Oshhair.png
This user is an edit filter manager on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversighter rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has Interface administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Oshwah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Smiley.svg



Let's chat Smiley.svg


Click here to message me. I will reply as soon as I can. All replies will be made directly underneath your message on this page.

Please create your message with a subject/headline and "sign" your message using four tildes (eg: ~~~~) at the end.


Experienced editors have my permission to talk page stalk and respond to any message or contribute to any thread here.


A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Hi there Oshwah. I think I have already awarded you a barnstar, but here’s another one. Thanks for all the support and help you have given me, you’re one of the reasons that I’ve continued editing here and you’ve helped me understand some pretty complicated stuff. Best wishes, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Willbb234! It's great to talk to you again! Goodness... your barnstar means a lot to me. It put a smile on my face and it made me truly happy... thank you. I'm happy to see and know that the energy and time that I spend on Wikipedia makes at least a small bit of a positive impact upon other editors around here... even if it's only a few. I'm happy to be one of the reasons that keep you contributing to Wikipedia as an active editor and member of the community. You're a positive asset to this project, and you make a big different here. It's awesome to know that I've helped build you to become who you are today. You're doing an excellent job here, and we need you more than ever before... especially given the recent Wikidrama that caused a lot of anger and frustration among the community. It's people like you who will be absolutely key players among the community that will help build us back up, and it's people like you that we absolutely cannot afford to lose as an active member of the community. I'm here should you need my help, input, advice, guidance, - anything you need. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Thanks again... it really meant a lot to me. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say the same about you! Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234 - I appreciate that. :-) Until next time.... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Restoring a page[edit]

Good evening sir ,pls one of my contribution was deleted by you .Kelblizz , pls sir i would want you to restore it. Bigboss18 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bigboss18! Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the article you created and the request to have it restored. Unfortunately, the article content failed to establish a credible claim of significance for the article subject, which is why it was deleted under A7 of the speedy deletion policy. Aside from this, are you sure that the intended article subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of people? I sense that you're going to run into problems here in this regard, and I want to make sure that you check these things thoroughly and before you begin creating articles. This is important... you don't want to end up spending hours of time creating the article and writing content just to have it deleted per a discussion or under a criterion for speedy deletion...
Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions, and I'll be happy to do so. Welcome to Wikipedia! I wish you happy editing, and I hope that you take off your jacket and decide to stay with us for awhile! We need more editors, and I know that you'll be able to learn the ropes and become a proficient contributor in no time. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User page reviewed[edit]

Just today, I’ve received a notification that says my user page, User:Power Plant Uranium, has been reviewed by you. I just want to ask, is my user page okay? Power Plant Uranium (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Power Plant Uranium! Yup! Else it would've been deleted. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Thanks a lot! Power Plant Uranium (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Power Plant Uranium - No problem! Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything, and I'll be more than happy to do so. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy your stay with us! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No subject[edit]

Hey Osh, I’ve come across a lot of unreviewed user pages. Is it worth reviewing them? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! Yes, absolutely. Reviewing the user creation log and going through the user pages of new accounts will quickly tell you whether or not the user is here to build an encyclopedia, as well as what their likely intentions are to do on Wikipedia (whether they be constructive or disruptive). Spammers will use the user page to publish links to their "awesome totally-not-a-scam website" (LOL), users and even LTA sock puppets who evade their blocks will sometimes crate a user page with attack pages aimed toward other users or the admin who blocked them, users who solely wish to advertise or promote something (whether it be themselves or a company product or service - see my essay on identifying blatant advertising) will quickly start doing so on their user page, and many other situations. I make it part of my patrolling routine to frequently keep an eye out for new accounts that go straight to creating a user page, as it will often uncover potential problems that are clearly shown in the content they add to it. Do know that many users who do create a user page in their first edits do so just to perform testing, or just to add a quick summary about themselves. That's totally fine, so long as they don't violate policy. However, taking a peek at what they added to it will easily reveal issues that they should be talked to about before they wind up finding themselves in trouble, if not blocked immediately for policy violations and abuse. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
By the way... I know that you were just following up due to the discussion on my user talk page above, and I'm very happy that you did so. ;-) You did absolutely nothing wrong at all by adding your question to the discussion instead of starting a new one. I just figured it was best to move your question to a new discussion in case the user above needed to respond with any additional questions or requests for help. It'll make it easier for him/her to do so. ;-) I just wanted to let you know so that you don't feel that my decision to move your message was an implication that you did something wrong. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. What do you do when one of the cases explained arises? I know there is the contact a user option, but in the cases explained, the users will usually not listen. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, the problematic ping (sounds like a horror movie lol) caught my eye so I just had to change it! Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234 - If we're talking about user pages belonging to new accounts that were just created... if you choose to talk to the user about issues, violations, and concerns with their user page first, and doing so goes nowhere, just go about your business. Depending on the situation, the user likely has already abandoned the account (such as user page spamming accounts). Tag their user page for speedy deletion under the right criterion, report the username at UAA if it clearly violates Wikipedia's username policy, or report them to AIV, ANI, or the proper noticeboard in cases of sock puppetry, abuse, or other clear problems that need attention. I feel that it's better to take action and have them understand and correct the issues and violations as soon as they're discovered with new accounts than to wait and allow the issues to manifest. Please let me know if you have any more questions, or if you'd like me to provide any input or guidance regarding a specific situation. I'll be more than happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted the user page User:Dilip_Wagh[edit]

I'm not finding a valid reason for deleting the page User:Dilip_Wagh You are referring to as advertising while the page was intended to show case my profile and the proof of the statements. So, tell me how do I get back my page to be active?

Thanks, DW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilip Wagh (talkcontribs) 15:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dilip Wagh, and thank you for leaving me a message here regarding your user page and its deletion. I'll be happy to explain the reason behind the decision and the Wikipedia policies that are relevant to the deletion, as well as set expectations regarding the compliance of Wikipedia's policies. :-) Your user page was deleted under G11 of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion due to being an unambiguous attempt at self-promotion. We must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for advertising or promotion. Specifically, #4 of this section of Wikipedia's policy page on what it is not designed or to be used for specifies that self-promotion is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia. Furthermore, this section of Wikipedia's policy on user pages states that advertising and self-promotion is not acceptable content to add to user pages. Given the text and content that was added to your user page, it was unambiguously self-promotional and therefore was deleted in order to enforce the compliance of these policies. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the information I've provided to you here, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. I apologize if the deletion brought any frustration upon you, but Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines that must be followed, and your user page was not in compliance with the policies I cited in this response. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Dilip Wagh - I noticed that you re-created your user page with the same content that existed previously, and I have deleted it again for the reasons I stated above in my previous response. Please do not create this page again if it is not in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (namely, the policies that I cited above just a few minutes ago). Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

author kunal banerjee[edit]

i am an author and has written 8 academics book and i am a city icon in jamshedpur. how can i make myself available in wikipidea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:88F:3115:0:0:161B:D0B1 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions! When you ask about "making yourself available" in Wikipedia, are you asking how you can join and contribute to this project as an editor? If so, that's easy! You can join and start helping us right now! I highly recommend that you create an account for yourself, and then go through Wikipedia's new user tutorial and complete the entire list of walkthroughs and guides that are listed there. After you've done this, you should have a basic level of knowledge to be able to find your way around the website, join WikiProjects and groups that focus on subject areas and topics that interest you, and start editing articles and content in order to improve and expand them. :-)
If you meant something different with your question, please let me know. I want to make sure that I fully and completely answer your questions and help you with anything that you need. I hope that you decide to join us as a contributor and that you become a long-term experienced editor on Wikipedia. It's a truly fun, rewarding, constructive, and impactful way to dedicate any time that you can spare and toward volunteering with a project that makes such a significant impact around the world. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI: 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57

