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

Information.svg You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from July 2016. 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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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. Smiley.svg

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

To Oshwah

Book of Revelation was a plagiarized book , those kind of knowledge originated from ancient China. And there were artifacts and books claim this truth. Vatican made Book of Revelation using the knowledge of ancient Chinese in order to deceiving people .


hi Oshwah i recently received this message:

Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Nougat seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

i changed to things in the text i am sure that they are need to be in that text first i changed the word : Iranian Azerbaijan to South Azerbaijan South Azerbaijan is the word that people in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the whole Iran people use to call that place ! and the second change i made was adding this text: we can't call gaz Nougat you know Isfahan people really want to call gaz Nougat and they do so i researched and i find out that this to candis are absolutely different from each other and that's really funy to call Gaz a Noughet It's the thing i know and it could be wrong mybee ! but i added it because i believe that it was true ! please answer me ! (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You reverted an edit and left a warning

The sources you have for Ceán Chaffin being married to David Fincher are not accurate. Those are articles that do not mention anything of that sort. They are in a domestic partnership, but not married. You asked me to provide sources, and yet you reverted it back to david fincher as her husband. Now, there is only one article out there from years ago that mentions Chaffin as his "wife" and that was an editorial error. So long you have accurate evidence to claim that they are indeed married, why are you threatening me saying that I am vandalizing? Get your facts straight.

You reverted my edit and warned me

The sources you have for Ceán Chaffin being married to David Fincher are not accurate. Those are articles that do not mention anything of that sort. They are in a domestic partnership, but not married. You asked me to provide sources, and yet you reverted it back to david fincher as her husband. Now, there is only one article out there from years ago that mentions Chaffin as his "wife" and that was an editorial error. So long you have accurate evidence to claim that they are indeed married, why are you threatening me saying that I am vandalizing? Get your facts straight.

My user name GrayBot


I apologise if my user name GrayBot violates wikipedia regulations, it's just a name I quite often use out of old habit, as a sort of default name, on various forums and online communities. Either that, or GråBot, which was not allowed. I am not a bot, I just feel like an old gray one, hence the name, but it's mildly funnier in Swedish (G-robot). If this name is not allowed, I can invent a different one for wiki, please let me know. Alternate name suggestions would be GrayScale, GrayBeard, GrayHill or GrayTree, which ever would be acceptable.

/Jonas, aka GrayBot — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayBot (talkcontribs) 02:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi GrayBot! Welcome to Wikipedia! Don't be sorry; you're new here and you didn't know. Having the word "bot" at the end of a username is reserved for bots, per Wikipedia's username policy (the rule is here). But don't worry! You can easily have it changed. Just go to this page and request a new username. Someone will change your username, and all of your edits and contributions will carry over. Sure; those four other usernames you suggested are just fine. You just can't have "bot" on your username as you do now. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Again, I offer you my sincere welcome! I'm happy that you're here! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I checked your link but I could not easily see how to request a name change. It had all the information, except how to actually do it. So, um, how do I request it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayBot (talkcontribs) 02:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, GrayBot - Give this instruction page a go, and let me know if you run into any questions. I'll be happy to answer them and give you a hand! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I think I got it, request pending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayBot (talkcontribs) 03:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi GrayBot! Awesome! No problem! I'm always happy to help. You should be fine to contribute while the username change is pending. If you are warned or even blocked by an administrator (although that happening would be unlikely), you can just let them know that you understand the username policy and that you have a username change request pending; that should be an absolutely sufficient explanation. If you have any more questions, or need help with any edits, guidelines, or even "norms or how-to's", please do not hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be happy to assist you with anything you need. Again, thank you for being so understanding and for taking the time and effort to make sure that you're following Wikipedia's policies; it shows extremely high maturity and good judgment (especially for an account that's only a few hours old). Cheers, my friend :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but I'm very old, and used to work in IT before it was known as IT. The reason I joined was to add a page about a band that has only just risen to prominence. My page was contested. I tried to provide logical reasons as to why it should not be deleted. There is, so far, very little information about this band, but given that they just won a nationwide competition, interest will arise and information will be added, perhaps by the band themselves, or other fans.
I did join wikipedia about ten or so years ago, but I can't remember what my username was, and I was never a prominent member, hence the new account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayBot (talkcontribs) 04:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Nonetheless, welcome back! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut page addition

Hi, The piece of information I included on Kurt Vonnegut's page (which was subsequently removed) was his response to a question I had personally asked him at his 1999 Barnes and Noble book-signing/talk at the Union Square, NYC location. I am unsure as to how to properly cite this information.Frozenhan (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Brian

Hi Frozenhan! This information actually isn't citable within an article. The content and your personal interaction with the person constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all content added to any article must either be attributable to a reliable source, or directly attributed to a reliable source using an in-line citation. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this is one of the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that standardize the content that we add, and what makes Wikipedia content the highest quality possible. I highly recommend that you review the policies that I've linked you to here, as they will provide you with the information you need in order to make Wikipedia a great place to visit. If you have any questions regarding these guidelines, please do not hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be more than happy to answer your questions and assist you with anything that you need. Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns, and I wish you happy editing and a great rest of your day :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Alvin high school

":" I was a student at Alvin High School and remained connected from 1966-1973. The references were from my own memory and experience: my attempts at editing obviously failed. On the basis of requiring references then, 90% of the article as it appears is not referenced and unverifiable. Therefore the whole article should be tossed out on that basis, if not on the basis that the article is unbalanced and favors athletics over scholastics. (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Humility page error

