Also, the are starting with, Bingol, Erzincan, Dersim, Elazig is where Kurdistan start and was separated by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosakr (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Midway?
Found a midway, eh? lol —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
sort of urgent. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran - I just added to the discussion. Let me know if you have any questions regarding the reason behind my input. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I thought your ping notifications were off so I used the talkback tamplate. There is one more duplicate article. It is currently being discussed on User talk:Mz7. If you would like to participate there, you are more than welcome. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I contacted user Floquenbeam first, cuz for a very long time now i was thinking he is a "template editor". You have a lot experience in this for sure:
I found the source code here. I made some changes in the source code (never saved them, just previewed). Sometimes, the del-sort notices are confusing, espcially if one is visiting AfD from mobile, hats why i was thinking about it. The current source code presents this:
Do you think we should update this template? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Rashid Somalia
Excuse me, but the information that was added to the page was in fact valid. I know this player personally so I would appreciate it if you would add the information back sirKennymiller37 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kennymiller37, and thanks for leaving me a message here! Sorry, but adding content to articles citing personal knowledge or relationships constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All content added to Wikipedia articles must either be able to be attributable to a reliable source, or cited directly to a reliable source. This keeps all information added verifiable and accurate. Please let me know if you have any questions about this policy. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks for understanding :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
97x
Hi! Just letting you know that I am re-adding the material you removed from the WXLP page. When I hit submit to add in the content, I realized I forgot the source of the article where I found this at and went back in to add it in when I got the message that you removed it. Just wanted to clear things up here. Jakob9999 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Danny Cannon article
the reason i don't leave any source was because is private i did that to help the Wikipedia updating his personal life probably nobody knows the new
but unfortunately for him that's the reality he's also moving to palisade and she's living in mulHolland drive i can' give you the exact location sorry is confidential
they have 2 children Celeste Cannon and Remi Cannon.i know more details about him just to let you know, thank you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0CE:2300:5537:F765:5354:827E (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made an edit to Wikipedia:Sandbox that clearly shows you have no life. In the future, please remember to get a life, because if you don't have a life, you're dead—both figuratively and literally. If you have any questions, or if you think I made a mistake, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
Okay seriously, congrats on your 200,000th edit! Here's a cup of coffee to help you recover from your Wikiholism. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Oshwah
Ok i'm new on wikipedia and you're the first that explain me how it works when you have to modify an article.
It's a minor edit on OL (women) page that described all the games played by this team in European cups.
Excuse for my english it's not so good but i try to improve more.
Friendly regards
fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredc6671 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Jim1138 - I'd say neither, to be honest. It's not being heavily vandalized, the content removed looked to have NPOV issues, and it doesn't fit a CSD criterion. I'd say that if it doesn't look to be notable, nominate it for AFD ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 07:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I would also ask if the talk page of one of the IPs used was looked at? It has been explained to them that refs supporting the information are already supplied; the IP responds with accusations of people editing logged out. Were you also aware that the article was TFA when all this kicked off? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sagaciousphil, and thanks for leaving me a message with your questions. I'll be happy to explain my thought process and the reasons behind the protection of the article. Looking at the history over the last few days, it's clear that there are content disputes and that back-and-fourth reverting occurred between multiple users of all access levels and user types, as well as different IP addresses (or to word it more appropriately, non-registered users - there are different IPs in the history that clearly belong to one person). This back-and-fourth reverting occurred in-place of dispute resolution, and over content-related matters (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). I understand that you're perhaps frustrated or even upset over the messages left on your talk page; communicating with users who are behaving irrationally and making accusations that are unsubstantiated towards you is certainly not an easy task... not at all. However, the reason behind my decision to fully protect the article came from the back-and-fourth reversions that were occurring between two other users, you're in a content dispute with an IP address, and two IP addresses were even edit warring over a template... full protection was absolutely what was needed in order to stop the edit warring and nudge all users involved to seek dispute resolution on the article's talk page (angry messages and accusations don't count... haha). I hope this response thoroughly explains my rationale behind the decision I made, as well as the statement I made in response to the report filed at RFPP. If you have any more questions or concerns, please let me know. I'll be happy to assist you further. I wish you good luck with resolving the matter, and I hope that everyone chooses to sort out each individual dispute at-hand and do so rationally and peacefully. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 13:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for responding; I guess I'm expected to take it that you have no intention whatsoever of issuing any advice/reprimand etc to the IP? Also please explain why you feel the edits you link are incorrect? Editors have clearly stated reasons why the edits were reverted (not referenced, trivial etc etc). This honestly feels as if you are treating several established editors with nothing but contempt. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Sagaciousphil - That's actually what I'll be doing next ;-). All I've done so far is determine whether or not page protection was justified giving the report filed at RFPP, and (if so) what level of protection would stop the disruption in a manner that is both necessary and fair - that's all. I had to step away for a bit and take care of a few things before I had a chance to examine things further. Now that I'm back, I'll be going through discussions and messages and taking action if necessary - you just gotta give me time ;-). Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
So, despite previously stating "Reviewing the history in-depth [...] show ...", it is only now that this is going to be reviewed "in depth"? It's okay to add unreferenced information to FAs? It's okay for IPs to maintain something is unreferenced despite having two reliable sources in situ? No one bothered about the message left on my talk page by the IP hours ago? Or them accusing others of editing logged out? As I see you are now editing elsewhere and had stated above "That's actually what I'll be doing next" I guess I must again conclude that you have decided the IPs actions are acceptable, fully endorsed and to be condoned? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand. The IP address who messaged you on your talk page (31.52.160.34) was adding a {{fact}} tag to the article, this IP (70.185.178.206) added unreferenced content here but a source was later added with it after its removal (diff), and this IP (31.52.165.95) was simply changing the definition of a term in the article (diff)... where's this addition of unsourced content you're speaking of? What IPs are "maintaining unreferenced content"? Can you provide me with diffs please? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, you obviously do not understand. The addition of the "fact" tag was done to a sentence already fully supported by two refs or perhaps you didn't notice that? The diff you offer up as "simply changing the definition of a term" - really? Earlier I made the effort on the article talk page to supply further refs for the 'fervently homophobic' wording as demanded by the IP but I can see I was wasting my time. The 31.52 IPs are blatantly the same individual as can be seen by the talk pages. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that there have been attempts to discuss the matters in concern, and I hope discussions continue peacefully. I've protected the article from further edit warring so that all parties will discuss the issues at-hand, and I've warned the IP regarding civility and making accusations without evidence. I know that you're frustrated over this matter and I apologize if you believed that my edits in other pages made you feel or believe that I was finished or that I'm no longer looking into the matter - I multitask in different areas; I didn't forget about you :-). In the end, the protection was made due to the back-and-fourth reverting. The fact that discussions were taking place doesn't mean that those editors can continue reverting one another repeatedly and edit war - that act in itself is disruptive, hence the action I took. I don't understand exactly why you are perhaps frustrated with the action I've taken... what exactly is causing your continued frustration? How can I help? What else do you want me to do? What action that I could take would be fair in your opinion? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 16:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No remonstration was left on the IPs talk page until after I'd complained but thank you for finally doing something about that. I note the accusations made by the IP on my talk page are not considered worth bothering to mention though, so evidently the comments/accusations made are acceptable or even agreed with? The fact the IP was tagging something which was already fully referenced has also been ignored and glossed over - as has the fact the IP will no doubt shift to yet another IP the next time they log in, so "discussions" cannot properly be tracked and, as I indicated earlier, should actually be taking place on the article talk page. Above you asked "What IPs are "maintaining unreferenced content"? - please indicate where I used the words "maintaining unreferenced content" as it's in quote marks? I believe what I actually said was "maintain something is unreferenced despite having two reliable sources in situ?" which is entirely different (but, of course, I'm forgetting that I'm incapable of looking up refs so I shouldn't be surprised that my reading abilities are also in doubt, should I?). Yes, I am frustrated as well as angry that I have wasted a great deal of time finding additional refs for something that is already fully sourced when my time could have been better spent working on one of the articles I was expanding. I am logging off now so we'll see if "discussions continue peacefully" or if the IP is permitted to carry out their stated intentions of continuing to edit war once the full protection expires. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Please understand that just because I didn't reference the edits that the IP made on your talk page does not mean that what the IP did was acceptable per Wikipedia's policies. The warning I left was to give the IP the clear understanding that what he's been doing recently is not acceptable, and simply gave a few specific examples. I think that you're making the right decision by logging off for a bit and taking a break... give yourself time to cool off emotionally and allow yourself to evaluate the situation when you're no longer frustrated or angry. You're angry and to the point where you're taking unrelated and insignificant context in my responses and edits, and you're making incorrect assumptions and assuming bad faith... I think that, when you come back after cooling off and allowing yourself time away, you'll (hopefully) see and realize that. The actions I've taken in response to the issue reported in RFPP are done, and unless significant events change, there's nothing more I'm going to be doing. It's up to everyone involved to make the right decisions, follow Wikipedia's polices, and resolve your disputes with one another in discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in, but if the concern, from Sagaciousphil's perspective, is edit warring by unregistered editors, then perhaps a slightly extended period of pp-semi would be useful? It would force the IPs to engage on the article's talk page—which, as best I can tell, they have so far been unwilling to do—and thus hopefully encourage the D part of WP:BRD. It will of course not do anything regarding civility and related issues, but those are usually much easier for an uninvolved admin to deal with once the content issues (which admins are prohibited from engaging with while acting in their capacity as admins) are out of the picture. It would, slightly, privilege the registered editors; but I feel a presumption that they will engage in proper dispute resolution is not unwarranted, and if problems with civility or ownership should materialise they can be dealt with as needed.