Look, I don't understand why ip edits keep getting reverted on ANI, but let me pick up the ball here and help this guy out. The reply you posted in this section is meaningless. Why? The section was opened BY the IP editor in the title. He simply copy/pasted the warning on his/her talk page and pasted it onto ANI. It's not an actual case opened by an editor trying to get help, it's an ip editor vandalizing the page. If you want to do something about it, you'll have to deal with the editor, not just reply to a bogus section. Hopefully this message will actually get to you instead of someone reverting simply because I'm an ip editor myself... 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Don't worry, I'm not going to revert your message here... :-) Okay, I'll look into this matter further. I felt that the IP user was adding CSD templates and being disruptive, which is why I posted that comment seconding Decltype's response to the ANI discussion. I appreciate you for expressing your thoughts and input on my user talk page here; I absolutely believe in the principle that anonymous IP editors are humans too, and I implement this principle in the edits and contributions I make, and the administrative actions that I take on Wikipedia. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I replied in the section. It appears the editor has been blocked for 3 months anyway, so it's moot now. I just wish editors wouldn't be so quick to revert ip editors, especially if it's not vandalism. Just because I don't register an account doesn't mean what I say is invalid. Thank you for listening. 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Also as a quick FYI, Decltype's response was made ON the ip editor's talk page so he probably has no idea you replied, or that he's even a party to the ANI filing. No one who was involved does. The editor literally just copy/pasted his talk page onto ANI. 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree; I also wish that editors would not add bias to their thoughts regarding edits from anonymous users and make the assumption of bad faith with the same edits from anonymous users than if they had been made from Wikipedia accounts. Anonymous users are exactly the same as users who use accounts to edit, and they should be treated with the same level of respect as users who use accounts to edit, and their edits be given the same assumption of good faith as well. Thank you for providing the additional information and thoughts; I understand that the IP user has been blocked, but I'll take a look into the matter and make sure that the actions taken upon the IP user reflect the reasons specified in the block. I hope that you have a great rest of your day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I was aware that the IP pasted the contents of his talkpage to ANI, but I figured there would be no point in formulating a response as he was going to be blocked anyway. I also second Oswah's comments above. I don't disregard edits just because they were made by an unregistered user. Regards, decltype (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Having known and worked with Decltype for some time, I also believe that Decltype treats all users the same and does not automatically treat a user dismissively or make the assumption of bad faith on their part simply because the editor in relation is an anonymous user. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Abdullah Tahiri[edit]

Hi. I've been working at WP:UAA and passed on User:Papa Stalin love wourkourpedoura. I'm not entirely sure their edit at Abdullah Tahiri was malicious. From what I can tell - from the article and a quick Google search, Tahiri was a member of the Kosovo Liberation Army ("an ethnic-Albanian separatist militia that sought the separation of Kosovo from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Serbia during the 1990s and the eventual creation of Greater Albania due to the presence of a vast ethnic majority of Albanians in the region").

"Tahiri organized his fellow citizens around his ideology of freeing Kosovo from Serbian influence" seems more likely in that case than "Tahiri organized his fellow citizens around his ideology of freeing Kosovo from Albanian influence". --kingboyk (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kingboyk! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns regarding the edits made by Papa Stalin love wourkourpedoura to the Abdullah Tahiri article. I just saw that the changes made were not supported with any references, and I thought that changing the word 'demonstration' to now say 'protest' might be potentially problematic in that it implies a point of view that isn't neutral. If you believe that the changes made by this user were justified and correct, please feel free to revert my actions and restore the content. I apologize if my edit caused any confusion or frustration; I simply thought that the changes were potentially problematic. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh I quite understand; it is confusing and I'm not 100% sure in my analysis, but that's not your fault :) Your edit certainly hasn't caused any frustration, so no apology needed!
Thanks for the reply. I'll sleep on it, and have another look tomorrow. If it still appears to me that the edit was correct (notwithstanding that the editor was rightly blocked due to the trolling username) I'll undo with your blessing. Thanks again - I really appreciate it. --kingboyk (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Kingboyk - No problem! Always happy to lend a hand! ;-) If you decide that the content that I reverted should stand, go ahead and revert my edit; you don't need my approval first... well, I guess by saying that, I technically give you my approval. LOL, you know what I mean... just go ahead and revert it. :-) Please don't hesitate to message me if I can do anything else for you, and I'll be happy to help in any way possible. :-) Cheers, my friend - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
This article settled it for me. Thanks again - it was a pleasure speaking with you. --kingboyk (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Kingboyk - Cool deal; I'm happy that we were able to figure out the best solution. It was a pleasure speaking to you as well, and please don't hesitate to message me here if I can be of assistance with anything in the future. My user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message and comment here any time you need or want to. :-) I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. Until next time..... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Another Life (TV series)[edit]

Hi, I'm a new editor and I notice Another Life is semi-protected. I'd like to rewrite the Synopsis for Another Life. The current Synopsis is actually a synopsis of episode 1 of the show. Here is my proposed synopsis:

Another Life opens with the arrival on Earth of Möbius strip-shaped flying objects, which when they land, crystal-encrusted menhirs seem to self-construct or “grow” from them. Erik Wallace (Justin Chatwin) is a scientist employed by the United States Interstellar Command who is tasked with figuring out how to communicate with the alien monolith that has landed in the United States. However, this task proves difficult and so far unsuccessful. Wallace’s wife, Captain Niko Breckinridge (Katee Sackhoff), is tasked with taking the spaceship Salvare and its crew to find the origin of this sophisticated alien object.

What do you think? Slowmusketeer (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Slowmusketeer! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you joined the project and that you're here to help grow and improve Wikipedia. :-) Skimming through the content you proposed above, I don't see any obvious issues or red flags and it looks good to me. In order to be able to edit the article, you can do two things: You can either create an edit request so that someone else who has the ability to edit the article can add it for you, or you can file a request to have the article's protection level lowered or removed so that you can just edit the article and add it yourself. Either option will work just fine and (so long as no issues are found) will result in the content being added to the article. Just add the content you provided here to your request, and you should be good to go. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or provide any more input or assistance for you, and I'll be happy to help! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Oshwah. Slowmusketeer (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Slowmusketeer - No problem; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Hi CAPTAIN RAJU! Thank you very much! I totally forgot that it's my "adminship anniversary"... wow, three years already. Time flies! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Acknowledged; will be checking my emails tonight when I'm home and I will respond to you then. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see the new note. Thanks.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 01:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Acknowledged; will read and respond to your message tonight. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

Please help me find the original in your archives ;) - I have no time, getting ready for singing THE concert tomorrow (see my talk)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt! The diff to the original you're looking for is here, and it's listed on my user talk page archives here. ;-) Thanks for the message and the anniversary reminder! It means a lot to me, and I appreciate it greatly. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, - wow that was fast! Sorry, I looked the wrong year, and somehow the search function wasn't too helpful. Any comments to the peer review or just corrections to the article greatly appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt - No problem! That search function we have can definitely use some improvements for sure; I find myself not finding exactly what I'm looking for as the top result, even though I searched for the exact text. Oh well... Sure, I'll be happy to take a look at it for you and offer any help that I can! Give me some time to get some important tasks done first, and I'll definitely take a look afterwards. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