It's absurd that this page would include "Meher Baba" under world religions. Anything to do with a guru or cult shouldn't be part of this page. It's insulting that page authors would choose to include Meher Baba and not Scientology or Heaven's Gate or any other BS religion. Offensive. And misleading. Please take this down and stop using classic religious concepts to plug your personal guru, who happened to be violent and take people for all their money. At the very least, separate that entry into "new age spiritual movements" or something to separate it from respected world religions like Buddhism and Taoism. Then whenever you think of another quack, like Manson or Jim Jones, you can add him to that subsection, since he too probably made a comment about humility. Sorry for the rageful tone, but you must be selling the cool-aid to have written MB in there. Can't think of another reason why you would include it. --mplax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:806C:670:98F5:52EF:C128:574A (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Dinner Dance 2016 dancing

Hi Oshwah, I have two videos of me dancing

REDACTED - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) and

REDACTED - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)

I normally don't do this, but i would like to share this with you publicly as I would like the fellow Wikipedians see my dancing videos. I also don't like using my email as it is not that necessary for me to use, since I can access the users talkpage.

Thanks for your kindess and happy editing --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi EurovisionNim! It's great to talk to you again! Awesome! I'm happy that you went and that you had a lot of fun! I'm going to give these a watch later. For your personal security and privacy though, I'm going to redact these links from here (don't worry, I've saved them!). Because I deal with a lot of vandalism and long-term abuse, this page is trashed and kicked around very often. These editors will carefully and frequently comb and hunt through each and every edit made here, looking for anything to use to engage in real-life harassment, outing, and stalking of other editors. I don't want to allow anything to put you at any kind of risk for that, even if the risk is very small. EurovisionNim, I'm glad you're back and it made me smile to see that you left me a message! I hope you're doing well, and I hope you have a fun (and safe!) holiday weekend (if you live in the US) :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Did you see the videos and how did you like my breakdancing. I challenged a girl and blitz the win :) Please give me a rating on my dance moves --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Your rollback

Oshwah I deleted that information as it relates to me. The controversy is contentious and is only based on the predatory reporting of a journalist for only 1 article, the aim of it is to shame me and a woman's journal. It has caused tremendous pain to me and I do not want it to remain on Wikipedia. Either remove that section or delete the entire entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Stop editing objectionable information of a living person

I want the entry of Grace Chia removed from Wikipedia. It is my name and personal information and I have not given you or anyone to defame me. The information is slanderous and made of lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If you really are who you claim to be, you need to contact the Volunteer Response Team by clicking here. You'll be able to contact the team, who have the proper tools and training to handle this particular issue. You must do this in order to have your issues resolved. Repeatedly removing the content from the article will only make it harder for you to have your concerns addressed, not easier. Please follow the directions at the link I provided to you, and don't hesitate to ask me any questions that you come up with. Cheers, and good luck to you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Privacy laws

The entry belongs to my intellectual property and I am deleting it. You or wikipedia is breaking the law for using my information without permission. EcargCK (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This comes dangerously close to violating Wikipedia's policy on legal threats - best course of action is as given by Oshwah above. Mike1901 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Scientific Basis Of Homeopathy

"The citation & external links given prove that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience. See the homeopathy wiki page. what scientific base is to claim that it is not a pseudoscience? When did wiki started promoting Quackery? I hope you understand."Pseudowatch (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

tom bosma

The AfD has closed but there is edit warring by two socks to keep it open — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Bosnia (talkcontribs) 13:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great work on the whole from you! One example is in the counter vandalism field (where I also work in) It is very much appreciated and if you're looking for anyone to nominate you for adminship, I'll be more than happy to do so! Enjoy the barnstar! Class455fan1 (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Class455fan1! Thanks for taking the time to leave me this barnstar, and your very kind words. Your contributions towards counter vandalism definitely do not go unnoticed, and I'm very much glad that you're apart of the counter vandalism effort around here. I plan on running again by around September (or sooner depending on the advice I get). I'm still working a few things out; all I can say is... keep your eyes peeled. My name could pop up at any time ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Oshwah I just saw the previous RfA you made and saw you withdrew, but I think you're ready for it. It's just the answer to the questions that might need a bit of work. But I think you are ready. If your looking for a nominator for an RfA, give me a shout :-). Class455fan1 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No subject

I'm looking for the man throwing the javelin and the eloquent explanation. Why they removed. Where I can find it.Zackaryas (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Responding to last message

Hi, I received a message about Mike Conley's wikipedia page. The 2016-2017 Season section claimed that he signed a max deal with the Lakers, which is wrong. He re-signed with the Grizzlies. That was my first Wiki edit. Sorry about that. I will read the rules next time I make an edit.

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mike Conley, Jr. with this edit, 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) 23:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

(talk page watcher) In future, it would help if you used the edit summary to explain your changes. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Smeeth page

how exactly am I "not adhereing to a neutral point of view" by saying that her statemetn was factually inaccurate when it says that that speaker Marc Wadsworth, accussed her of being part of a "media conspiracy" (her use of inverted commas)? The video and article that I have included as a cited source shows very clearly that the speaker said no such thing.