PS. SagaciousPhil: I thought your post on the article's talk page was a very good start. I would encourage you to re-post that and focus on any objective arguments the IP editor(s) make, and just ignore any lack of civility (including any aspersions made) on their part. I imagine Oshwah will keep an eye on the article, at least for a little while, after the full protection expires, and can deal with any unconstructive behaviour as needed. These things tend to sort themselves out eventually, even if it's incredibly frustrating in the thick of it. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this issue. I'll make the points about the article on the Talk page in due course, but as far as the dispute goes, if you haven't already seen these diffs it would be worth a look. [17][18][19][20][21][22] (edit summary on the last one). I'm not the only one to be uncivil, it would seem. The diffs and the discussion above highlight worrying issues at Wikipedia; the discrimination and contempt that some editors show towards IP editors, and a fundamental lack of understanding about policy being the two key issues. By no stretch of the imagination could my edits be described as vandalism, and as far as I know, it's entirely permissible to challenge a statement with a fact tag. Such tags should not be arbitrarily removed, as has been done here. Worse, is that the supposed reference to the disputed assertion simply isn't valid, but I'll go into detail on the talk page about that one. Finally, the comment above from Xover yet again illustrates contempt (mild in this case) towards IP editors - shovel them off the scene by SP. 31.52.160.34 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
IP editor
Hey! I found this IP editor: Special:Contributions/188.141.7.213 while scouring the recent changes page who seems to be using the user talk page of an unregistered user as a sandbox: this one. I've tagged it for speedy deletion, but it took me a while to find out the intent of the IP editor. Can you take a look into this matter? Perhaps create a draft to shift the edits the user has made and then delete the pages? The IP editor is also using their own talk page for working on articles, even after being blocked for a month and warned regarding the same. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 12:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging it, Jiten Dhanda. That IP user had continued after previous blocks; I blocked it for another 3 months. – Athaenara ✉ 13:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
no citation is needed. the original anagram is obviously in correct because it contains 2 u's. if you need to check the correctness of the new anagram use wordsmith.org/anagram/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6005:2:3D58:B22C:2C81:D2E9 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why
I'm writing about my own family. How on earth do I provide citations.
to be more clear, the original text states, "lunatic asylum" (an anagram of "analytic sum"). please notice the 2 u's in the original. the incorrect anagram has only one u. "analytic sum" is not an anagram of "lunatic asylum", "actually minus" is such an anagram.
Dear; Oshwash
Dear; Oshwash
Can you show me how to delete pages I'm not causing vandalism or a Scandal. TTTEFan2017 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi TTTEFan2017, and welcome to Wikipedia! While you can't delete pages, you can tag or nominate them for deletion. You'll want to review Wikipedia's deletion process, which outlines and explains the different deletion processes and the criteria that articles and pages must meet in order to be eligible to be put through that process. Please let me know if you have any questions after reading this guideline, and I'll be happy to answer them. Happy editing, and welcome again! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No point in recent changes patrolling
Well, it is useless as long as you, and Clue are online. Whenver I try to revert, it says already reverted by Oshwash, or ClueBot. You guys are very fast lol. my Lupin is slow :-/
That reminds me, could you process my request for rollback? Approval/denial whatever seems to be the good choice best on my contrib history? My request has been just hanging there since a very long time now. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I actually was expecting a denial though lol. May i ask if it is you in the photo on your userpage? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran - You're welcome! While I see you've made some mistakes, I feel that your intentions are good, you're receptive to feedback and have the desire to learn and move on, and that if given the chance and the opportunity show that you can move forward and handle the use of user permissions, you'll be extra cautious and do what it takes to not repeat the same mistakes and show that you're learning from your past. Nobody is perfect, and I'll never expect them to be. Just do exactly what I hope you'll do - use caution, ask questions if you're unsure, and use this opportunity to show that you're learning from your mistakes and that you're able to do what you need to do in order to avoid repeating them. This is a behavior and skill that is absolutely critical. If you get this down, you'll most definitely have no issues moving on and these mistakes will be long in the past. My talk page is always open to you, and I'll be more than happy to mentor you and make sure that you keep on track and continue doing the good things you're doing. I hope you allow me to do this ;-). Either way, I wish you good luck and I wish you happy editing. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) According to the file summary, the answer is yes, it is Oshwah. Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Adam9007: lol. You are very young Oshwah. I used to think most of the admins are 35+ in age. You also look like someone who likes and enjoys humour. Yes, you are spookily right about everything. Especially about learning. I am 100% sure that I will not repeat any mistakes, and 99% sure that i will not mess-up on source-code levels. Thankfully, I will be travelling a lot in next 3-4 days. I will do normal copy-editing meanwhile, and read/practice everything about rollback. Thanks again. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You'll continue to make mistakes, Usernamekiran. That's a completely normal part of learning, growing, and becoming experienced with the project here. If you're not making occasional mistakes, then you're not learning. Now don't take this the wrong way... this is not in any ways an implication that you should go make mistakes and become careless - that's where many people fall through the cracks and see themselves being managed out... they get careless. I'm saying that you shouldn't scare yourself so cold and into thinking that you can't make mistakes EVAR and that they only hurt you... that's absolutely not true at all! The editors here who I see as the most experienced and seasoned, and whom I genuinely respect and look to for guidance - all have numerous "battle scars" from making mistakes. I, myself, have made a shit ton of mistakes - we all do. What separates the experienced from the new, and makes leaders out of followers are those that have the true desire to learn, and have strong collaboration and communication skills with others and benefit from those hurdles. Now put your head up, look forward, and take a deep breath. Take another....... now start moving forward :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
lol. I understand you. See you around. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 00:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello again! :-) I am not sure about this, but do you think these two edits should be rev-deleted? As visible on the vandal's talkpage Metres seems to be very annoyed by them as well, like me. Thanks —usernamekiran(talk) 07:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Too right. That unusual name they gave is a real person. Done. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC).
@Bishonen: thanks :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Jableh
I removed the data from Jableh as it is inaccurate; I should have till I had time to fix it with more reliable sources however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuhesh (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Jableh
I forgot to sign my post. Anyway, the data for Jableh is inaccurate so I deleted it. If you check the second source what's in the box doesn't match the sources data.
Sorry. I don't know how to put in a reliable source. I just from time to time make edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.222.43 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
jason knight hick diaz
hi mate why did you change my jason knight ufc fighter hick diaz edit it is his nickname
ps:this is my first edit so sorry if i have messaged you the wrong way
The protection expired and the vandalism almost immediately resumed. Thanks! Morty C-137 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Morty C-137! Looks like the page's protection has been extended. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 13:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Not for right now but can you keep an eye on it? I'd expect the problem to resume if the season hasn't started up by the time protection expires. Cartoon Network / Adult Swim's pages are less than easy to read, and the "next showing" page for some reason keeps getting us a bunch of anonymous readers who think they've found a stealth listing or something and can't be bothered to check the actual schedule to see what the episode titles will be. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll do what I can. If you notice more problems after the protection expires, just let me know or file a request at WP:RFPP. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editor comes back
Hello! The IP editor (User:112.198.75.246) that you've blocked a couple of days ago has come back to do disruptive changes in the page Love in the Moonlight. I think the page needs protection for it to stop. Thank you! 45.123.197.253 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Citing Twitter?
I'm trying to learn how to do edits based on something someone tweeted. Could you help me learn how to do that correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tb2186 (talk • contribs)
Hi Tb2186! Sure! Wikipedia's guideline on citing sources in-line should provide you with all of the information you need. Be careful with citing Twitter though; I don't believe we encourage that practice. Please let me know if you have questions after reading the guideline I provided for you. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you made a mistake
Hello I edited the article and you removed what I wrote. I don't understand why? Zareh is the BBQ master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.247.19 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Have you actually readWP:DUCK? In what way does Sarah Walford leaving a message for Carolmooredc relate to anything in that essay?