A question for ya[edit]

Hey, yo! This is ThatOneGuyIncognito writing to ya, and whatever happened to my user page!? I just wanna ask you nicely, by the way. --ThatOneGuyIncognito (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ThatOneGuyIncognito! Welcome to Wikipedia! The reason that your user page was deleted was because much of it seemed to be written in order to socialize; it wasn't Wikipedia-related. The main issue was that you encouraged people to view and join your Twitter feed, which isn't a Wikipedia-related topic. The first part of your user page before that seemed just fine. We typically keep eyes out for new users who create user pages immediately after creating their account and as their first edit... mainly due to the fact that a significant portion of them misuse the page in order to advertise or promote, host or add content that's not Wikipedia-related, or violate other user page policies or guidelines. You're free to re-create your user page, but I strongly recommend that you avoid linking to any of your other social media or personal pages or information. One reason is in order to keep your personal information and privacy safe. Many people who added this information wish that they hadn't done so later. I'd recommend that you avoid doing this, and for many reasons. :-)
Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Thanks again for your message, and I wish you happy editing! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Aw, bugger! Sorry, that's my error to misuse it. I'm just a nice dude and I'm not rude, yo! --ThatOneGuyIncognito (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
ThatOneGuyIncognito - No problem! You're brand new here, and nobody is going to go after you for making mistakes in good faith and doing so unintentionally. :-) Go through that new user tutorial I linked you to above, and you'll be given a lot of good and important information and tutorials to help you quickly learn the basics and how everything works around here. If you have questions about anything after going through and completing the entire tutorial, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Aw, thanks! English is my ONLY language I totally understand, as you may know. I'm a grown-up, as I would like to brag. For your information, I created my OWN Twitter account y'all wanna follow me, and it's [REDACTED - Oshwah] ! Catch ya! ;) --ThatOneGuyIncognito (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my error again![edit]

I do NOT mean to reveal my Twitter account, but I'm TOO important to be banned from Internet. I wanna prove myself as a good guy, yo! I'm GUY INCOGNITO, by the way. Just wanted to be nice with y'all and you follow me there on Twitter! I'll be famous, especially here on Wikipedia, yo! ;) --ThatOneGuyIncognito (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ThatOneGuyIncognito - I hope that you do become a well-known and highly respected editor on Wikipedia. So long as you follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take feedback well when others message you about issues or mistakes, remain civil and positive in your messages, comments, and responses to other editors at all times, and you refrain from edit warring and other disruptive behavior... you'll be just fine, and you won't run into any trouble. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No subject[edit]

Why did you just delete my page that I just made a few minutes ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms Jay DaSilva (talkcontribs) 14:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ms Jay DaSilva, and thank you for leaving me a message here regarding your user page and its deletion. I'll be happy to explain the reason behind the decision and the Wikipedia policies that are relevant to the deletion, as well as set expectations regarding the compliance of Wikipedia's policies. :-) Your user page was deleted under U5 of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion due to containing content that is not Wikipedia-related, and due to also appearing to be an attempt at self-promotion by discussing your career. We must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for advertising or promotion, nor is it a place for hosting content or the engagement in social networking. This section of Wikipedia's policy on user pages lists the content that does not belong on user pages, and will help explain the reason for deleting your user page in-depth. New users who immediately create a user page about themselves and who don't contribute at all to other places (such as articles or Wikipedia-related discussion) risk having their user pages deleted for these reasons. It's done in order to enforce these policies and principles, and help guide users toward contributing to the encyclopedia rather than just "building a profile page", which Wikipedia is not for. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the information I've provided to you here, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. I apologize if the deletion brought any frustration upon you, but Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines that must be followed, and your user page was not in compliance with the policies I cited in this response. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I’m not self promoting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms Jay DaSilva (talkcontribs) 14:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Ms Jay DaSilva - I appreciate the explanation. What is your user page intended to do? What projects and articles do you plan on editing or contributing to on Wikipedia? Is there a specific reason as to why you're here? Is there anything that I can help you with? Have you gone through Wikipedia's new user tutorial yet? Please let me know if I can help you with anything, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2600:1008:B144:86C3:A173:1521:E317:9BB7[edit]

Hi Oshwah, @Kuru: blocked this IP but they do not appear to still be active today and the IP has started making personal attacks on their talk page so I am thinking their talk page access should be revoked. Do you mind taking a look? S0091 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No need. Kuru handled it. S0091 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi S0091! Cool, thanks for letting me know that it was taken care of. Otherwise, I would've been happy to take care of it. If you need my assistance like this in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you change your signature?[edit]

It looks different to me for some reason. I'm guessing you changed your signature in some way, the colours maybe? Or maybe I'm just forgetting what your signature actually looks like. Clovermoss (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss! Nope, my signature hasn't changed at all. I've been using the same one that I created... oh man... 10 years ago? It's been the same since the beginning. ;-) I hope someone isn't going around trying to impersonate me again (usually an LTA). That hasn't happened to me for awhile now (surprisingly), but it used to happen all the time. Ha, there was even one instance where the LTA created an impersonator account with a username close enough to mine, that people thought that his shenanigans (going around giving bad warnings, threats, etc with my signature) were actually from me. I received a good ear-load from a group of people on my user talk page until they collectively realized that it was an LTA and not me.... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Ha, there was even one instance where the LTA created an impersonator account with a username close enough to mine, that people thought that his shenanigans (going around giving bad warnings, threats, etc with my signature) were actually from me. I received a good ear-load from a group of people on my user talk page until they collectively realized that it was an LTA and not me.... LOL I remember: was it Oshwash by any chance? Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Adam9007 - Yeah, I think it was! XD ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
It was the opposite for me: when someone impersonated me, they were going around giving barnstars! Adam9007 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Adam9007 - HA! Good times! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

IP vandalism[edit]