"Blatant" sockpuppet of Supreme Genghis Khan

A few days ago I discovered this account in Special:Log/newusers. I wasn't sure whether I should report it to SPI since there were no edits and therefore no diffs. I think it might be a sleeper account. I just thought I'd let you know about it just in case you wanted to investigate or block the account. Linguist 111talk 12:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've already run a check, so an SPI is not needed. Mike VTalk 16:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Linguist111! In cases like this, I take new accounts by LTAs straight to AIV to be blocked immediately. If an SPI is needed, you can do that next. Thank you, Mike V, for taking care of that :-) --- have a great holiday weekend, and happy editing to you both! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WrestleMania 33

Hi Oshwah. I think you should take another look at WrestleMania 33. There are a couple of IPs going around adding sports "results" before the matches have even happened. WrestleMania 33 is scheduled for April 2, 2017, but an IP added the schedule despite the fact that no schedule has been released. The user you reverted twice was trying to remove this false information. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Altamel - I'll be happy to take another look; is there still an issue on this article? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
No, another good faith IP cleaned up the article after you left. But shouldn't you should strike out the warnings you incorrectly placed? Thanks, Altamel (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Altamel - Thanks for pointing out what the content removal was attempting to resolve. The warnings simply noted that no reason was left in the edit summary regarding the removal, and that it's best to use the edit summary to explain removals such as this in the future. I don't feel that the warnings were incorrect, as the user clearly didn't use an edit summary or explain the removals :-). Nonetheless, I've removed those warnings; it's always best to side with not biting... especially if the edits were made in good faith. Thanks again for the message and for explaining the content removal. I very much appreciate it! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
One more thing. Instead of blanking the warnings, I think it is better to strike out and add an explanation of what happened. They may have seen the notifications already, and they wouldn't know what it meant for the warnings to just disappear. Same goes this IP, which to your credit you did catch the faulty revert by yourself. Altamel (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Altamel - Yeah... good call. I usually leave an edit summary to explain, but you're right. Redaction with an explanation is better. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Beale ciphers

You say "An edit you recently made to Beale ciphers seemed to be a test and has been removed." seems to show the original pamphlet. In the second cryptogram, ciphers 482 to 511 translate to "in exchange to save transportation". The version "in exchange for silver to save transportation" seems to originate with The Beale Papers text, which also changes "ten hundred" to "one thousand", and "thirty-eight hundred" to "three thousand eight hundred", etc. There seem to have been errors in transcribing the original message into The Beale Papers. E.g. ciphers 571 to 572 are shown as "108" ("t"), instead of "10, 8" ("ni"), making "in iron pots" read as "itron pots"; cipher 667 is shown as "440" ("u"), presumably instead of "40" ("w"), giving "uith". These anomalies are also shown in the Wikipedia image. In the first cryptogram, "abfdefghiijklmmnohpp" at 188 to 207 is actually "abcdefghiijklmmnohpp", which I corrected (3rd number is "195"). Could you please reinstate my changes. Thanks. (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for messaging me regarding the Beale ciphers article! I appreciate you for taking the time to explain your edits. I saw this edit and mistakenly thought it was a simple editing test. I have restored your changes made to the article. Thanks again for letting me know, and I apologize for the confusion. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mistaken removal of content from Budbrooke article.

You removed some content from the Budbrooke article, on the grounds that it was plagiarised from and In actual fact, those "sources" were plagiarised from Wikipedia, not the other way around. (If you look at the history, much of the text goes back to 2008.)

Hyperdeath(Talk) 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hyperdeath. Thanks for leaving me a message. AH! Thanks for the heads-up and for letting me know. Much appreciated! Is there anything I need to do to assist with the article? Or is everything good? Just let me know. Thanks again for the message :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Obama Sr

Hey, I am on mobile and working, but I saw Obamas fathers article was moved to a very inappopriate location (something about obama being a lame duck). Could you or one of your page watchers handle that? ThanksKees08 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed Tag

You removed the tags from Baby Grandmothers. One was the CSD for copyright as a good portion of the page was copied from [] . The other tag was an AFD. You stated the author wasn't notified but at the bottom it stated "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Baby Grandmothers. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." I am an unregistered user and I left a message on the talk page. So why did you delete the tags? (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! You're totally right. I completely spaced and forgot that IPs cannot create pages; obviously you can't follow all the steps ;-). My apologies; I've reverted the AFD tags that you placed on the articles, and I manually fixed the Baby Grandmothers article (you didn't add a speedy deletion tag, you added the notification that goes on the creator's user talk page). Thanks for leaving me a message, and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Good working with you. (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
IP, Oshwah: I've gone ahead and created the AfD nomination on your behalf IP, you can see it here -- samtar talk or stalk 13:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Samtar! I guess I could have done that in the midst of undoing my stupidity ;-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I happened to notice you pop up on my watchlist :) I'll refrain from voting in the AfD as it doesn't feel right to, but I'll have a quick look at the copyright issue -- samtar talk or stalk 13:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking! Yeah, I don't think that it's a G12, but you might feel differently. Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you do it for this one too? [1] (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah: copyvios suggests there is some overlap, but nothing which a bit of copyediting won't fix, and certainly not G12-worthy. @IP, I'll have a look now -- samtar talk or stalk 13:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@IP, done with no opinion on the article's suitability for deletion -- samtar talk or stalk 13:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, take a look at this too. [2] (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@IP, done - if you have any more it would probably be fairer on Oshwah if you moved this to my talk page? Secondly, if you're wanting to make many more of these, you may wish to create an account -- samtar talk or stalk 13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't bother me! And I agree with Samtar's second point; I also encourage you to create an account. Take off your jacket and stay awhile! We could always use more volunteers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Finding a neutral party to make a page.