Had you said so, I would agree with you 100% that by leaving that message, Sarah Walford had signaled her intention to be a disruptive editor. Except you didn't say so, and Wikipedia administrators are not supposed to block editors on suspicion of what they might do. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 02:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Malik Shabazz, and thanks for leaving your message here and providing your concerns. Yeah, invoking WP:DUCK wouldn't have applied in this case, as there's no behavior to compare to another username - I agree with you, and I appreciate you for pointing this out. However, I believe in a general measure that when there are actions made by an account that suggest strongly enough or give enough suspicion that a user is a sock puppet, that blocking under that suspicion is justified based off of those actions (whatever they may be). Again, I really appreciate your input here, and I do agree that WP:DUCK wouldn't apply like I had said it had. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Sash-windows
Just curious, why was User talk:Sash-windows deleted? It's not very common for user talk pages to be deleted. FYI I left this user two warnings before you blocked them (thanks for that, by the way). Altamel (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Altamel! That user's talk page was deleted per G11. The account used it to self-promote. And I agree - it's rare, and I probably would have just been better off removing it manually instead of deleting :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but in my experience G11 is generally not used on user talk pages. From WP:DELTALK, it seems that user talk page deletion is reserved for offenses in G3/G10 territory. Yes, I agree it would have been better to revert to the last version without promotional material. The other thing is that I'm just curious what they posted on their talk. I've been keeping a close eye on this user's edits in case they move on to other articles or promoting other websites. Altamel (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Altamel - I ended up restoring the history of that page. The deletion was not justified. Thanks for the message; I very much appreciate it. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It turned out to be exactly as I feared—they left a message protesting the deletion of the content. Whether the user is blocked or not, I feel obligated to give a detailed, non-templated explanation when so requested. Altamel (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome, Altamel. And thank you for poking me about this. I'm always open to feedback and re-evaluation :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 03:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah
You reverted my edit on the Auf Wiedersehen Pet page. What do you think was wrong with it? I'm a big fan of the show and have edited it before but I was just putting down the opinions of Jimmy Nail and Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais on the second series. Is it too biased if it's the opinions of people that worked on a show/film? Notice how I added that the series got great viewing figures. I just think it's not only good when someone can criticize their own work no matter how popular it is but gives people info they might not otherwise have known. Did I over indulge or is it not right for the page? Thanks. HOTTUBGUY (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi HOTTUBGUY! And thank you for leaving a message with your questions. I'll be happy to help you. I think that there are portions of your changes that have problems, but they don't seem major. I restored all of your changes up to your last one you made (see here). I'm going to go through each diff, and (if you don't mind), I'll assist you with the issues and help you fix them - is that cool? Other than that, the article has been restored to your second most recent change. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers :-D -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah
I've no problem with any changes that need to be made. As you can tell I only occasionally edit. Do you think what I added about Jimmy Nail, Ian La Frenais and Dick Clement's opinions shouldn't be there at all or pared right down? I made sure to add the sources of their views. I appreciate your opinion. 04:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No way! Keep em up; we're review and go over them, and I'll help you improve them :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Warnings
Last year you kept undoing an edit I made to the Nord University wiki page (even though I was correct), you kept sending me warnings. I just wondered why you never apologised (I assume you have since noticed that I was right?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordicsam (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you (MZ vandalism protection)
Thanks for the attention to, and protection of, MZ (company) and Game of War: Fire Age. I have struggled against this vandalism (likely the same editor) in the past. To me, the sad thing is that I nearly share the vandal's opinion, while recognizing that it's not appropriate to express it in the articles. He's almost got a useful contribution to make; his position could probably be backed up with sources and expressed in a way that complies with WP:NPOV, if he tried to do so instead of editing as a vandal. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lwarrenwiki - thank you for the message and for the kind words. You're quite welcome; I'm always happy to assist in any way I can and try and make life easier for others :-). Yes, it's always quite unfortunate and disappointing to see the choices some editors and users resort to when in conflict, disagreement, or when they want to push a viewpoint. Over the years that I've been here, I've seen a lot of good and skillful editors with high potential (many of which I tried to mentor) lose it, spiral downwards one way or another, and eventually become blocked or banned from the project. Those are the ones that get to me in particular. Really, all you can do is give it your best. There are some people, no matter how well-intended they may be - that just can't be helped. You can bend over backwards and slave yourself over providing them numerous opportunities to learn and improve, and many will just not take them. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Katy B
Hello,
Sorry I was trying to update the pic for Katy B and not too sure what happened! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originallankstar (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah, I just realised our warnings at User talk:Gigi LaMayne are pretty pointless, because all their edits are from 2014—15. Somebody reported the user to UAA, wasn't it, and we just assumed it was a current problem, both you and I. Not that we need to change anything, but just, sigh. So it goes. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC).
P.S. Join me in some frog cakes. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen! Arrgh! Good catch on your part - I can tell you that I definitely did not notice the date of the edits from that user. Oh well... like you said above, "so it goes". lol ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit of page of Elize Ryd
I guess this is misunderstanding as Richard Söderberg died more than 25 years before she sang that song with Rickard Söderberg.
in fact you could argue that i was getting rid of vandalism, so you essentially just reverted the page back into a vandalised state
the villain's name is mr. dark, it's not mr. dank, some guy changed every instance of dark to dank on the page, all i did was replace all the danks with darks
The age on the Jeremy Rall page was added earlier this year and is wrong. What is the note that cites the current age posted?
Please remove or correct the age.
Please, for once, look into things before you revert.
Alright, listen bud, this is about the third time this has happened between you and me and it's getting old.
If you'd actually go through the article history before you just revert me, you'd see that I'm undoing damage done by a pro-fringe POV-pusher. Since that type of editor seems to edit in a bunch of small pieces rather than one large one, I can't simply just revert them, so I don't always fill in the edit comment. Then you come in and drive-by revert while I'm in the middle of making another edit, ruining the whole thing.
Please either start being more observant or just stop completely. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for the frustration, but you didn't explain any of your edits with an edit summary. I highly recommend that you start doing this, as it's a practice that's both common and expected. It will also avoid confusion (such as this) in the future. If you have any questions about edit summaries, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them. I appreciate your message, and I wish you happy editing. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No subject
You have removed vital information to the page of Population Transfer, which I have added, calming that I did not show references, which I certainly did. How do you explain that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juventis1 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you keep reverting my edits to the If I Had a Million Dollars Wikipedia page. I am trying to add a section with the textual lyrics for the previously stated song. I am also trying to add a hyperlink to the popular YouTube lyrics video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4L3ls_6UYg, by RustyHandgun. I think the lyrics could help out the page. If the formatting for my edits is incorrect or not "clean", then please say so, and I will attempt to fix it.
Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.99.168 (talk • contribs)
(tps): The lyrics are copyrighted, so cannot be legally included due to US copyright law. See WP:SONG#LYRICS for a full explanation of the issues with including lyrics and music videos. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Barek is correct - lyrics are copyrighted and they cannot be included in articles. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Happy editing -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Cidny Bullens
Hi there, Oshwah,
You had left a message on my page regarding the Cidny Bullens page. Bullens identifies as transgender and goes by Cidny instead of Cindy so I thought it appropriate to change his name from Cindy to Cidny.
Well i would like to know what disruptive edits I'm making? Gidman2003 (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)User:Gidman2003
Gidman2003 - Your repeated creations of the page Hiiiii in the article space is what I was referring to. One is a test, but doing so multiple times after that becomes disruptive. If you need help with article creation, you should visit this tutorial. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was okay to have talk pages on here. and if so that is what the pagehiiiii was for to talk to the comunity. Gidman2003 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)User:Gidman2003
Hi JoPsoRe - You either must edit without an account where your IP address is used to identify the editor, or you must use an account. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Lgbt rights in south korea
You are right. The ruling has just delivered and yet there is no news article. I will fill with them whenever they publish the story. But at this moment, I'm so furious with the ruling I cant do any thing. My hand is shaking.--Dmthoth (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Dmthoth - You shouldn't be contributing to article subjects and topic areas where you have strong emotions or feelings that are connected to them. Editing topics and article subjects where you have such a highly emotional connection makes it nearly impossible to reflect a neutral point of view in the writing. This will not only compromise the quality of the article content, but compromise your trust with the community if you're seen as someone who cannot make this appropriate judgment and stay away from these areas. I highly encourage you to take this response to mind and heart, and take my advice. It's highly important, especially if you plan to become a long-term editor here and move up in experience and responsibilities. Either decision you make, I wish you happy editing and good luck. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI
Rulihd is a sock, see here. Suggest a block w/o talkpage access. Sro23 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sro23 - Done. If you another, ping me here and I'll be happy to handle it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Oshwah. I'm going to mass rollback most of your reverts, since edits like this aren't exactly vandalism, and I can this turning into a massive sock edit war, based on this sockmaster's history. Hopefully you don't mind. Sro23 (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sro23 - Not yet. If I throw a lock on the article, he'll just move somewhere else. Better to keep him where we know he'll go ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sro23 - Alright, looks to have died down. I threw a grey lock on the article. Ping me here if he makes a re-appearance ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Texas
Slavery is the reason the confederate army went to war with the federal government. Black people are property in the confederacy. The posting is too white washed. I am from Texas and know racism well. I was a friend with a Nazi who's family worked for Hitler. Part of the problem with people who write history is that everything is told in such a white washed way. It makes the information incomplete. The monument is there to inspire people to help the south rise again. I think that by not providing all the information you are putting colored peoples lives in danger who are not very informed to begin with. The education is so bad that most colored people in Texas are idiots. A colored person when they go outside for anything get kidnapped by officials and placed into detention centers because of bigots. If you want to white was everything then go right ahead. Lame do.
Confused at your Reversion
Briefly, you informed me that you reverted an edit of mine —see this edit to Mrs.—because you did not feel that it appeared constructive. I think you have made a mistake. Please review my edits, which attempted to not only correct grammar but also semantic issues (e.g., confusion of the term synonymous and homophonic—missus and Mrs. are not synonyms). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.96.9.2 (talk • contribs)
AH! I thought it said "homophobic"! I'm sorry, I completely misread the edit. I've restored the article back to the state it was at before I reverted. Please accept my humble apologies and let me know if you need anything else. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017
Can you please inspire me to edit more with a quote you like? Hawkeye75(talk) 05:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye75 - "When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on." - Franklin D. Roosevelt ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you implying that I don't have any rope? Hawkeye75(talk) 05:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive." - Elbert Hubbard ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Content hector barbossa
You deleted my edit on hector barbossa after i just saw the new movie, i added corect info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.133.226 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The text below is from an entry I made several hours ago to get this article semi-protected, but a bot removed it before I could receive a response from you regarding your inquiry below. Apologies if this is not the correct place to post this sort of thing. Jackdude101 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: This will be the fourth time that I have had to request that this article be semi-protected, due to frequent and unrelenting disruptive edits from an unregistered editor currently using this IP: 98.25.195.28. He is also using a mobile device and makes edits under mobile IPs, such as this one: 2606:a000:131b:e9:11e6:91ae:7126:8a01, which may qualify as sockpuppetry. The last semi-protection period for this article was six months in length, but this editor is just going to immediately continue to disruptively edit the moment the protection period ends, as he did with the previous one, so indefinite semi-protection is desirable. Jackdude101 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Declined I don't see how the edits by 2606:A000:131B:E9:D83:E478:6E96:16C are disruptive. I spot checked their edits to the article, and the user provides references and the edits don't appear to be vandalism. You reverted this edit, and warned the other IP for vandalism - how is this vandalism? I don't see that there's any disruption going on to justify protection. Can you explain and help me to understand? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: That's just one of the mobile IPs used by this user. If you observe the article's edit history, all of those other mobile IP edits are him (I can tell, because they all have the same geolocation). The main reasons for why this person's edits are disruptive are due to their inconsistent grammar (I have to grammar check and revise all of his edits accordingly), and the information he posts is often in violation of Wikipedia:Relevance of content, which are ones that I revert. He also posts with a wall of separate edits each time, which I am concerned he is doing purposely to make reverts of his edits more difficult. He seems to believe that every single piece of related information to the article's subject, no matter how unimportant or trivial, should be added to the article, and the concept of maintaining the quality of the article, which presently has GA status, is not a priority with him. I have messaged him several times to please address these issues, including in one of the talk pages of one of his other IPs here: 24.88.92.254, but he does not respond to messages. The only times when he is interested in talking are when the article is protected, as you can see on the article's talk page (he was posting under the 24.88.92.254 IP the last time he posted there). Observe the poor grammar in his posts on the talk page. This is consistent with just about every edit he adds to the article, which requires someone (me) to check the article multiple times a day to make sure the article doesn't read like jibberish. Again, I have addressed this with him, but he never responds to messages when he is able to edit. This editor is a consistent nuisance, and should not be allowed to continue making poor edits to this article. If you want additional information about this editor, simply inquire with @Sundayclose: or @SummerPhDv2.0: and they will share the same sentiment regarding this editor. Jackdude101 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sean O'Callaghan
Hi, you removed my edit on Sean O'Callaghan for not providing a source of information for what I posted.