The IP range 2600:8805:8880:2EE:0:0:0:0/64 (talk) was doing the same edits as the range you blocked earlier, 2601:3C7:8302:5F38:0:0:0:0/64 (talk). I thought you should know, and I assume they will be back soon based on their editing style. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wallyfromdilbert! Thanks for the message and thank you for letting me know about the IP range you've spotted that was continuing the same shenanigans as the first range that I blocked. I just took a look at both ranges you listed to make sure that they've been handled, and I'm happy to see that they've recently been blocked for three months. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you see any more issues like this that I need to look into, and I'll be happy to take a look. The recommended thing to do, however, is report them (or any other user who engages in repeat vandalism or disruption) to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This noticeboard is patrolled by numerous admins (including myself), who will likely be able to respond and handle the issue faster - especially during times where I'm busy, away from the computer, or offline. ;-) Thanks again for the message, I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and advice. I initially messaged you since they seemed to have stopped, and so I just wanted to put them on your radar for the future. I didn't know if an AIV report would be appropriate since the vandalism did not seem to be ongoing, but I eventually reported one IP on the range to AIV when they came back a few days later. I'm still trying to understand how IP ranges work so that it is easier to identify and report vandalism. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert - Ahh, got'cha! That makes sense, and no worries at all. I'm just used to mentioning AIV to others here; call it "second nature" on my part. ;-)
A range is simply a group of IP addresses with a common group of "blocks" or "numbers" as one another. Think of it as if you're pulling a root out of the ground and six carrots pop out attached to that root. You pulled one root from the ground, but a bunch of carrots are grouped together to that one root. We typically search for, examine, and handle IP ranges that belong to the same network. An easy example would be 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3... The two "carrots" are the ending blocks with the '2' and '3', and the root would be the "192.168.1" part. Easy! :-D
We block ranges (or groups of IP addresses) for many reasons - usually due to somebody causing disruption that is repeatedly changing their IP address (whether they're doing so purposefully or because it's changing incidentally due to the network or environment). Most common IP address hopping you might see are from users on cellular / wireless / LTE / data networks and from devices that move from tower to tower, or disconnect and reconnect quickly. We obviously have to be careful, because blocking groups of IP addresses can often mean that editors who happen to share that same IP range will be included, and that's what we try to avoid doing whenever possible. We want to block the disruptive user and have nobody else be affected whenever we can do so.
Let's start with a simple example... Let's say that I need to block anyone from IP address 192.168.1.XXX (each block, or "XXX", goes from 0 to 255). This example is just an IP range typically set by home routers by default and you won't see this range as public-facing, but this will make things easy... lol. We'll just stick to IPv4 for now... ;-) Anyways... we want to block everyone from 192.168.1.XXX, or all IP addresses from 192.168.1.0 to 192.168.1.255... because someone in the same parent network (where the "192.168.1" part belongs to the network, and the "XXX" part is given out to each child network or device) is being disruptive and blocking one IP didn't put a stop to it. He hopped from 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.43 and kept adding that same disruption. Whelp, that sucks... I'm obviously not going to apply 256 blocks one-at-a-time, because whose got time for that?!! This is where range blocking becomes quite convenient for us... ;-) Instead of applying 256 single IP blocks (yuck!), I can go and enter "192.168.1.XXX" (not actually that exact text lol... we'll get to that in a moment) into the "block user page", and it'll know that I'm referring to all IP addresses that start with "192.168.1", and anything after that... :-)
Now, you may have seen that range blocks look something like this: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/YY (where there's an IP, a slash, then a number after it)... which will look very weird to the typical user. What you're seeing is the CIDR notation of how we tell the MediaWiki software the exact group of IP addresses to block. You give it a starting IP address, then the "length" of the range that this block is going to be slapped onto. What you need to know is that the numbers in each IP block (between the decimals) that you typically see are just the short-hand way of displaying to humans what each computer or device actually uses. To us, 192.168.1.1 is much easier to read in our heads quickly than 11000000.10101000.00000001.00000001 (the actual way that network devices read it, which is binary, or 0's and 1's). Each block goes from 0 - 255, meaning that each block is exactly 8 bits long. The "/YY" part you see in IP range blocks is simply the number of bits, or how much of the IP is included as the "root" (thinking back to the "carrot from the ground" analogy). Let's go back to the example! I'm blocking 192.168.1.XXX... the "root", or common part of the IP that the range has in common is "192.168.1". Since each address block is 8 bits long and I want to block everything after the first three blocks, I would enter "192.168.1.0/24" into the "block user page" to block that range of IP addresses.
I touched a bit more on CIDR notation in a previous response I made on my user talk page a few months back. You're welcome to read it from my archive page by clicking here. I know that if you're like most other users I've helped with IP ranges and blocking, the concept of "ranges" is the part that's understood... it's the CIDR notation part that you see in each block log that looks weird and is confusing... If you feel that way, don't feel alone... You'll get the hang of it after you give it some reading and thought. :-)
I hope this lengthy response was helpful to you. I tutor and teach new users quite a bit, and have done so (both here and off-wiki) for many years. :-) If you have any more questions or if I can be of any more assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this response! It has been very helpful. I think I will have a few questions, but I want to take some time to read over everything you have provided again and look around a little myself. I really appreciate you taking the time to help out newer users like me. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert - No problem! Always happy to help! Sure, if you run into any questions, you know where to find me... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Block[edit]

I noticed you blocked Biziwe as a vandalism only account. I don't see such sign that the user vandalized Wikipedia. I'm not saying I disagree with the block, I think a better reason for blocking the account is not here to build an encyclopedia. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity - I think you're right; WP:NOTHERE would've been better to use for that user's block. I'll go replace the notice and the block reason right now. Thank you for messaging me and for expressing your thoughts and opinion regarding my actions. I appreciate it very much, and I'll always encourage and welcome criticism from others. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Interstellarity -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion[edit]

Hello, I’ve noticed you on a few K-pop related articles and in the category of administrators willing to delete with revision deletion requests. Could you please delete two revisions from the recent history of N.Flying’s account? (one and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N.Flying&diff=913579363&oldid=913578881 two) the user replaced a reference with what looks to be an illegal website to download music. I wasn’t sure if this was appropriate for the copyvio-revdel template so I thought asking an administrator directly would be best. Thanks, Alex (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alexanderlee! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your request. Looking at the links and the description you gave here, I believe that they fall into being "spam links", which is specifically listed here as not being eligible for revision deletion. Per policy, I'm only allowed to hide these revisions if the link navigates readers to a page or site that disparages or threatens someone or something, is grossly offensive ("shock sites" being an example), or is malicious - meaning that it distributes viruses or malware, uses software or browser exploits or vulnerabilities to attack computers or software, or exists to scam, defraud, or deceptively engage in theft or criminal activity (phishing sites being an example)... stuff like that. Sure, tThe link sounds like it is distributing copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder...... well, actually... now that I think of the link that way......
Okay, sorry about that. Feel free to ignore the text that I struck out above... lol ;-) I was typing out my train of thought when I realized that the diffs you listed should be revision deleted... it falls under the spirit of the RD1 criterion, so I'm going to hide them. :-) Thanks for the message and for letting me know about them, and feel free to message me again if I can be of assistance with anything else in the future. I'll be more than happy to help! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Alexanderlee -  Done. I apologize for the stupid-complex responses I gave above. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Alexanderlee - Oh, I forgot to mention this when I responded to your message above: If you have revision deletion requests in the future, you're always more than welcome to get in touch with me and let me know about it so that I can resolve the matter - just make sure that you email them to me privately. Leaving revision deletion requests here, where it's completely public, will result in significant attention being brought to the revisions. At the time of this writing, 981 users actively watch this very page, meaning that any revision deletion requests made here on my user talk page usually result in numerous people navigating to the diffs in question in order to quickly view them before they get hidden from public view. If you're aware of what the Streisand effect is, this is exactly what this is, and what we want to avoid as much as possible. ;-) Thanks again for the message and the request, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Curious block[edit]

An editor notes that they are unable to edit while blocked even though they are logged in. I didn't think this was possible. (This is documented at ticket:2019083110000936 , but you should not have to see that ticket — I will share enough information with you to explain the situation.)

I thought perhaps it might be a momentary glitch so I asked them to log out and log back in again to see if the problem persisted. They did so and are still unable to edit.

The username is: (Redacted)

I note that they were blocked for a week back in 2017 but I don't think that's related.

The block notice they are receiving is a range block applied by you to: 112.198.64.0/18

I looked in the block log and did not find that block, but I have seen a screenshot identifying you and the range.