Hi Oswah,

I would like for there to be a page for my employer Carrot Creative but understand that it would be biased for me to create one myself.

Our holding company VICE has its own page with a reference to us here:

I actually found you via searching for people who have editing other digital marketing agencies (you helped with another agency's listing).

Do you have any advice for asking someone to establish a page for me in a neutral and fair way?

Thank you for any counsel,

Len — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkendall (talkcontribs) 18:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused

Hi! I'm a student at the University of Arizona and an editor at the Daily Wildcat and just wrote the article I'm in a summer class where I'm supposed to create a Wikipedia page and I recently interviewed a notable senior ( , about whom I decided to make the page: For credit in class, the page shouldn't have any flags but it says at the top right now that it needs to be reviewed. However, it just got reviewed by and still has the reviewed alert. When will it go away? Just want to know because my assignment is due Friday! Thanks.

Pubdomaininfo (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pubdomaininfo! I realized that I mistakenly thought that the removal of content by Sdevvv was an AFD template. I apologize; I've removed that 'unreviewed' template for you. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Pubdomaininfo (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You're very welcome! Good luck on your assignment! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

RfA Comment (FWIW)

I mentioned not long ago that I would support an RfA for you unless I was offline for its run. I hesitate to leave a number on the comment page. I will say that I think Kudpung is overly pessimistic. There are more voters recently and some of them have picked up on the content oppose. There may not be enough of them to sink an otherwise strong RfA by themselves but if a few other issues surface for opponents to latch on to, they may provide an uncomfortable oppose percentage.

I think that you do not have the problems that have led to unsuccessful RfAs for candidates who appeared to be reasonably strong recently. Hawkeye7 had 191 support votes but may have antagonized too many users when he was administrator so he generated enough opposition to put the matter in the discretionary range. Brianhe appears to have attracted attention for overzealousness in the COI area and some lack of civility by the time all the scrutiny was done. It probably was too soon for Generalizations are Bad. Oddly, he allowed someone to nominate him who had a record which attracted negative votes in guilt by association. (I think that nomination by an administrator improves a candidate's chances even if the non-administrator nominator would not attract negative attention.) Anarchyte's candidacy was considered too soon by many. I think this actually had to do with lack of variety of experience. He also seems to have stumbled on some of the answers. Nonetheless, I think he should have passed. (This is the result that seems to call for a little wariness.) Others who were nominated by themselves or others this year were not strong candidates. I think the candidates poll has reduced the number of nominations but I am not sure that is necessarily bad.

Is that enough experience with recent unsuccessful candidacies, along with the positive points exhibited by the successful candidates' RfAs this year to provide a good comparative basis? I am not sure. I think most of the opposition points do not apply to you but the content point may still be lurking in some form, causing me to approach this cautiously.

Here are a few comments that have almost certainly occurred to you, I am sure. I would say that you should be sure your further experience would satisfy Dennis Brown or push him into neutral at least since his opinions do seem to have some influence. Ritchie333's standards are on the high side but his positions are usually well stated and he also seems to have influence with some voters. (He did say he would probably vote neutral on an RfA for you now, which is quite a bit better than having him vote oppose.) Perhaps you need to do another GA review or two in more detail (or other content work?) to get past the concern he raised. You responded to his comment so this isn't something you do not know. In my opinion, that ought to be enough to put you in a strong position.

Bottom line is that I think you deserve a very high rating but I have to admit I am not sure whether the "very high standards" and "content requirement" people would oppose you in significant numbers or not. So I hesitate to put any of these musings on the public forum and attach a number. Note, too, that I do not include any of these matters in my own evaluation so the point becomes how many people would oppose based on them. That is hard to say based on this year's RfAs.

Sorry if this ramble just wastes a few minutes without providing much information. I certainly hope you can become an administrator in the not too distant future and my comments are given in that spirit. I wanted to express my support and add a few comments, FWIW. I am confident you will make it at some point, most likely the next time. Keep up the good work! Donner60 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Donner60! I really appreciate your thoughtful and honest opinion. I can definitely say that I don't fall into the pit that many previous candidates fell into, which is a great thing! But... *Sigh*.... I know.... I know that my content creation isn't the best nor is it numerous in quantity... And my GA reviews (even though they were my very first two) probably weren't perfect either. In the end, I agree; I do need to do more content creation, and I'm sure I'll be solid down the line. I understand and I respect all of the input at RFACP; I'm sure they're far on the strict side, but I'm still on the fence. I'm still up in the air as to if/when I might run. We'll see. Again, I very much appreciate your message and I thank you very much. :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi how do you know when people make changes are you always looking on the page how do you have the time , thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

UFC 200

Oshwah, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from removing my work unnecessarily. Thank you. DaveA2424 (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


Hey, I noticed you reverted my edits to WTFPL and posted to my Talk, but then self-reverted; thanks! But if you see any issues with my edits even after a second look, do please let me know. — (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes! My mistake and my apologies! Thanks for leaving me a message :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


My brother was on my computer. I'm sorry for the removal of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You might want to take at WP:BROTHER. You'd be better off just coming clean that you performed the edit, and promising not to do it again, rather than trying to come up with an excuse. Omni Flames (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @ If this is true, consider creating an account to avoid this happening again. Linguist 111talk 10:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the articles I've created (Ustad Ghulam Abbas Khan & Ghulam Hasan Khan)

Hey there!