I did not need to provide a source, because I elaborated on what the original source said. The source in question, source 19, mentions that O'Callaghan was robbed while trying to take part in a BDSM orgy. The article did not have this information in it, so I added it in, as that was the truth of what happened.
I merely elaborated on the information provided in the original source.
I don't know if my ping worked. 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Tide rolls - I've responded to your ping, and left another follow-up just now. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Ciao!
Hi you made an edit to one of my contributes sp in going to explain my own edit. I had not learned of links on wiki yet so when I learned how to use then I decided to change my original edit on the Italian profanity page
"Fuck or in some cases fucking. It is highly recommended that while in Italy its best not to say this."
I personally do not mind that you changed it however. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Dinah Kirkland - No worries! You got my responses and my message, right? Let me know if you still need anything... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
As you can see here, someone removed the word "transphobic" without explanation, in a way that looks like vandalism to me. Please review. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
That actually is a removal I agree with. Those kinds of adjectives can imply a viewpoint that doesn't reflect neutrality. Let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Oshwah. You have new messages at F-This1992's talk page. Message added 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jeez, I really did screw that one up, didn't I? :-(... DoRD - I've responded to the pings on the talk page, and just left a follow-up. Let me know if anything else is needed, and I'll be happy to help. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Ian Lipkin Page
You appear to have deleted my edits of this page because my edits were not supported with citations? Did you not see the references to articles in both Science Magazine and the New York Post? Those articles attested to all the information in the edits. Please clarify if there was some other problem with the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielthechemist (talk • contribs) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit conflicts permitting, it wasn't a test. The template created some excess white space that serves no purpose and which, I understand, is frowned upon on WP. 79.18.123.177 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to to request for a page protection for the page Love in the Moonlight. There have been several editing wars, IP vandals and sockpuppets who keep on making unconstructive edits to the detriment of its quality. I hope you can look into it. Thanks! ArtyGamow (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Changes to Ramayan
Hi Oshwah
no problem in reverting the changes.
What I was trying to do is to remove the unnecessary 'a' after hindi words written in english. I just want the wiki users to know the correct pronunciation as wiki is the best source for the authentic source of correct information.
see Rama is not correct, correct is Raam, Bharta is incorrect Bharat is correct and so on also if we put 'a' after many of the hindi words the meaning would drastically change. Only people who know good hindi will know. Also this problem is mainly with India and Hindi. The old name of India is "Bharat" but people write "Bharata" in english though the same people do not write 'Nepala" for Nepal or "Pakistana" for Pakistan. Then why so much love towards India.
Hope you and Wiki will help in establishing the correct pronunciation, written and spoken.
Hi,
I just made my first edit ever on Wikipedia, and almost immediately got a message that you had removed it. You mentioned something about Wikipedia being a neutral forum, and I agree that it should be. Which is why the edit I made was simply to add context to a criticism of the AirPods with a few facts about their cost. It is true that some people criticized them as having a "high price". But as "high" is a relative term, context is needed to determine validity. The greater context is that they were priced lower at launch than most existing products of their kind, and remain at or below the price of other products in the category made by major manufacturers. They are, in fact, one of the rare examples of an Apple product that is priced lower than most of the competition. I cannot understand how this completely factual information does anything but add richness and context for the reader.
Please explain your rationale for believing this factual information was not neutral, and what I can do to get the edit reinstated.
MrGernBlanston - Your edits are definitely in good faith and you're definitely on a good start when it comes to making contributions that are high in quality. However, I highly recommend that you review and understand Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as the content you tried to add made some injections of opinion and personal analysis. Take the following sentence: " While they are more expensive than most wired earphones, their price at launch was actually lower than many other "true wireless" earphones like the Samsung Gear Icon X and the Bragi Dash, and remain competitively priced with similar products from major brands" - I think if you review the document I linked you to above, then re-read this sentence... you'll understand. Please let me know if you have questions about anything in that guideline, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Dinah Kirkland - I left a message on your talk page. I'm honestly not sure what managed to happen... that edit was definitely not vandalism :-), and I apologize for the error. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Si Si i saw. Grazie though Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Lee Moses edits
Hi, I got the information for the edits from an interview with a close friend of Lee's. The singles I added are also available on youtube with dates, but were not included in the last page. Thanks
Hi, I got the information for the edits from an interview with a close friend of Lee's. The singles I added are also available on youtube with dates, but were not included in the last page. Thanks. Also, the original writer says things that the sources don't say.
All of my information was correct was just fixing it as a fan and trying to help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killa Camden (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Postal Highway
Everything I added was 100% accurate. I got all information from Verified News channels. So that should not be a problem. I am just trying to help.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.252.71 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah, I am sorry I was not aware. Thank you for letting me know. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracy Lea (talk • contribs) 02:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that's a CSD, a whole different deletion process with different criterion. A4 only applies to articles that have been deleted per an AFD discussion. Please let me know if you gave any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the clarification. :-) 88.99.235.218 (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You bet! Don't hesitate to swing by here any time you have a question or need help. Happy editing! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 02:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
disruptive editing this user talk page causing to reverting whihe been blocked. See this history. Please revoked the talk page access. Thank you. Prinsipe Ybarro (Talk to me | Contributions) 02:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This user keeps on redirecting articles of wrestling teams and keeps changing there names to the, I have warned this user but this user Chrishymalboy99 doesn't seem to care they are being disruptive and careless about their editing if you could look into it that would be great thanks HardcoreWrestlingFan (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC) HardcoreWrestlingFan (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's getting worse, now they're vandalizing someone else's talkpage. Please block. 124.84.84.220 (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I've applied blocks to 66.87.120.0/24 as well as 66.87.121.0/24. This should hopefully put a nice dent in this person's attempts to troll. Let me know if you see any more and I'll jump on it ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Improper Naming
Hi I have noticed improper naming for User:YOUR GRANDPA, please do the required actions as it violates WP:username policies.
It actually does not. I'm predicting using my sixth sense that surely this account going to be a troll account, and while I'll snipe "your mom" accounts no problem, this one? Ehh. I'll wait for the user to edit first ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Newest Crypto Currency for your list
The website address is http://ParagonCrypto.com and it is testing until May 2019. It should be on your list so people can find the site from your Crypto currency list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Crosby (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No response yet
You haven't responded to my message about User:YOUR GRANDPA yet, please do the required.
It's not a blatant violation of Wikipedia's username policy (even though it's common for these kinds of usernames to show that they're up to no good). However, the username in itself is not actionable. Not until the user starts disrupting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You bet. Don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocks
Delete the following accounts: GoogleFanatic2017, GoogleFanatic2017IsBack, GoogleFanatic2017IsBackAgain, Stop blocking me! GoogleFanatic2017, Seriously, you NEED to stop blocking me! GoogleFanatic2017 (Do not block), and GoogleFanatic2017 Returns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.125.224 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No subject
Hello admin. I only correcting the dxag article. Take a look at its callsign meaning it says in the article is RR, but its callsign is dxAG. Its ag not RR. My point is, some parts of the dxAG page is copied only from dwrr-fm. Hope you understand. I don't vandalize. Im only correcting the incorrect parts of the dxag page. THANKS ADMIN.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.55.164 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! And thanks for your message. I looked through the history of this article, and you definitely look to be the major contributor there, so I apologize if I mistook one of your edits as such and I apologize for the mistake and inconvenience this caused you. I guess I just don't understand... what do these edits to the article here and here mean? Thanks again for the message. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017
Sorry for that, but I actually replaced removed content with template of same content. Best regards, --Ernies73 (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Content of template is same as content from article, but more accurate. For example, Anđa Jelavić meanwhile became coach of team. --Ernies73 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ernies73 - Ahh, okay. I see... thanks for letting me know. Also, take a look at this help documentation regarding the use of edit summaries. This is a habit that you must learn to always implement with all of your edits. It helps other editors to understand what you're doing and why. It'll also reduce potential issues (such as this one... haha). Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
just got your message regarding edit
Hi
I had edit the infraline energy page, but they all are neglected by your side. Please have a look on my edits they are only enhancements and heading change. You may check i had added few more relevant links. i had already give the reason for the same. Please add my changes and remove the old heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek28182 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
my lack of source
my source is: Tina Joemat-Pettersson
Conasauga Shale Article
Hello Oshwah,
This is Anselmus7. I recently made edits to the Conasauga shale article with out providing citations. I had intended to build the section later, but wanted to go ahead and seed it for others to contribute to. Sometime later I will replace my previous text with added citations.