Any thoughts on what's going on and more importantly how to resolve it?S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: As a followup, I found:
11:44, 4 June 2018 Oshwah talk contribs block blocked 112.198.64.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 2 weeks (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ... [original block]
But that was a 2 week block.
That was followed up by a longer block:
01:45, 9 June 2018 Drmies talk contribs block changed block settings for 112.198.64.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 01:45, 9 June 2021 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) [current block settings]
01:45, 9 June 2018 Drmies talk contribs block changed block settings for 112.198.64.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 3 years (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)
The longer block should be still in effect but it was placed by Drmies, and should not as far as I know, affect logged in users. The shorter block was by you but should not be currently in effect.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Any IP block without "anon. only" will prevent logged-in users from editing from the IP address. The current block on the range is 01:45, 9 June 2018 Drmies talk contribs block changed block settings for 112.198.64.0/18 talk with an expiration time of 01:45, 9 June 2021 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ({{rangeblock}}: IP hopping disruption by LTA User:My Royal Young) The original block (11:44, 4 June 2018) was placed by Oshwah for 2 weeks, which is why his name appears in the block notice. Drmies then extended the duration to 3 years at 01:45, 9 June 2018. Drmies then changed the block settings in the same minute to block all editors, not just IPs. Our options to allow the user to edit are to grant WP:IPBE or make the block anon only. Before doing either, it would be a good idea to get a CU to look at this for other block collateral. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89, Thanks for the information. It sounds like the editor was caught by Drmies block, but, the block message clearly identifies Oshwah, and also states that it refers to "unregistered editors" and goes on to suggest that having an account will allow you to edit. In other words, the message seems consistent with the Oshwah block, but the action seems consistent with the Drmies block. I see you are OTRS, so you can look at the screenshot it it helps.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: [I've added some bold annotations to the block logs in your message above.] Block notices (and the block list) will always refer to the admin that made the block (Oshwah), not the last one to change the block settings (Drmies). The reference to unregistered users is from {{rangeblock}}, which goes on to say that logged-in editing may also be blocked and later says to use {{unblock}} if that is the case. Technically speaking, the block is working as intended. Whether the block has an acceptable level of collateral damage to logged-in editors is a question for the CUs. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89, Thanks for the elucidation. I've learned a lot (I've never done a range block.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, @JJMC89 and Sphilbrick: the block is pretty wide, but I'm not seeing too much damage. That'd be expected though as its almost completely out of CU's window. Anyone who requests on this range can likely be given IPBE safely. If it's causing too many issues in OTRS or ACC, it'd be worth talking to Drmies about whether or not it'd be a good idea to lower it to an anon-only block. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, JJMC89, User:Sphilbrick, if another admin judges there is too much collateral damage, I always defer to them. I always check and make that assessment, but others' mileage varies, and there may always be things that I overlook. If there's too much damage, go ahead and change the settings--but do keep in mind that before such a block is placed there's always been considerable disruption. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the late response to this discussion here. Life has been busy! :-) It looks like others have correctly identified the reason that I'm still present in the notice, which is because I was the original admin who applied the block to the IP range in question. Other admins have also examined the range block and the collateral damage. Please don't let my response here interrupt anything; you're all welcome to continue discussing the matter on this page as long as you'd like. If I'm needed of if my input becomes necessary, just say so and I'll be happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

South Park seasons and general references[edit]

Hey Oshwah. I'd appreciate your input on this. For episode air dates in South Park seasons articles, is it okay to use general references instead of inline citations in tables in the same manner as in the Family Guy seasons (eg. 1, 4, 5, 8)? QuestFour (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi QuestFour! Sure, I don't see a problem with that. The important thing is that the content is referenced and to a source that's (hopefully) reliable, secondary, and independent from the subject (see this page for more information). How the citation looks and is displayed is simply cosmetic; that, if anything, can be fixed and improved later. :-) Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you and I'll be happy to do so. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Hello, how can I remove the category which can be seen on my user page? I want to remove the one about my location. Cheers, Sadko (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko! I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) I took a look at your user page, and I didn't see where that category was explicitly present or added to the page itself - Are you sure that the category isn't on your userpage due to using a userbox or template there? Many templates (such as userboxes and other content) will also include specific categories if they're relevant so that the user won't have to add the category manually themselvecs. An example would be if I had a userbox on my user page stating that I'm from Texas... the userbox template itself could also be coded to add my user page to the category "Wikipedia users from Texas" (or something like that) if I were to add that userbox. If you're still unable to find what's causing the category to be present on your user page, please let me know and I'll be happy to help you and dig further into your user page design to find it. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! If I recall well I used one userbox which planted this code on my page. But I'm not using it for several months now and the category is still here, which I rather dislike. Sadko (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sadko! I found your issue. :-) In order to help you understand and for all of this to make sense to you (as well as any other users who read this discussion), I figured that I'd take a few minutes and explain everything from start-to-finish. I apologize in advance if a lot of the details below are things you already know about; I want to be sure that nothing is missed and that you're not left scratching your head... lol. In the years that I've tutored, helped, and taught others one-on-one, I've found that it's better to make no assumptions about their knowledge of a subject, and to explain the concept from "chapter one". It leaves nothing in the air and I've had the best success with helping others that way. ;-)
Okay.... So as you already know (lol), the MediaWiki Software (the web platform that Wikipedia runs off of) allows users to quickly and conveniently "add" or "include" the content of a page within another page. It saves us the pain and tediousness of having to copy and paste the text or type everything in manually each time we want to use or display the same content again on a different page. There are two ways that an editor can "add" or "include" a template (or any other page) within another page on Wikipedia - either by substitution, or by transclusion.
The usual way (and the way that you're used to seeing) is transclusion. This is where you simply edit a page, enter the name of the template page you wish to include and enclose it within two brackets (example: {{ExampleTemplate}}), and save the changes. Transclusion works by copying the content of the template to the destination page when it is viewed. If you transclude the same page to multiple other pages, all you have to do is update the template page, and the other pages that include it will display the new content (minus some server and browser cache technicalities, of course). Editing the destination page again will show the template call that you added.
Adding "subst:" to the beginning of a template call (example: {{subst:ExampleTemplate}}) will substitute the content from the template to the page instead. Substitution works differently by including the content of the template to the page when it is saved (as opposed to when it is viewed). The best way to explain substitution is that it copies the content from the template and pastes it over the {{subst:ExampleTemplate}} you added as the page is being saved and published. Updating the template page will do absolutely nothing to any page that it was substituted onto... since the content was copied and pasted when you published the changes to the page. Editing the destination page again will show the text of the template. Think of substitution as a feature that literally copies and pastes the content from the template to the page for you when it is saved.
As you can imagine, templates are ridiculously diverse in complexity and functionality, as well as what they're used for. Many templates are quite complex, and are designed with code that checks for certain conditions and look for specific data, and will automatically display different content on different pages depending on what it finds. We use transclusion in these cases. ;-) The reason that you didn't see the exact category you were looking for on your user page was because it was coded within a template that you transcluded. In this case, {{User:Commie99/kosovoserb}} was the culprit, and I commented it out for you with this edit.
Whew! ;-) Okay, I know that was a lot of text and information to throw at you, but this explanation should help you to understand how templates work exactly, as well as why your user page was included in a category while the page's source didn't have it listed. :-) If you have any questions, concerns, further requests, or if I can help clarify anything that you're confused about, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to help you further. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! This was quite an essay. Thank you for your time and hard work. You are one of a kind! Sadko (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Sadko - HA! Thanks! I hope that it wasn't too overwhelming. You're welcome; please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with anything else. I appreciate the compliment. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 20#What wp is not[edit]