I am messaging you because of a problem I've been having with my wikipedia articles. I've created two articles which are titled "Ustad Ghulam Abbas Khan" and "Ghulam Hasan Khan". I've been receiving this message saying "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" on both of the articles I've created. It says that I need to add "Inline Citations" which I've already added. But still, they show me that message on both of my articles. I need your help and please teach me how to remove that message from both of my articles.

Regards, Mehndi Hasan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehndi Hasan (talkcontribs) 11:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mehndi Hasan! It sounds like they're being considered for deletion under Wikipedia's articles for deletion criterion. Just visit the article's AFD voting page to see how they're voting and why. Typically, if an AFD is done correctly, the article is removed for reasons that you can't simply "fix"; the article subject isn't notable or verifiable yet. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

ice hockey in india

Am the General Secretary of Ice hockey Association of India have the authority to write positive things about the sport and can be contacted on":" (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message here. That is not correct. All editors must add content that is written in a neutral point of view. I also note that it appears that you have a conflict of interest with the articles that you've been editing. Contributing to articles where you have a conflict of interest is highly discouraged behavior and will typically result in your edits being reverted or removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for understanding. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

rollback request

Hi again Oshwah! I have made several requests for rollback permission but have always been declined. People say that I need more experience in counter vandalism so I have been trying to do that but I am not sure what else I can do. What steps should I take to be eligible for that privilege. Also, how would I join the counter-vandalism unit, I can't find how to join it. Thank you for always being there for me! NikolaiHo 22:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Anyone can join the Counter-Vandalism unit, so long as you actively revert vandalism, but if you want to find a CVUA instructor for the counter vandalism unit, all you need to do is to look for trainers and then request at their talk page to see if they can take you onboard. Once you graduate, you are more than likely to earn rollbacks Rights. The exact same thing happened to me before until I finally got rollback. What you can do is patrol the recent changes log and look out for vandalism and unconstructive edits (before ClueBot beats you to it). That's what I did. Hope this helps! Class455fan1 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Nikolaiho: You can activate Twinkle, which is a rollback-and-more gadget that doesn't require permission. To activate it, go to your preferences > Gadgets, and tick Twinkle. Twinkle allows you to perform four different rollback options: AGF rollback, neutral rollback, vandalism rollback and restore a previous version rollback. You can also use Twinkle to report, warn and welcome users, tag and nominate pages for deletion and more instead of manually typing a lot of markup. Try it! You can read more about Twinkle at its page :) Linguist 111talk 23:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nikolaiho! It's good to see you again! Both Class455fan1 and Linguist111's responses are spot on. Patrolling through the recent changes logs is a great place to start. I'm not sure if this tool works anymore, or if it's even maintained what-so-ever, but I used Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool back in the day to help me with patrolling the recent changes logs - If it's still operable, you'll find it a big help. As you build your skills identifying and reverting vandalism over time, you'll be able to "graduate" from the counter-vandalism unit and be considered for user rights that will make vandalism patrolling much easier for you. But I agree with most admins that tell users to "get some solid, consistent, and long-term experience first" before they give rollback out. It's critically important that you establish experience by manually patrolling and reverting (or use light automation to help do this) first. Coming from someone whose been vandal patrolling for 8+ years, I can tell you that it's very, very easy to let yourself go too fast and blindly revert changes without looking. Definitely not something we'd want someone whose inexperienced at counter-vandalism to be doing ;-). Fear not; your experience will grow with time. When vandal patrolling, if you run into any questions, or if you're not sure of what you should have done in a certain situation, etc... please do not hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be happy to provide you with any help that you need. Good luck out there! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No subject

It's incorrect to state that being Jewish is an ethic group. Would you say a person who is Christian to be an ethnic group? Of course not. Jewish is a religion. Also Wikipedia requires references to ethnicity which are not given so removing Jewish follows their rules. For instance is a Christian converts to Judiasm that does not makes him ethnicity Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gschofer (talkcontribs) 01:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gschofer, and thanks for leaving me a message here. It appears that Ethnic group and Israel says otherwise. Your modifications were made without community discussion, and were performed unilaterally. You need to have a discussion and come to a consensus with the community before making changes such as this; failure to do so will make your edits appear to be contentious. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone saying that Jewish is an ethnic is grong. Jewish is a religion. Would you say being a Christian is an ethnicity? It should be posted under Religion: Jewish not ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gschofer (talkcontribs) 01:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You reverted my edit on the Chinese as a foreign language page

Hi, you reverted my edit on the Chinese as a foreign language page about John Cena being a Chinese speaker. I have seen videos where he has spoken in Chinese before such as here, so I do believe that it would not be incorrect if his name were on the page.

2607:FEA8:5060:1B:28A2:D8DC:9318:9462 (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Ah, you have a source! Okay, then you'll want to cite it. If you do that, you'll be good to go! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I will add a reference, then. Thank you for the notice. 2607:FEA8:5060:1B:28A2:D8DC:9318:9462 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You got it :-). Thank you for the message. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Blended (film) edit.