I edited the post on "Listening," because it was too narrowly framed from the standpoint of conversation. I expanded the definition to include other descriptions of listening. I am confused how anyone could have concluded "Your recent edit to Listening seemed less than neutral to me." Let's start there. How was broadening the explanation of listening anything other than neutral? It seems to me that the entry failed the neutrality test by being too narrowly framed.
Knock, knock. Oshwah? I see that you have more than one thing going on. Please respond when you find time. -h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:83C1:E090:8401:3975:F66C:8131 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Liberation Theology
Oshwah - I reverted the article to a previous state. You'll notice that your revert makes the first sentence into utter nonsense ("Liberation theology Catholic Church in Latin America"???). Please take a look at the edit history - you'll have to go back quite a few steps - there was a series of vandal attacks that were intermittently reverted.-216.12.10.118 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Please remove. From a loving woman's heart
Joshua Holmes needs to be removed from Wikipedia. It is demeaning information about him. If Wikipedia is neutral, then they would not allow information to be out there that might night hold Josh up in the best of light. I am trying my best to protect this man, via internet and in life, as my husband. I can not handle one more ounce of information of him being located on the internet that would even possibly characterize him in any nature other than a man of God, a loving man, and a Christian.
You may be neutral, but I am not! Joshua Holmes is far more than this website. He is by far more than this computerized information. This is coming Friday m the real woman who loves him and real woman who is his wife, through God and with God. Please protect him by this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HISWIFE (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Joshua Holmes needs to be removed from Wikipedia. It is demeaning information about him. If Wikipedia is neutral, then they would not allow information to be out there that might night hold Josh up in the best of light. I am trying my best to protect this man, via internet and in life, as my husband. I can not handle one more ounce of information of him being located on the internet that would even possibly characterize him in any nature other than a man of God, a loving man, and a Christian.
You may be neutral, but I am not! Joshua Holmes is far more than this website. He is by far more than this computerized information. This is coming Friday m the real woman who loves him and real woman who is his wife, through God and with God. Please protect him by this. Thank you. HISWIFE (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @HISWIFE: Ma'am, you've got the wrong end of the stick :) that article is about someone of the same name but who is a (supposed) runner and model, not the gent from JHM. Incidentally, you were right about that article not needing to be here... It's now up at WP:AFD. Many thanks! And good luck on Friday of course. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I think it would be good to put the protection template on the page Weightlifting Fairy Kim Bok-joo as there are several IPs and new editors adding original research on the page. It doesn't adhere to neutrality. Thanks! 2A00:1838:36:269:0:0:0:CAD3 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! I'm going to hold off on protection from now, but I'll keep an eye on things as they change. If you see some drastic edits that warrant action, you're welcome to let me know. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Can I create a wiki page for myself to promote.?
Hi, I am Shaggy Shiva, and I am graphic designer. I would like to create a page on Wikipedia where I planed to mention a basic information of mine. Is it possible.? My created page was deleted itself. I am very new to here. Let me know, if there is any positive way, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaggy Shiva (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Shaggy Shiva: Hello! If you pass our notability guidelines, then yes you can. Otherwise, you cannot. But, there are a few things to be aware of. First, all of the information that you add has to be supported by reliable sources, and you have to cite those sources. Second, it is highly discouraged, according to our conflict of interest guidelines, to write a page about yourself or anybody/thing where you have a conflict of interest. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
"reliable source"
Same arrogance through all those years ... deleting changes, without to try to give an advice, just so, Masters of Universe, Wikipedia Gods.
You're mistake in removing an edit
"Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to List of 2017–18 Premiership Rugby transfers, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)"
1.Please research the edits before assuming they must be wrong, you are not always right as has just been proven!
2. I appreciate you are trying to stop people deleting good content, so please carry on (but research first).
3. I appreciate people may require a description of change, but really anybody who actually knows anything about the subject of this page would realise the edit is valid and, in fact, an important change.
Well you blanked the page without explaining why, so he can revert you, as it is expected that one explains why one is removing content. Thus, the revert. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Fail to reason
You failed to reason why I "may be blocked". Do not add things if they are "likely" or "maybe". Wikipedia is not a place to add information based on "guessing". Winsocker (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Read the talk pages & past history edits of the actual attack page before saying "your editing for no reason" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsocker (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've left a note on this user's talk page about commentary in articles. clpo13(talk) 19:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Brewpoint Coffee Deletion
Greetings!!
I'm very new to Wikipedia and am using it for a mass communication class. I just wanted to apologize for misstepping the rules of Wikipedia, and I assure you it won't happen again.
I apologize that my daughter did not realize what she was doing and she went into the edit function (that I just received a notification about) and put in silly and incorrect information. She did not understand how wikipedia worked and that in doing so, other people would see what she did. I have since explained this to her and it will not happen again. I apologize for taking your time. I hope that my ip address and anything she did can be deleted.
Just copped I didn't sign the last message I sent you, apologies, first time I've editted a page in ages. Just thought it would be a super cool addition to the article, read it in a well know periodical magazine. Link to article below.
Thank you for your message. I'm trying to create a page on National Geographic Photographer "Chad Copeland" and I think that I was confused by it saying something about a basketball player. How do I create a page about the currently active "Chad Copeland" a globally renowned photographer? This is my first page creation.
UPDATE: Now that I understand there's a "Chad Copeland" who played basketball 30-40 years ago, I'm wondering how to create a page that is for "Chad Copeland" the photographer. Please advise! (-8
Hi. Oshwah seems to be busy. You can create a page titled "Chad Copeland (Photographer)". However, a couple of things you should note: One, if you and Chad are related you should be aware of Conflict Of Interest guidelines. (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). The article must also be adequately referenced with independent, reliable sources. Good luck with it. Dan D. Ric (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Green Feather Movement
This article has been on Wikipedia for more than seven years. Two weeks ago a user named Tiffanyxu started a major rewrite of it, over 20 edits. Some of the stuff Tiffanyxu did was very good and constructive, and some of the additions were editorializing and digressive, and tried to summarize large scale background issues that could not easily be summarized well. In the end the lede wound up buried under a page of general knowledge background about the 1950s, McCarthyism and censorship, which certainly need to be touched upon but are dealt with better at length elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Also as a purely factual matter, McCarthyism, not censorship, was the target of the movement; all sources including Isserman are in agreement on this; so foregrounding censorship as an issue is misleading. There was also some material which was non-germane or non-notable (e.g., the anecdotal mention of Helen and Earl Bray--there is a Helen Bray page on Wikipedia but I believe it is a different person) which didn't fit well in a short article. The article now links to sources which cover the Brays and some of the other trimmed material, for any reader who wants more depth.
In my edit I tried to amalgamate Tiffanyxu's edits with the earlier version and integrate the two versions a bit better, and cut back the essayistic/commentary bits that would fit better in a classroom assignment theme or on the Zinn Educational Project page on this topic.
Can you remake a status out of me my names Miguel angel salcido lujan jr. My name is Miguel I was born in el paso, tx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheriolett (talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Ann Birstein update
I edited Ann Birstein's entry to reflect her death. My ex-wife Binnie Birstein is related to Ann, so I have first hand knowledge of her death and funeral this Sunday.
Jon143
Jon143 (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jon143, and thanks for leaving me a message here. Sorry, but citing personal knowledge and relationships with the article subject constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. All content that's added to any Wikipedia article must be attributable to a reliable source, or directly cited in-line and to a reliable source. Please review these policies and guidelines and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I have recently been getting messages from you about my changes to information a page about paper. With the originally saying "Paper is a "wood" like material primarily used for writing and was made in ancient china", (that might not have been 100% right, but it was across those lines). Then it said I changed it to "paper is a "metal" like material primarily used for Rice farming and was made in Austria". I can see why this would've been deleted, and why it is considered vandalism. But I am here to clarify, I never made such change to the information on the page, I have been on that page recently, as i'm studying ancient china and their innovations and inventions, but I never made such change, i'm very sorry for the changes, but I was not involved. And for the record, I dont know how wiki works really, so I'm not really sure if the messages were for someone else or something. I have also gotten 3 or 4 other messages about my "vandalism" and changes, i'm saying I have not made ANY change to ANY page at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.162.42 (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
My disruptive violations
Hey Oshwah,
I'm very sorry for the changes that I have made to the "paper" page, It said that the original said "Paper is a "wood" like material, that is used for writing, and was made in ancient china. Then is said that I said "paper is a "metal" like material used for rice framing and was made in Austria. I can see how this would've been deleted, i'm very sorry for this, but i'm here to say that I have not made any such change to any wiki page at all! I'm sorry for this inconvenience. I had also been getting a lot more messages about my "vandalism", when I have no such thing, once again i'm sorry for the inconvenience and have a nice day. :-)
How u became so successful in ur lyf will u plz give me some tips..plz👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.29.66.62 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi
You reverted my edits time ago :(
About koper
It can't possibly be coming from the Greek word κάπρος. Kapros means wild boar. While capris means goat, which is the same as the ancient Greek word, so it is a literal translation of the Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.92.211.15 (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
let's continue our discussion on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.243.42 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I responded to your initial discussion on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Poor judgement on your part
Oshwah,
I don't understand why you will let someone post ugly, negative statements about our company after they lost a law suit against us, and when we try to just delete our entire content to avoid their cyber attacks on us, you restore all the content where they can attack again. The content is of no value if people are allowed to put false statements out of vengeance on our page. It cheapens the integrity of Wikipedia if this is allowed to continue. It makes me wonder if I can trust anything I read on other Wikipedia pages. I'm all for free speech, and their are social media platforms where people can do that. But Wikipedia should be about facts, not emotional post written as if they are fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.165.189 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that you feel uncertain about your trust in Wikipedia's integrity when it comes to its content. I read the article you have been repeatedly trying to delete (both under your username Robertlo9, and now with your IP while logged out) - All of the content is properly referenced and attributed to sources that I believe to be trustworthy. Personally, I think you should re-evaluate why you feel this way. I believe that the integrity of Wikipedia's content is strong, and one reason for this is because the enforcement of content goes both ways. We disallow the addition of content that isn't properly referenced or if it reflects any degree of bias or viewpoint. On the other hand, we also disallow the removal of content by individuals who make up excuses and reasons to do so, when the underlying reason is painfully obvious. That's what keeps article content accurate, neutral, and in the highest quality. If you don't agree, then I'm sorry you feel that way, and I wish you a great rest of your day. Oh, and by the way: If you blank or delete portions of that article again, you will be blocked. Period. This is your final and only warning that you'll receive for this behavior. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (sorry Osh!) To add to what Oshwah has said I can see virtually nothing in the article that fits the description of the content you describe. The content seems, if anything, quite positive and importantly, is sourced. If there are passages you have misgivings over you should start a discussion at the article talk page, describing exactly what you disagree with and why. As you have a conflict of interest you should not edit the page directly in any event but make requests at the TP. You cannot just delete content without giving a valid and supported reason. Eagleash (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) another one! Is it possible Robertlo9 is looking to have the 16:38, 10 March 2017 version revdeleted? In other words, is Robertlo9 trying to delete the page because the page history contains that edit? 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 18:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
78.26 - That certainly is possible. I'll have a look at it when I get back to my desk. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, got busy in the afternoon, so I had to wait until I got home to go through the history. I definitely agree that there was something fishy going on in the past with this article. The edit you mention (this one) adds a "controversy" section, and the content within it appears referenced... but the part that really gives off that there's a possible COI / attempts to push a point of view? The modification made to the article's lead summary adding "claims to" in the lead sentence. That's one edit of the many in here... I'm pretty sure that I'll find more as I continue digging... ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked
Sorry for everything
James Marsters Other Work - Dresden Files
If you wont let me update the Dresden Files information then you need to do it. It has clearly has such poor updates that it no longer makes any sense. Rather than a cohesive description of his work and VERY important influence and resulting success of the Dresden Files franchise its just a series of sentences added to the backend of something written years ago.