I would like to request assistance in closing this discussion. As a non-admin, I am incapable of closing the discussion as it would require deleting pages. Consensus appears to be in favor of keeping all redirects beginning with "Wikipedia is not." Thanks! Face-smile.svg InvalidOS (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi InvalidOS! Sorry for the late reply! It looks like an admin has closed the discussion, so I'm going to assume that everything is good to go. If this isn't true, please let me know and I'll be happy to help. Please also don't hesitate to message me if I can help you with anything else - I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Coventry University[edit]

Hey Oshwah, long time no talk. Just wanted to say a quick thank you for handling Coventry University and all of the sockpuppetry. Hope you're doing well! -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi LuK3! I appreciate the message! It certainly has been quite some time since we've last said "hello" to one another; I hope you're doing well, and it's great to see you around on Wikipedia. I'm doing fine... just been busy with life and other things, which unfortunately has been cutting into my Wikipedia time. No worries though! I'm still very much here, active, and happy to help should my assistance be necessary. ;-) You're welcome; that was a mess, and it needed to be handled pronto. If you see any more shenanigans like that, please don't hesitate to let me (or another admin) know - I'll be happy to put a kibosh to it. :-) Thanks again for the message... I appreciate it a lot, and I hope that we speak again soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ACC tooluser acceptances[edit]

Hey Oshwah, I’ve been pending for ACC tool user access for about a month now, without receiving any sort of denial or acceptance talkpage notice or email. I’m wondering if I was denied and simply didn’t get the email or if I’m still pending. Is it possible that I could be informed of the current status?
As a side note, happy late adminship anniversary! Congratulations on another successful year. Redactyll Social pub of talking 05:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redactyll! I just took a look at the ACC new user application list, and you're still there. The discussion regarding our current lineup of applicants is still open; I'll send a nudge to the other ACC admins so that we can hopefully wrap it up and send out responses very soon. I'm sorry for the long wait... stay tuned; I'm going to try and keep the ball rolling. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 22:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Acknowledged. I'll be checking my Wikipedia emails tonight, and I'll get back to you when I do so. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Need Eyes on a User and/or opinion[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.13.229.18 Talk Page consenses seems to be to have them in a sepreat table. but I dont know if I am reading the talkpage right or not. Should I revert explaing the above? I dont want to get into an edit war.(also apolgies for the bad spelling, autocorrect does not want to work with wikipedia for some reason and it is hard to type on an iPad)LakesideMinersMy Talk Page 13:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi LakesideMiners! Sorry for the delayed response to your message here! Life kept me busy over the last week. ;-) I'm a bit confused... are we talking about this user's edit here to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, and a discussion on that article's talk page? If so, can you point me to the exact discussion you're talking about so that I can take a look at it? It seems like the IP user removed the content to a poll from the article with the belief that it wasn't legitimate... I'd recommend not reverting and restoring that content unless there actually were reliable sources that it pointed to. Remember, the responsibility to provide sources and to confirm and demonstrate legitimacy and verifiability of content rests with the user that is adding or restoring it to an article. If this IP user happens to be correct in their edit summary, you don't want to be the user who repeatedly reverted and restored it without knowing for sure that the data is good or not first, and be the user who has to answer for it when others come banging on your door about it. ;-) I'd start a discussion to have involved editors locate the sources for the data, make sure that it's good, then restore it after this is done. :-) Who knows, I could be completely on the wrong track here, and you might have been referring to something completely different in your message... lol. Just let me know when you can if I'm on the right track, if any developments or updates have occurred between the time you messaged me above and when I responded to your message now, and if there's anything I might be missing. I'll be more than happy to provide you with input and with help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Fly High in the Sky[edit]

Are you familiar with this person? This LTA recently returned on what looks like his primary IPv4 range: 86.178.176.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? You mind blocking it for around 6-12 months? All of the edits dating back to August 2018 appear to be exclusively his, including the various personal attacks, airplane-obsessed edits, and tropical cyclone information vandalism. The last 6-month /24 rangeblock doesn't seemed to have really dissuaded him from disrupting the site. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem has blocked this user range for a month. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
LightandDark2000 - Sorry for the late reply! Life has been keeping me busy lately! It looks like this has been taken care of. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help with anything else. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Liz - Thank you for responding here while I was offline. :-) Much appreciated! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ouachita Hills College[edit]

@Oshwah: This college keeps being constantly vandalized. By the same person for a few days straight. Can you please put some protection on this article.Catfurball (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave a short block to the most persistent IP vandal but there has been no disruption today. You can talk to Oshwah or I should it start up again. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll check out the article today when I'm back at my desk, and I'll see if there's any deeper or further investigation that's necessary. Another thank you to Liz for handing this matter while I was away. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Catfurball! Thanks again for the message and for letting me know about the recent vandalism to Ouachita Hills College. As Liz indicated above, the vandalism seems to have stopped since September 17, so I'm going to hold off on applying any page protection to the article. Unless the vandalism picks back up and continues, there's no point in applying protection to the article now. Please don't hesitate to let me know if any edits like these do come back, and I'll be happy to handle the matter and put a kibosh to the disruption. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting for a block[edit]

Hello Oshwah, I may have sent you a message once last month. I want to tell you that this username, User:BabyGreenPoop, needs a block since it does not meet the username policy. Is there anyway you can block this user? I'm glad your working as an admin on here. Thanks and have some nice editing! DumbFriesNub —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done (talk page stalker) Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Liz! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Bot edits[edit]