Dear Oshwah, In regards to my recent edit to Blended (film)'s page, i wish to clarify the subject. Blended did turn a profit by the end of it's theatrical run, albeit it failing on it's opening weekend. I would classify it more as a box office disappointment than a bomb. A box office bomb is when a film fails to recoup its production and marketing budget. Blended grossed $128 million against a $40 million dollar budget so it wasn't a bomb. However, it didn't meet the opening weekend expectations so it would more appropriately be a box office disappointment. I hope that clears up this dilemma and i look forward to your response.

"Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Blended (film) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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) 03:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)" (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I STILL don't understand what you're talking about? Am I talking to a new person each time. Please if you are trying to tell me of a policy of what can be posted.. then please tell me where that link is and how I can fix it. This website is very hard to work around and figure out.. I don't get it?? Lisa Bevill — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! It looks like you're referring to this edit. You should read and understand Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and guidelines, as it will explain the requirement that all edits be written neutrally. It will also help you to identify and fix content that isn't written in that fashion. If you have any questions regarding that guideline, please do not hesitate to ask. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Will you please let me revert something? Face-grin.svg Just kidding. Keep up the good work, you deserve it. — TOG 05:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi The Optimistic Guy! It's good to see you again! If it makes you feel better, I gotta turn in for the night soon, so you'll have all the vandalism and fun you want soon ;-). Thanks for the barnstar; I really appreciate you for taking the time to leave me this. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I'm sure we'll bump into one another again soon ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Janet Mock edit

You recently reverted a change I made to "Janet Mock." I used her birth name in the description of her early life as she was not born Janet Mock, she was born Charles mock thus the current information on this page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3226:8B80:2057:8AD5:3128:3793 (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! What source do you have that supports your claim? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3226:8B80:2057:8AD5:3128:3793 (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Awesome! You have a source! You just need to cite it with your changes, and you'll be all set! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is electron consists of any materials

":is electron consists of any material if it's which material is it:" (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Second Look at something?

Hey Oshwah do you mind taking a second look at the range I provided at ANI? Thanks! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to WALR-FM may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • for a [[construction permit]] for a [[broadcast translator]] of [[sister station]] [[WSB-TV]]). In late 2004, after WALR switched to the new tower, it also began broadcasting in [[IBOC]] [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Already fixed. Previous editor moved the closing brackets (breaking the infobox), and I put them back. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sophia Parnok Edit

Please see and the book Sophia Parnok: The Life and Work of Russia's Sappho as citations. I'm sorry I didn't include them earlier - it's my first Wikipedia edit!

I feel this is an important edit as most online literature regarding Sophia Parnok has been snuffed from the Russian web since 2014. It would be fantastic to include this in her Wikipedia page for others to learn about what I consider the most notable qualities of her life.

I just created an account (ehale123) and will resubmit the edit if that's OK.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehale123 (talkcontribs) 01:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ehale123! Welcome to Wikipedia! Your edit here had multiple issues. First it did not cite a reliable source. It also injected opinionated bias and commentary, which is in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines. Please review these policies and guidelines before making any more modifications to the article, as they will provide you with very important information that you'll need to know and understand. If you have any questions, please let me know. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your stay :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you clarify what parts specifically were Opinionated Bias or Commentary? I definitely want to find a neutral point of view to elucidate these important facts. Thank you for the welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehale123 (talkcontribs) 02:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Ehale123 - Well, the biggest parts that were not neutral were when you called her train crash "horrific", and when you described her funeral as "nothing short of legendary", among other neutrality issues. Again, reviewing the guideline I provided to you will assist you with identifying non-neutral content, and contributing neutrally. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. Ok, I've removed some of the non-neutral adjectives and tried to present the information from an unbiased/non-commentating perspective. Please let me know of any other specific concerns. Thanks for your clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehale123 (talkcontribs) 02:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

his name hoo hoo choi

change back now — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

your removal of my edit to Valmiki (en)

Dear Sir, i've just added the Sanskrit name of Valmiki to his English Wiki page, in many other cases the name of a character in their original language is mentioned, which was not the case here. In case you decide to mention that character's name in Sanskrit, it is वाल्मीकि. Your's sincerely, AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Joe Hickey recent edit (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah,

My husband recently tried to link my grandfather's Wikipedia page with my sister's Wikipedia page (Madeline Heiner) but had the family information deleted on Grandpa Joe's page by you due to a lack of reference. The relationship between them remains mentioned on my sister's page.

I am unsure how to provide an acceptable reference for you to prove that Madeline is related to Joe Hickey. My grandfather is eighty-seven but still alive so I suppose it would be possible for him to verify the link???

The family tree is as follows; Joe Hickey married Audrey Hoare and they had four children; Dan, Frank, Joanne and Jeanette. My mother (Joanne Hickey) married Jim Heiner and had three kids; me, Marcus and my sister Madeline. Madeline will be representing Australia at the Rio Olympics in a few weeks.