Lorethiel (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lorethiel, and thanks for leaving a message here. The reason I reverted your edit here was because you removed content, but didn't leave an in-depth explanation as to why. I see now with your other edits that you're trying to update the information with the infobox. Make sure that what you're changing and updating is referenced and supported with reliable sources to maintain verifiability and accuracy with content. Since this article is a biography of a living person, this requirement is held to much higher standards than other article subjects. Please let me know if you have any questions about the policies and guidelines I've linked you. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 19:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Disappointed
Disappointed by the tone or general feel of your response. I had no idea we wouldn't have rights to protect and control our content. Yes, when you read what is posted it looks properly referenced. But the references are bogus. They are created by the same company that lost their law suit against us and so they have adopted a smear campaign on every digital platform they can find.
Here is the text that shows up in our history under what is classified as "Controversy":
"Many customers report that the company engages in false advertisement during the sales process, making claims of compatibility and function that do not exist, in a non-transparent way. Additionally, it is claimed that Fishbowl's refund policy is designed to discourage the capability of customers to seek recourse or compensation, with a contractually-limited refund period. Some customers have reported losses of thousands of dollars.[17]
It has also been claimed that Fishbowl uses unscrupulous measures in attempting to grow their business, including e-mail spam and address & telephone number spoofing. Many consumers report there is no way to remove themselves from the spam e-mails, and calls to the company's listed telephone number repeatedly are sent directly to an automated voice messaging system.[18]
ExpressTech International, doing business as Fishbowl Inventory, has been the subject at least one lawsuit alleging fraud.[19]"
Let me address these statements specifically. "Many customer report the the company engages in false advertising during the sales process." Totally false. We are the #1 solution for QuickBooks as stated by Intuit and their CEO. We have been highly successful over the past 15+ years due to the fact that our software is superior to any other solution out there. If we engaged in false advertising we wouldn't be #1 for over a decade now, and Intuit, a global multi-billion dollar company, would have ceased to partner with us.
Next, "it is claimed that Fishbowl's refund policy is designed to discourage the capability of customers to seek recourse or compensation." This is also a ridiculous statement. We are the only company in our space that offers a money back guarantee. It is a very generous guarantee that gives many months for a customer to determine if the software is a good fit. We clearly state the terms and as long as companies make the request in the time frame given, we quickly and easily provide the refund. We have about 6% of our customers that use this guarantee monthly. If they request the refund in the window provided they don't even need to state what the issue is. They could just be having buyers remorse and want the money back. It is a simple and very generous refund policy that other software providers don't offer.
"It has also been claimed that Fishbowl uses unscrupulous measures in attempting to grow their business, including e-mail spam and address & telephone number spoofing." Again, a totally false statement. We don't buy any lists for our marketing efforts. The only people that are receiving emails are those that have filled out forms on our site wanting our free trial or demo. Or we do work with very reputable email marketing firms that send emails introducing Fishbowl to QuickBooks users. Anyone requesting to opt out is immediately removed from our internal database or third party mailing lists. We monitor this extremely close and will not work with anyone that doesn't have the same level of attention as we do. As for phone calls, we don't do any kind of cold calling internally or through third party companies. We only call prospects that have given us their information, and we only call from our corporate phone lines. I have no idea what they are basing the statement of phone number spoofing. It has never existed and never will.
"calls to the company's listed telephone number repeatedly are sent directly to an automated voice messaging system." We are no different than most businesses. We have a modern phone system that routes incoming calls to the department or individual callers are trying to reach. It is automated. I don't understand why this is stated as a controversy.
"ExpressTech International, doing business as Fishbowl Inventory, has been the subject at least one lawsuit alleging fraud." True, but anyone can file a law suit for fraud. it happens in business all the time. That isn't a controversy. What they fail to mention is we have never lost a lawsuit. Why haven't that mention that? because it is proof that there isn't fraud, which doesn't help their agenda. If they want to bring up a "controversy" at least tell the entire story. Be honest about the outcome and why the outcome was in our favor.
I'm sorry to be so passionate about this. Most likely few to none of our customers or prospects will ever read this content. It just bugs me that someone can put so much energy into creating false references and then use those references to back up their statements on Wikipedia. I realize we are powerless and nothing will change, but I had to get it off my chest. I won't bother you further. I'll just learn to avoid our page on Wikipedia.
Kirk Tanner
Fishbowl CMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.165.189 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Mr. Tanner, again I'm sorry you're so frustrated. Before you do anything else, please read WP:OWN. When done, read WP:YOURSELF. It appears that the edit you mention was rightly removed, and it would take a fairly experienced wikipedia reader/editor to find the edit that is bothering you. It appears the references are to unreliable sources, likely added to those sites by the editor who added them to wikipedia. Therefore perhaps that edit can be deleted so that only administrators can see it. I'd like Oshwah's and/or Eagleash's input before I do that unilaterally, though. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 19:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
78.26, Eagleash: If the content is clearly libelous, this is handled under the oversight policy. It wouldn't otherwise be eligible for revision deletion under any other criteria. However, the revision deletion policy does state that we are allowed to err on the side of caution and rev del the revisions pending the input of an Oversighter. I think we should get their input, and I'm completely okay with rev del'ing those revisions while we await an answer. I think that this is what we should do. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Clearly libelous? I'm no lawyer. Undoubtedly a lawsuit did happen, but the "sources" added by that edit were 1)user-created content, like using a bad review at Angie's List as a source 2)does not support the claim 3)a database, which proves nothing. @Newyorkbrad: would be someone I'd most certainly trust, he may have an opinion. I'm revdeleting it just to be safe. Any admin feel free to undo that action, and give me the what-for. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 01:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not either, which is why referring this to the OS team, who could then refer to the legal team if needed - is the right decision to make. I agree with your rev del - this is an appropriate action per the guidelines, since the revision is in question regarding libel and we are pending a review and an answer. We've done everything within our technical abilities and within policy; regardless of the answer we receive, I hope that this process has helped this user to understand more about how Wikipedia functions and works, and hopefully see this process and this site more positively than he indicated above... that's what I believe is the most important outcome I can hope for. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (again) It seems that section was removed by this edit with the comment that much was unsourced or that sources were unreliable. It is only visible in the page history after some searching and it seems unlikely that anyone reading the page would look for it. However, I can see not very much in the way of hiding the edit if others agree. Eagleash (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! First off, let me apologize for my earlier response. I typically spend the extent of my volunteer time monitoring the recent changes and user logs -- I target, locate, and resolve issues across every single spectrum... from vandalism, trolling, and unreferenced content additions - to harassment, threats of violence, copyright violations, and libel. You must understand that I will occasionally run into those who have a clear conflict of interest and blatantly attempt to either delete content they don't like, or self-promote themselves or the company they're from by adding content that is clearly written to push a certain point of view. You didn't describe your particular concerns in your initial message above, so I didn't know or think to look in the article's history for past edits. This message you left here is much more clear - thank you for keeping in touch and for responding. As the others above have pointed out, these edits are previous revisions; they're not viewable unless specifically clicked on in order to open, and they are not indexed by Wikipedia's search nor are they indexed by web search engines. Adding on to my previous response to you, I should also state that there's a key difference between someone removing content that's well referenced and neutral because they simply don't like it, and someone whose removing content because it contains problems or clearly violates a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Content that is contentious in nature and that is unreferenced or poorly referenced would, without a doubt, fall into the second category. If you have any more questions or concerns, you're always welcome to message me here. I'll be more than happy to assist you. I hope you see this message and that you stay in touch. Best regards -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Questionable good faith edits
24.178.29.47 (talk·contribs) There is this IP who is making inaccurate changes in hip-hop related articles. I been keeping an eye on this IP edits for awhile now, and the edits don't generally helping the articles at all, they don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or the Manual of Style. The IP make very awkward grammatically incorrect edits in album pages and have been warned by several other editors about these edits, but continue to making questionable good faith edits. My problem is that this IP's grammar is terrible, and their changes are disruptive as they keep making them and add nothing constructive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah,
You messaged me about an edit to Jessica McDonald's page, which I made while not logged in—I didn't leave a citation because I didn't see any others in that info box and didn't know if there was some style convention about doing that. In any case, the initial height wasn't cited either (that I saw); the 5'10 number comes from US Soccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebolamunkee (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ebolamunkee! Thanks for leaving me a message and for following up about this. I apologize for the late response; I've been busy lately and haven't had a chance to get back to people recently. I'm not sure if you meant to be logged-out while making that edit or not, but I went ahead and redacted your IP address from that edit in the page history to protect your privacy. Please let me know if this is not correct and I'll revert the redaction. No worries - the important part is that it's referenced and correct. Nope, the style convention for citing a reference in an infobox is the same - I ususally just use the {{cite}} template to make it easy. Please let me know if you have questions or need anything else. I'll be happy to help. Again, I appreciate your message. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
oshwah
stop being a company man Crowley destroyed the parts of speech understand divide multiply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.95.35 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The previous text (without references) read "In November 2012, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announced to develop Liquid methane rocket fuel/LOX rocket engines a new It had previously used only LOX/RP-1 in the SpaceX rocket engine family."