Hello Oshwah. Is there a way to hide bot edits from my watchlist? I mean a way besides the option on preferences. The option does not only hide the bot edits from the watchlist, but also the other most recent edits made before the bot edits. This is a problem. Puduḫepa 07:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Puduḫepa! Yes you can! While on your watchlist, click on "filter changes" located next to the magnifying glass located above the list and the "live updates" button. Scroll down the list, and tick the "human (not box)" option. This will filter your watchlist to only show edits made by humans. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Puduḫepa 19:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It has exactly the same problem. Sigh. Puduḫepa 19:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Puduḫepa - Did you make sure to apply the change you made to the filter? You gotta make sure that you apply and save it. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I applied. Puduḫepa 02:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Puduḫepa - ...And it still showed bot edits on your watchlist? I was incorrect about earlier; there's no need to "apply" any filter changes you make. I was able to just check the "human (not bot)" filter condition after opening the filter list, and my watchlist updated immediately after I did so. I just uploaded a screenshot for you to take a look at - it is here. Can you take a look at it and confirm that this is what you did and that this is what your watchlist interface looks like? All you should need to do is tick that checkbox as shown in the image. Your watchlist should immediately apply that change and only show edits made by users that are not flagged as a "bot account". Let me know if this image upload is helpful, and keep me posted; I'm curious to see what's causing your particular issue or holdup. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
No no, it does hide the bot edits. By "the same problem", I meant, it also hides the edits by the real editors that were made before the bot edits. For instance, if an unsigned editor comments on a talk page discussion and then SineBot signs for the editor, the page that the editor commented disappears from the watchlist. Puduḫepa 05:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I should rm the "Latest revision". But I don't want to see all the changes - I have a large watchlist. Anyway, apparently we have no option to hide the bot edits and to see all the most recent changes made by the editors, at the same time. Puduḫepa 06:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Puduḫepa - Yes, the "latest revision" condition is exactly why you're seeing only one revision per page like you described above. So, you're trying to hide all bot edits and only see the latest revision to each page? Ticking both the "human (not bot)" condition and the "latest revision" condition in your filter should do that for you. If you're just wanting to see the last change per editor to each page on your watchlist, I believe you can try to see if that can at least be somewhat achieved by modifying the results and time period options (the image of the gear, located on the right side of the page opposite of the "live updates" button). Let me know if I can help you further with your watchlist. If I'm making incorrect assumptions with exactly how you want it filtered, please elaborate and describe how you want it with as much detail as possible, and I'll be happy to help you filter your watchlist to your liking. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
"Ticking both the "human (not bot)" condition and the "latest revision" condition in your filter should do that for you." No, it doesn't. Please see above. I am having difficulty explaining the problem well, as I am not fluent in English. I have given up. Thanks anyway. Puduḫepa 06:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Puduḫepa - If you want to hide all bot edits and show all edits from humans to each page you've added to your watchlist as they've been made, you just want to tick the "human (not bot)" condition to turn that filter on, and untick the "latest revision" condition to turn that filter off. Does your watchlist display how you'd like it to? Or is there something else wrong? If so, what exactly is wrong? What is displaying that shouldn't be? I hope that my responses are helpful. :-) Let me know... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Thank you, Oshwah. But I have explained why I don't want this. I have a large watchlist and therefore I only want to see the latest revisions, not all changes. Due to language barrier, I couldn't explain myself well- sorry for this. I don't want to waste your time, thus I have given up discussing this issue. Thank you for your interest... Puduḫepa 06:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Puduḫepa - Your request for help is not wasting my time at all. I'm more than happy to spend the time necessary to help you with anything you need. :-). Ahhhh, okay... I think I was just confused beteen exactly what you were looking for and what you weren't looking for. :-) If you only want human edits and only the latest revisions to each page displayed on your watchlist, then you'll just want to tick both the "human (not bot)" condition and the "latest revision" condition in your filter. You can also save that filter and have that be the default filter that's used when you navigate to your watchlist as well. I understand; I have quite an extensive watchlist as well... In fact, I need to take some time and go through it to remove anything I no longer need to be watching... lol. It's obviously your decision if you don't want any further help with this, but please know that if you're "giving up" only because you don't wish to "bother me", you're definitely not bothering me or causing inconvenience upon me at all. I'm happy to help, and I hope that I'll be given the opportunity to try and do so if this is what you need or would like. Just let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ticking both "human (not bot)" and "latest revision" does not help, as it hides the most recent edits by the real editors as well. That's why I wrote "It has exactly the same problem". See the example regarding unsigned editors. Despite it would be a the most recent edit, it would not appear on the watchlist since SineBot would sign for the editor. Bot edits fill my watchlist and removing "latest revisions" would cause the similar problem by filling the watchlist with serial edits by the editors. Puduḫepa 07:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Puduḫepa - Ohhhhh, I see what you mean. If a bot makes an edit to a page that happens to be the latest revision, you'll see nothing if both of those options were ticked. You want to see only the latest revisions to each page, but the latest ones excluding any bot edits that happen to have made the latest change. So for example: If SineBot fills in my signature for me after I edited a page, you want my edit to show as the latest revision to the page in your watchlist, not the bot (and certainly not nothing at all... lol). The closest that I could get my watchlist to display in the way that you're looking for was to only have "latest revision" condition ticked. The obvious downside is the fact that you're going to see bot edits listed if they've made the latest change to a page... However, if the reason and the desired outcome for you here is to reduce the overall list size of your watchlist page, then I think that this is as close as you'll be able to get to that result while having it as close as possible to the way that you want it. Keep in mind that many bots will trigger and update pages only after a human editor has updated it. A bot edit as the latest revision (depending on the page, of course) will typically mean that a human has modified it since the last time you visited the page. If you want to narrow down the list even further, you could consider ticking the "unseen changes" condition, which will not display any pages in your watchlist if they haven't been updated or changed since you last visited or read it. This might help you to further refine your results. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was trying to say. (: Puduḫepa 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Puduḫepa - Indeed, and I owe you my apologies for taking so long to understand exactly what you were looking for. Did you take a look at the "unseen changes" condition? Was that suggestion helpful to you at all? I know that it won't result in exactly what you'd like, but I'm hoping that it'll at least help. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
"Did you take a look at the "unseen changes" condition? Was that suggestion helpful to you at all?" No. :) Anyway, at least, I noticed the "filter changes" option. It would be helpful for other stuffs. Thank you. Puduḫepa 12:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Puduḫepa - No problem; always happy to help. :-) Please don't hesitate to message me here if you run into any more questions or need help with anything else. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey ![edit]

Hey Oshwah, happy to see you online ! i was wondering if everything was going well for you, since i saw you on Wiki less than usual these days. Hope everything is going well for you anyway. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani! Thanks for the message! I really appreciate it, and I'm happy to see you online as well! I've been busy lately with life, work, and other matters - which unfortunately has had to cut into my "Wikipedia time", but I'm still very much here, active, and more than happy to help with anything should my assistance be necessary. ;-) How's life for you? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, i understand that ! time flies, i am in the same situation, trying to be here on Wiki whenever i have enough time for that, but very busy with real life matters. Wish you all the best man, was good to hear from you ;-)---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikaviani - It's good to hear from you as well! Be well, and I hope you keep in touch! Please don't hesitate to message me any time you need or want to; my user talk page is always open to you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Black Flag[edit]

Hi you reverted my edit even though I quoted the author and book the information was obtained from, you said the information is unreliable, have you read the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoontag (talkcontribs) 05:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zoontag, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the edits you made to Black Flag, Western Australia. The reason that I reverted your edit to the article was due to not actually citing any source in-line with the content. If you take a look at your edits to the article here and here, the content surely states that the information came from a book, but it appears and is displayed without any citation to a reliable source. Anyone can claim in a book that they wrote that they were the first to discover gold in that region, but reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the person in reference are what we use to support content on Wikipedia, and these sources are what make an encyclopedia and its content as accurate as possible. Content needs to be verifiable... In other words, readers need to be able to see and view the references that content is based and supported from, and those sources need to be as legitimate as possible. This is why I reverted the edit you made to the article. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I linked in my response here, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. I highly recommend that you give them a read if you haven't already. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

An easy question[edit]