Kind regards, Liz Heiner (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! There are two issues that appear to be prevalent here: One is that you appear to have a clear conflict of interest with the articles and article subjects that you're editing. Editing articles that you have a personal conflict of interest with is highly discouraged behavior, as it makes writing these articles within a neutral point of view nearly impossible. You also need to provide reliable sources with any content you add if it is likely to be challenged by other editors. In the end, you should not be editing articles where you have personal investments, relationships, or ties with. I would focus on other article content that you're not personally involved with; this will help Wikipedia content be at its best! Please let me know if you have questions regarding the guidelines I've linked you to above. I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Sorry about tagging Imphal Talkies and The Howlers wrongly (as I've done with some other articles recently for A7's), although thank you for correcting my mistake. I've been using Twinkle for the past weeks and I always think of 'unremarkable' as non-notable criteria, regardless of significance, since usually the pages I tag are kind of the off-ball articles. Also since I've seen the edit, how should I go about starting an AFD for a band (especially since I've never started an AFD)? Should I use WP:GNG or something from WP:NMUSIC? Again sorry for the mistakes, I'm trying to adjust! Adog104 Talk to me 07:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Adog104! No apologies are needed! We were all new at this once, and making mistakes is a completely normal and expected part of learning. I'm more than happy to assist you with the A7 guidelines and understanding when an article can and cannot be tagged under A7. When it comes to A7 (and also A9!), the essay that is very important for you to read and understand fully is what defines and constitutes a credible claim of significance. In short, it's less than that of notability. If there is a believable claim made in the article that would cause the article subject to be notable if achieved, a credible claim has been made and established.
Specifically, note that there are two parts in establishing a credible claim of significance: Credibility and Significance. Credibility in an article is a test as to whether or not the claim is logically valid and reasonably plausible to occur. "Significance" is a test as to whether or not the credible claim would cause the subject mentioned in the article to be notable. Significance does not require any sources or citations; it's simply whether or nor the claim would cause any person, company, etc. to be notable if the claim were true and actually achieved. If the article makes a claim that is both credible and significant, then the article is not eligible for A7 or A9.
I hope these examples aren't too silly:
"Billy Bob was a person who lived to be 10,000 years old" - Significant? Yes. Credible? No.
"Billy Bob was a person who lived to be 65 years old" - Significant? No. Credible? Yes.
If the article makes a credible claim of significance and is a completely unreferenced biography of a living person, a BLP PROD tag can be applied (it just can't be tagged for A7). WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC are typically used when making votes or comments in AFD (and sometimes PROD too). I hope what I've given you is of help! If you have any questions, please do not hestitate to respond and ask. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have! I hope you have a great rest of your day, and (as always) I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I have to say that probably is the best response I've gotten to any message before. For this I'm giving you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for your ability to answer my questions fully with clear explanations and examples, with a extraordinary attitude, and without hesitation! Thank you very much! I'll make sure to use this as a reference in the future. Adog104 Talk to me 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll make sure to ask you any further questions if I have any with Speedy's and AFD's, thanks man! Adog104 Talk to me 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Adog104!!! Thanks, man! I really appreciate your kind response and your very kind words. You're very welcome! I'm glad that my response was helpful. If you have questions, please ask! Thanks again, Adog104. I really appreciate this :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:Tom & Jerry-Piano Concerto.jpg

Could you undelete this image ? Marole3 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Marole3: Only admins can undelete pages, which Oshwah isn't (yet Face-wink.svg). If you want it back, try WP:REFUND. Omni Flames (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Whew, Omni Flames zinged me a good one :-P! Yes, as Omni Flames stated, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is the right place to go. Good luck! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your excellent participation in diplomacy. Doc talk 11:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doc9871! Thank you for taking the the time to leave me this barnstar! I want you to know that it means a lot to me, and that I appreciate it very much. I hope that I run into you again soon, and that you have an excellent rest of your day. Until our paths cross again... :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for your Comment on Tigrayan Talkpage

Hello Oshwah, I am requesting your comment on Talk:Tigrayans#Bad_English.2FGrammar.2FFocus_in_Haile_Selassie_Gugsa_under_Notable_Tigrayans. I've sent Sennaitgebremariam a request as well to join the discussion.Thanks Otakrem (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Otakrem! I apologize for the delay responding to your request for help; I've been very busy recently and haven't had a chance to sit down until now. I'll be more than happy to help! Is this still an issue that needs my assistance? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah Thank you for the response. If you have the time, you may go to the Talk page linked above and give any feedback that would help. I got a response from Zekenyan which resolved it for the time being. However, I have not received a response from Sennaitgebremariam. However, you are more than welcome to provide your input. Also, I have found out that Zekenyan has been blocked for Sockpuppetry, therefore your input is definitely needed.Otakrem (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah, Please comment on Talk:Tigrayans#Bad_English.2FGrammar.2FFocus_in_Haile_Selassie_Gugsa_under_Notable_Tigrayans as a User talk:Ferdi tal reverted the the agreed upon entry for the Tigrayans Notable Tigrayans summary sentence. Also I have a suspicion that User talk:Ferdi tal is User:Sennaitgebremariam, I would like to confirm that I am dealing with a good faith editor and not a sockpuppet, Thanks. Otakrem (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you remember Canarybot?

Hi Oshwah!

Do you remember me and CanaryBot? If not you can remember with that, if you remember us, I want to notice you that I have request an approval to work with CanaryBot in English Wikipedia. I notice you because you told me "You should let me know how it goes!", so I'm here.

CanaryBot received the approval in the Spanish Wikipedia and I'm working everything I can to improve it. To make more powerful the image replacing I have request the approval to work here, in this way I can replace image in different wikis and make a "more parallel" work.