The text also had an obsolete value for the thrust of Raptor.
I fixed the badly written text (which had been bad for months) after considering the earlier text, and incorporated the reference to the most recent available power estimate.
For whatever it's worth, I'm an experienced editor currently traveling and without access to my login credentials here. 2600:100C:B22D:19D3:A7:7B0B:B899:627E (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah... that's weird. I definitely did not intentionally revert your edit. I apologize for this, and I see that you reverted the mistake - awesome! Please let me know if you need anything. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Troy Perry updates
Hi Oshwah:
Rev Troy has asked me to update his profile for him due to some inaccuracies and additional information that has not been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboswell (talk • contribs)
Johnboswell - There are a few things wrong with what you're trying to do here. First, this content you're changing is unreferenced. Per Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people, content such as this must be referenced by a reliable source. Else, the content must be removed until one is provided. There also seems to be a conflict of interest here, as you're claiming to have a relationship or know the article subject. Please review these policies and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for understanding. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
xDelta Wiki
I have been in talks with the author for a few years now. About the bug and updates, I spoke to them 1.5 years ago...and have been since then.. and absolute no work at all has been done since 1.5 years on xDelta, and there are no Foreseen plans to either (i.e. it might happen one day a few years or many years from now, but who known when) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.219.31 (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but this constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is also speculation that you've observed and believe is true, not even know to be true... even if that wasn't the case, you can't add content to articles citing your personal knowledge. See the link to the policy I provided above, and let me know if you have any questions about it. Thanks for understanding. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Stonie edit deleted
There is no way possible that you could have read my edit to the Stonie (Cortez) post before you deleted it. you deleted it within 5 seconds of my posting it. In fact, I bet it was deleted automatically.
My edit was very important, because it pointed out how Stonie tragically died at just 38 years old. Most people would ASSUME it was a suicide, however, since he died at the only hospital in the country that does liver transplants, it is fairly obvious that he died from complications of his liver ailment - which I pointed out - and which you deleted without even reading it.
I assume we're talking about this edit? If so, then there are multiple issues with it. First, it contains numerous personal opinions and commentary, which is contrary to our policy on writing content that reflects a neutral point of view. None of this content is referenced at all, or attributed to any reliable sources - so it appears that this content only aims to add personal analysis, which isn't allowed. Please review these policies and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Fordpierre
...has recreated the page you deleted. Dan D. Ric (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Dan D. Ric - Ohhh, joyyy! I deleted again, and I've warned the user this time. Hopefully he'll knock it off, or (even better) ask me questions if he doesn't understand... We shall see. Oh, and thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I probably should have CSDd it, that way he would have gotten a warning of sorts on his talk page. Dan D. Ric (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Not objective? How would you know,,,
No offence, my fine powerful friend. No objection to rejection.
Some are born to endless night.
Some are born to sweet delight.
I am simply a robot - objective as can be. Never born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.116.196 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You're quick!
I posted an edit, accidentally hit submit instead of preview before citing a reference. You caught it within seconds.
Thank you for helping me keep it legit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonspirit (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem! I'm here if you have any questions or need any kind of help. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 15:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocking IP addresses indefinitely
Hi Oshwah, when reverting vandalism, I have come across a series of IP addresses in which you blocked indefinitely. I'm not sure whether or not you meant to do this, but I just wanted to let you know of this in case if this was an accident.
Here are the IP's in which you blocked indefinitely (I'm pretty sure that I didn't miss any...):
This is the only IP that I would argue should stay indefinitely blocked, because it appears as though it has solely been used by an LTA sock/block evading vandal.
With that said though, thanks for all of your hard work that you put into dealing with these vandals! :-)
210.139.38.113 (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
AWWW... CRAP... Yeah, those are mistakes for sure. My... blocking method (lol)... is accidentally setting an indefinite block instead of a 36-hour block when disruption is chosen. I'll fix those blocks right now. Thanks a million for letting me know... seriously, I appreciate this a lot. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Yup, I found that one, too. Thanks again. WHEW!! Glad that was caught early. My God.... that would have been really bad if that was left unchecked for a long time... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Marie Cosindas / Correction of birth year
Marie's only remaining sibling, Esther Teich, is certain that Marie was born on September 22, 1923. Their deceased younger brother, Nicholas, was born on March 19, 1926.
According to Esther, who is very sound of mind at age 95, Esther & Marie were 20 months apart in age.
Esther was born on 8 January, 1922
Marie was born on 22 September, 1923
Younger brother Nick was born on 19 March, 1926
If their mother, Julia, had a baby in September of 1925, then another in March of 1926 – that’s very unusual! LOL!
Trust me, this info is correct.
108.20.208.169 (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Mary Lou (Cosindas) Green (Marie's niece)
When it comes to biographies of living people, the only thing I'll trust is the reference you're supposed to provide with theses changes. Give these policies a read; they're important and they're official policy that you must follow with these kinds of changes. Please help us expand this project - not with truth, but with verifiability - this is much more important than what is "true". Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw it in the logs a few minutes ago when it was created. It's... *sigh*... not blatant enough for me to block just for the username; I'm waiting for the account to edit first. For the record, lets just say that I don't predict that this account will be passing an RFA anytime soon... lol ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Cahk - I declined your request. The edit the user made was actually a GOD DAMN MASTERPIECE AND OF QUALITY I'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE! JESUS CHRIST... THIS PERSON IS GOING PLACES! Sound the alarms! I just nominated the user's talk page for FA status, and I got on my knees and begged this user to accept my nomination for an RFA. Can you start an ArbCom request to give this user the founder flag? Just IAR it; they'll understand. No need for them to even waste their time with a case... WP:SNOW works the other way - flag will get granted. Be careful next time you suggest talk page access get revoked, Cahk... you might just be requesting that for our reincarnation of Jesus Christ and leader of the world. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 07:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi oshwah im currently interested in publishing a new page related to a different Lachlan Jones and i was wondering how i go about it?Liamsmiche (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Liamsmiche, and welcome to Wikipedia! If this person doesn't have an article, you should visit Wikipedia's article creation tutorial at Wikipedia:Your first article. It'll help you to verify that who or what you'd like to create an article about meets our different guidelines and policies first, so that your time isn't ultimately wasted. You're also welcome to visit Wikipedia:Articles for creation to draft an article and get help and a review before it's published. It's a great place to get guidance from other editors, and for people who are brand new to article creation and our various guidelines. Let me know if you have any questions regarding any of these tutorials and guidelines, and I'll be happy to answer them. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Dapper Jack Rogers
I wanted to add Dapper Jack Rogers because he is Shaggy's great great grandfather in the movie Shaggy's Showdown.
you put Tawny who is in the same movie but why not Dapper Jack?
i hope you reply this question because i want to know thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaggeena (talk • contribs) 09:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Shaggeena, and thanks for your message here. The main issue I had in concern with your edits, such as this one (other than verifiability and the lack of a reference, is the fact that you also added your personal analysis and opinion with, "he was the nicest man on earth", and "Shaggy looks like Dapper Jack Rogers". See Wikipedia's policy on writing articles that reflect a neutral point of view. If you believe that I'm mistaken, please let me know. Best -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Changes to "Invasion of Falklands 1982" page
LATEST:
Hi Oshwah, I'm sad to see yet again that edits to the "1982 Invasion of the Falklands" page have been taken down. This time I stated the sources quite clearly in every case, be it a book name and page number, links and more. I am sadly confused as to what to do better and how? I appreciate I'm still learning here, but I'm stumped as to how to do it to the required standard, as I feel I have. If I can improve this, I will. I stated the official report because I can't find a link on line...I have the original! Likewise corrected a name of a man which has gone back to the previous, even when I provided a link and I know the guy. I know what his name is. As I said before, this article is riddled with inaccuracies and I want to make it better, so any advice from you on how t do this would be much appreciated, than you. Real History Man (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Oswah, I recently edited the above page as it was unrepresentative of both official reports from the day. It states only the Argentine official figures, not the British figures which are indeed 5 killed, 17 wounded, 3 prisoners and one Amtrac destroyed. The page has some serious errors which I would like to help correct, and would like your advice on the best way to do this please?
Hi again Oshwah, I appreciate your coming back to me so quickly on this. It's actually good to know that Wikipedia is as well-policed as this, so I don't mind, that's why I only made minor changes just to see...I'm new to this! It probably doesn't help that I can't code, so it's like learning a new language...there may be things I get wrong! I'm a professional historian and have been working with all of the guys mentioned on this page (yes, I know them all, that's kind of geeky-cool, right?) who all wanted to tell the proper story...I could contend every point on it!