Hi there Oshwah! Is there a Wiki rule which regulates if unregistered user's are eligible to vote on Wiki matters? For example - a renaming of an article. cheers Sadko (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sadko! Anonymous IP users are allowed to participate in Wikipedia discussions and to the exact same level and fashion as users who contribute to Wikipedia using registered accounts. If anything, the spirit of Wikipedia's principles and different policies would say the opposite - that we're not to discount, disqualify, or remove the input or votes made by users simply because they don't have an account. The only exceptions would be technical restrictions (such as page protection preventing anonymous users from editing the page), IP users who are confirmed to be engaging in sock puppetry, block evasion, or violation of active sanctions (we'd obviously strike out their votes in those cases), and the participation in elections (such as the Arbitration Committee elections and Steward elections). Those election processes use SecurePoll, and require participants to have an account that meets eligibility requirements in order to be able to vote so that each person can vote once. Those are the only situations that I can think of that would prevent anonymous IP users from participating. Other than that, there is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that prevents or disallows their participation and input / votes in discussions such as page renames (page moves), articles for deletion, requests for comment, or any others. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Oshwah, how have you been? The said editor is not an unregistred user [1]. Anyways, you explained relevant policies very well and I believe Sadko will not get confused in similar situations in the future. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ktrimi991! Thank you for responding with the diff link, and for restoring the comment made by Roy17, who is definitely not an anonymous user (even though, as I said above, that fact is completely irrelevant). I think Sadko might've just gotten confused and thought that the user wasn't registered. He also must've been given the wrong impression or the wrong idea that discussions are for registered users only... I just hope that it wasn't another misled editor that gave Sadko that impression. I appreciate your feedback regarding the response and explanation that I gave above, and I agree that it's clear enough to where Sadko shouldn't have any issues with this in the future. Everybody makes mistakes... Hell, there are many users here who will gladly vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of mistakes on Wikipedia over the years I've been here. :-) Mistakes are a normal part of learning and growing, and they're not a big deal so long as we improve from them. The true measure of a good editor and a good leader isn't how often they make mistakes nor the fact that they make them in the first place - it's how they behave, handle, and respond to those mistakes after becoming aware, as well as how they respond when being asked about them - that distinguish experienced editors from the novice and the new, and separate leaders from those who follow. Give Sadko the benefit of the doubt, and I'm sure that he'll do fine and there won't be any more problems. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree. Ah, if there was a competition for mistakes, I would win the first place ;) I am very "talented" for that. After you explained relevant policies, of course Sadko will not get confused again if similar situations emerge. Btw, that requested move discussion has been open for more than a month, and probably it is better to have it closed. Is there any place where I can request closure by an uninvolved and interested editor? If I am not mistaken, there is a page where closures for RfCs can be requested but I do not have any idea whether similar requests can be done for move discussions. Cheers and keep up the good work ;) Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ktrimi991! The Administrators' noticeboard is where I often see requests for an uninvolved editor or administrator to close a discussion come in. Just explain that the discussion has been open for some time, when the last comment or input to the discussion occurred, and that you believe that it would be good for an admin to review and close it. Just make sure to explain why. If the discussion is still active and if users are still participating or adding comments or input to it, an admin will most likely tell you that it needs to wait. Otherwise, if it's stale, contentious, and a close call regarding consensus, ask for someone to close it there and an admin will be happy to do so. :-) Cheers, and thanks again! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Great. Thank you very much Oshwah! Much appreciated. Cheers :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ktrimi991 - You bet; always happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
There will be no confusion of this sort in the future, that is for sure. It just happens that I have seen a different policy, from time to time, in Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian Wikipedias. cheers (and thank you for following the topic closely). Sadko (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sadko - No worries! I appreciate your participation and for taking the time to make sure that you understand policies where there might be questions or confusion. That's the mark of a good editor whose dedicated to the project. Keep up the good work, and please don't hesitate to message me if you need my input, thoughts, or my assistance in the future. I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential COI or paid editing[edit]

Hi there Osh, hope you are well. Could you take a look at Deke Sharon please. There are a huge number of references and immaculate positive writing on the subject making me suspect a COI or paid edit. The majority of info has been added by IPs, so that you are aware. I'm looking foward to hearing back from. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willbb234! Sure, I'll be happy to take a look at the article and take a shovel to anything that isn't worded neutrally or up to par. Have you or any other users tried to do this and without success? I'm just trying to get an idea of what's been already tried, and what kind of resistance we might encounter when we try to fix things there... ;-) Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
No, apolgies. I am currently on mobile and will not be on desktop until tomorrow. I often find it hard to edit on mobile. Also, I would rather a more experienced user look at this as paid editing can be very hard to spot. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234 - No apologies are necessary at all. :-) Editing while on a mobile device is a challenge for me as well. I use the desktop version of the site on my mobile device, and the Android OS (at least the one that my device is running) isn't the most friendly or optimized for editing or adding comments and replies in an easy fashion... lol. ;-)
I took a look at the article text, and I agree that it has some issues - mainly in regards to detailing the article subject's creativity and involvement in major productions to an overly-extensive level. I edited part of the article and fixed some of it here. Are there any particular users that I should look into specifically that you believe might be making undisclosed paid edits or editing in violation of a conflict of interest that's obvious? This information will help me to investigate and look into the users involved, and take matters from here regarding issues of undisclosed paid editing or COI. Let me know when you can; there's no rush, and it's fine if you'd like to wait until you're back at your desk and on your desktop device before responding. It's not easy to look at edit histories, copy users and IPs, respond with comments, and list users like this on a mobile device (heck, I should know... lol), so please don't worry about or feel any "urgency" to get this information to me... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the empathy. I'll list some of the diffs and you should be able to pick out the user(s) involved:[2], [3], [4], [5]. User:Totalvocal is, in my opinion, the sockmaster (the IPs which have edited use the same unfilled references, irregular and brief edit summaries and other traits the same as this user. Thats speculative, but I would appreciate your opinion. Once again, apolgies for the brevity. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234 - No apologies needed; this'll do just fine for now. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It's okay[edit]

Thank you for your concern, but as you noted, i stopped putting the project first. The reason is that i have lost faith in the way decisions are made, and that some users are allowed to belittle others as long as they don't technically cross the line. I am not a hypocrite, and it was not a "line" holding me back or guiding my behaviour for four years. I will not be responding to any new messages, i just wanted to thank you. Radiphus (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Radiphus! I appreciate you for leaving me a message here, and for expressing your honest thoughts about what happened and how you feel about everything. I really hope that you take some time off, refresh your mind, take a break, and reconsider your retirement down the line, and that you decide join us again and continue to help us grow and improve the project. Like I said, we all make mistakes, and nobody is perfect. We all lose our cool and let aggravation and frustration get the best of us sometimes, and I don't want what I (or others said) in the dispute resolution discussion to mean or make you think that you've blown it and "see you later, goodbye". Civility is something that I believe that we don't hold users accountable for to the level that we should be, and the fact that you (and many others) feel that users can get away with incivility so long as it doesn't reach a severe enough threshold is simply not okay. That needs to change, and we all need to be better about doing what's needed to defuse situations before they become heated, and politely point out and call users out on unacceptable conduct or behavior when they violate Wikipedia's civility policy, and/or when they engage in making personal attacks toward others. I understand that you know that your recent behavior was not okay, and I'm confident that you'll learn from it and that you'll grow from this if you give yourself the chance to do so. I'm not sure if you'll read my response here, but I really hope that you do, and I really hope that you give it some thought and some consideration. I hope to see you back on Wikipedia, whenever you feel that you're ready and wishing to do so. :-) Thanks again, I wish you the best of luck, and be well. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove full protection Captain Obvious[edit]

Hi, can we trial removing the full protection of Captain Obvious? {{ping|waddie96}} {talk} 14:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Waddie96! Sure, I don't mind. I went ahead and lowered the protection level to indefinite semi edit and move protection. If any disruption starts back up or resumes, we can always increase it from there, but I don't see a problem with lowering it to try it out and see what happens. All set! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppetry help[edit]

Hello. The article Shrine of Meher Ali Shah was protected a few months ago due to Sock puppetry and removing of references by somebody using wikipedia as a guest. The same has been done again. Please check and help. The edits should be reverted to the one done in February 2019 and the article to be added to the protection list. Zaydbinumar (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)