I do have a question as to this though; I want the real history there and I don't want to really give you a headache and "Oh no it's him again!" - so a wee bit of advice would be useful from you please. The real history of this, as told by the men themselves, is VASTLY different from what is on this page and most of the sources. Yes, I can supply new sources, but if I have to raise a dispute over every fact or figure, the entire page is going to be littered with disputes! How do I do this without driving you crazy? What's the best advice?
I appreciate your time in this, thanks again,
Real History Man (That name sounds so rubbish now!) ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real History Man (talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Real History Man - I hope you're doing well. I apologize for the delay responding to your follow-up inquiries. I've been very busy lately and I'm just now catching up with all of my messages and emails. It looks like you're picking up Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as community norms and culture - very very quickly and very well! That's awesome! If you still have questions or need assistance with anything, please do no hesitate to ask me. I'll be happy to answer any questions and assist where I can. I hope you have a great rest of your day and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Change to Septuple meter
Hi Oshwah,
My change to "Septuple meter" was not in error, but it's still possible I may have been wrong. I changed the title of the Motion City Soundtrack song to "Boxelder" instead of "Box Elder" because this is the way it is listed on iTunes and elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as on the Wikipedia page about the album: Go (Motion City Soundtrack album). If this title "Boxelder" is still incorrect I'll leave it as "Box elder", otherwise I will correct it back to "Boxelder" on the "Septuple meter" page.
Ah! I see what you're doing now. Sounds good to me! Thanks for leaving me a follow-up message about this - much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
James Joyce
Hi Oshwah,
I was in the middle of making James Joyce better, then someone just reverted my changes. Can you take a look and help me!!! Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah,
You removed my correction about Marie's birth year, 1923, not 1925. Just curious how you managed to approve an update for the date of her death?
I guess that source has some better creds than I do...
Mary (Cosindas) Green, Marie's niece 108.20.208.169 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Your thought that I attempted to edit the 'Feeder" page
All I can tell you is that I do not have the vaguest idea what you are talking about...
I have never attempted to edit anything here and have never heard of that group till I read your comment.
Dwight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:9E (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:9E: It's most likely that your IP is shared, or it used to belong to someone else and now you have it (because IPs can switch from one location to another). My IP edited Wikipedia in January 2015, but I never edited Wikipedia until September of that year, so someone else must have had it then (I got it when I did a full reset on my iPad, prior to then I'd had a different IP). So don't worry, you've done nothing wrong. If this sort of thing happens in the future, you may wish to consider registering to avoid any more irrelevant messages. Linguisttalk|contribs 18:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Appreciation
Hello
Really enjoyed the Straw Man page - well researched and imaginatively written.
Thank you.
Since Marie died a few days ago, there will be a number of articles written about her. She had no children and has one living sibling, my aunt, Esther Teich. As one of her closest relatives and a stickler for accuracy, I want to set the record straight. She never liked revealing her age, and was not bothered by the fact that the internet showed her birth year as 1925.
Here's the story:
Marie's age was 93. She was born on September 22, 1923. End of story.
(talk page stalker) Unfortunately, the first two sites do not appear to be reliable sources and the third is questionable. This also involves original research which Wikipedia avoids. Are there any publications (newspapers, magazines, etc) which supply this information? --‖ Ebyabetalk - Union of Opposites ‖ 16:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
For what it is worth, The Family Search site (https://familysearch.org), maintained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, lists her birth date as 22 Sept, 1923.
"United States Public Records, 1970-2009," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KLLB-P74 : 22 May 2014), Marie Cosindas, Residence, Boston, Massachusetts, United States; a third party aggregator of publicly available information. Dan D. Ric (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The IP vandal that you have blocked for making several unconstructive edits on the page Love in the Moonlight is back. I hope you can protect the page (again) or block the user (again) to ensure the quality of said page. Thank you! 176.10.116.131 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I think 176.10.116.131 is the same IP Vandal Sockpuppet1 by Blocked User:AkoAyMayLobo2 who is persistently desperate to protect the Love in the Moonlight345678 and other Korean-entertainment related pages similiar to its previous socks. The IP vandal even accused me that "I own that article."910 The sock also commonly uses the words "non-constructive", "paragraph", "revising", "revision", "unconstructive", "unnecessary" and "unsourced" when undoing or reverting other users' edits, and is also known for blanking its own talk page. -112.198.73.9 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
you blocked the user "Onlineredaktion P3 group" because it does not sound like a person. Therefore I created a new account, named "Petra Rennings - P3" hope, this is ok now.
I am working for P3 group and just want to keep our company information up to date like e.g. competences, industries or current number of employees.
For the German Wikipedia pages I am in contact with Rudolf Simon [personal information removed]. He accepted my changes at the german wiki site, which I'd like to do at this wiki sites in English, too.
Thank you very much for your support and reply.
Best
Petra
Petra Rennings - P3 (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Petra Rennings - P3, and thanks for the message. Yes, having your name in the username is fine, such as "Timmy James at Microsoft". We just can't have usernames that represent companies and not individual people. Please remember that if you're being paid or compensated in any way by this company to edit Wikipedia, that you follow the disclosure guidelines located at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. If you have questions, please let me know. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 13:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted an unsourced date-of-birth, and only when leaving the editor a message did I notice that you recently blocked him for doing exactly that. I wanted to being the recidivism to your attention. It's not quite vandalism, so I'm assuming that it's not right for WP:AIV, and I'm, not sure where the right place is. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
TJRC - Thanks for the heads up. If it continues, report him to AIV for persistent unsourced content additions, and supply diffs so that it's easy for the admin to locate what you're referring to. Let me know if you have questions or need anything else. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I did twinkle him again, so I'll just watch for further activity for the time being. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
So, wait, is "Twinkle" a verb now? Like "Google"?[Humor]—Gestrid (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Its been a verb; you're just behind the times!! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 23:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Cheez Whiz
If you are an admin, can you protect the page? It's out of hand. Thanks! El cid, el campeador (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah. There are some IPs (or perhaps an IP hopper) removing MfD templates from the articles listed in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Phonemetra. I've re-added the templates a couple of times and added some user warnings, but a "new" IP eventually appears to remove the templates again. I was going to see if these qualified for WP:PP, but these are technically drafts and they can still be improved even while the MfD is ongoing. FWIW, I have no opinion on whether the drafts should be deleted. Is there anything can be done to prevent to removal of the tags, or should it just be left up to a bot to re-add them? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I need to verify the policy on protecting draft pages. Stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 05:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking into this. The tag removal is annoying, but it will not stop the MfD dicsussion so it seems a bit of futile gesture. I've added {{uw-mfd1}} to the various IP user talk pages to ask them not to remove the template, but also let them know about the discussion. So far, none of them have opted to comment at MfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
My Page William DeAtley
Hello i need help creating my page about the American actor William DeAtley. All of my efforts have been in violation of something and I'm struggling to build a page without it being taken down. William DeAtley has an article written about him this shows his noteworthiness. Please help me create a page about him that doesn't violate any Wikipedia policy. THANK YOU SO MUCH!
http://www.globedailyonline.com/william-deatley/
~~Joey2017~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey2017 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Joey2017: Well, the problem is, William DeAtley isn't notable, which means that he doesn't have enough (or for that matter, any) references in reliable sources. And, just to note, the website provided is obviously self-published, meaning that it isn't acceptable as a source. So, a page about William DeAtley would, right now at least, fundamentally be a violation of our guidelines. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Revdel request
Hi. Can you please help delete REDACTED as they contain possible personal info. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Bennv3771: In the future, it's best not to post RevDel requests in a place where anyone can see it since that will cause more people to see it before the admin can delete it. A lot of people watch admin talk pages like this one. You can either go to the IRC channel that's setup for handling RevDel requests (#wikipedia-en-revdelconnect) or you can email an administrator on this list about the RevDel request and, in a new section on the admin's talk page, type {{You've got mail}} (including the curly braces). In order to email anyone, you have to have a confirmed email address and have the box titled Enable email from other users checked in your preferences. Both the place to put in your email and check that box are at the bottom of that page. (A better explanation can be found here and here.) Personally, I would recommend the email option since, in my experience, admins don't always seem to keep an eye on the IRC channel. —Gestrid (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't read German and the editing seems suspect. There have been a number of removals of the "far-right nationalist" material. Any suggestions on getting some who can read German and English to look at this? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
how to cite something - newbie
Hi, I need basic instruction on how to insert a cite to something. I thought I followed the < type instruction but I guess not. Cultural references for the Jerome Arizona page (Jim Sullivan). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayfantastic (talk • contribs) 23:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Dayfantastic! Welcome to Wikipedia! Not a problem at all! This guideline page on citing sources will show you how to do this. If you have any more questions after reading this page, please do not hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be happy to answer them. Happy editing, and again... welcome! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 20:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from May 2017. Please do not modify this page.
Done Various admins (mainly Widr) have blocked the accounts on English Wikipedia. If you want the accounts globally locked, I suggest you file a report here. Oshwah isn't a Steward, so he unfortunately can't block the accounts from editing on other wikis. — Gestrid (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Adam9007 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
). Although, having said that, I suppose "dumb" also fits that description... Adam9007 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
) for a suitable template. Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
. I fell into the trap of reverting a policy violation with gay abandon. After that, I think it'll be a while before I trust myself to touch Huggle again 
—usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
see you around :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
keep stopping the bad guy vandals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:381:101:142:504A:71CF:709E:FBFD (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Declined I don't see how the edits by 2606:A000:131B:E9:D83:E478:6E96:16C are disruptive. I spot checked their edits to the article, and the user provides references and the edits don't appear to be vandalism. You reverted this edit, and warned the other IP for vandalism - how is this vandalism? I don't see that there's any disruption going on to justify protection. Can you explain and help me to understand? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