Pleased to write you again! Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ivanhercaz! I do remember you! That's excellent news! I'm very pleased to see your experience grow, including the bot that you've been approved to test. Thanks for keeping me updated, and I wish you continued luck, a great day, and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear that! I hope CanaryBot could help in English Wikipedia too :) I'm waiting comments about my request and CanaryBot, if you have some idea or something to comment about it I will be glad to read you and attend your suggestions.
I wish the same for you Oshwah! Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 21:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No subject

Could you give me enough time to create my user page before you delete it? Please. I'm in chat learning how to do it.

Thanks.Writingasaghost (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Writingasaghost - Your user page did not meet the guidelines on Wikipedia user pages because you seemed to openly advertise with the content you placed onto there (and for editing and article publishing, too...). Please review the guidelines I provided to you, and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Working on the issue. I don't want to attract any paid work. It's always been more of a kindness to help friends of a friend. Writingasaghost (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Please let me know if I have met the guidelines. I will edit per your instructions.Writingasaghost (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems like you've read the terms of service; well done. Thank you for taking effort to bring your user page up to Wikipedia's user page guidelines. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for the tips on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


i recently edited dale steyn wiki im one of followers of dalesteynforever on instagram i thnk that name shouls be mentioned in dale steyn wiki as it is most followed page and user can get all dale steyn related info there so i kindly rqst you to give me permission and add that name thanksPrinzmahi (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Prinzmahi! Welcome to Wikipedia! I believe that the edit you're referring to is this one. If so, then I reverted that change and explained why. This edit is in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as the content you added clearly speaks in favor of the person. You also added (what appears to be) your twitter account, which is both unencyclopedic and not an improvement to the article. I understand that you're a fan of this person, but if you're here to build an encyclopedia (which is what a unified goal and expectation of those that edit here), you should contribute to articles where you're a neutral party and not a personal conflict with. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines I provided to you, and let me know if you have any questions. Please understand that repeated edits in this fashion will be seen by other editors as disruptive. I appreciate your understanding, and I thank you for taking the time to message me. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies.

I walked away from the computer to use the restroom and my little brother copied and pasted something 1000 times and pasted it on the article I was editing! I tried to stop him, but it was too late and he'd already clicked submit! From now on, I'll log out before relieving myself! Smallness88 (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No subject

made edits due to BLP violation ( sensationalism ) and defamation per se

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

defamation per se

The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4400:9000:588:abc1:4894:bc7d (talkcontribs)

Bhojpuri cinema

Hello Mr oshwah

sir, Bhojpuri cinema also known as Bhollywood in Bhojpuri cinema (Wikipedia article) change the Name Bhollywood.plz help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns. My best advice is to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have a reliable source that shows that the cinema has officially changed its name, you should cite it in-line so that your changes have proof behind what it's saying. Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, welcome! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content on Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson's page


I was attempting to upload a picture of Hafþór and I noticed there was miscellaneous content present that wasn't relevant. I believe someone tried to upload a picture but it didn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Tim Cox page

Yeah, he's my boss but knows we tease him because we love him and his strange adversion to cheese. No, he wasn't in a car accident, but he does not eat cheese...and is mostly a vegan (but will eat bacon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads-up

I've reverted one of your edits to Don Cherry. You edited a pending version of the article, and your edit simply corrected a syntax mistake which came about after some misinformation was added in this edit immediately prior. Since your edit is unnecessary without the bad edit, and the bad edit is being reverted, yours, by default, is too. Just wanted to let you know; thanks, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Colonel Wilhelm Klink! Yes, I expected that, actually :-). I noticed the previous edit didn't seem to be following Wikipedia guidelines, but I didn't know 100% for sure (I'd have to take another look). This is why I left it to be reviewed by someone else. Thanks for reviewing the changes, and for reverting. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 9000 days for constantly beating me to reverts and generally making me very mad that I cannot get credit for fighting vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to continue making useful contributions, but you must adhere to a strict 3R24H rule (No more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period). If you break this rule, you will be stuffed into a room filled with barnstars and have awards showered down on you until you drown. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{Begging on your knees|reason=Your highness, k6ka! I'm so sorry! Please forgive me! <Additional reasons here> ~~~~}}. However, you should view your barnstars and awards first.

k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Aww shit! K6ka I know... I can't believe I fucked up! How do I appeal?!!! Give me one more chance, man. I'll be good this time! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
How does one even make these phony block notices? I ought to learn. GABgab 23:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
See you in 2041, Oshwah :D @GeneralizationsAreBad: I guess you just copy the markup in K6ka's notice and edit in what you want it to say. Linguist 111 —Please reply here and ping me by typing {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message— 00:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Works for me - thanks. I prefer making userboxes of insults I've received. GABgab 00:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
HA! There you go! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I made some "reverting too much vandalism" templates for prior notice Face-tongue.svg
Information.svg Hello, I'm Linguist111. Thank you for constantly reverting vandalism. However, sharing is caring, and it's important to let others have a turn and not take all the vandalism for yourself. Instead of being bold, be more italic and only revert vandalism which includes the addition of purple monkey dishwashers to pages. Thank you.
Information orange.svg Please refrain from reverting too much vandalism. It's important to share and let others have a turn. Excessive vandalism-reverting can result in the loss of editing privileges, as you will be unable to edit because you will be completely buried underneath a huge pile of barnstars. Thank you.
Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your excessive vandalism-reverting. If you continue to revert vandalism too much, you may be buried by a huge shower of barnstars.
Stop hand nuvola.svg You may be buried by a huge shower of barnstars without further warning the next time you revert vandalism too much.
Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your only warning, if you revert vandalism too much again, you may be buried by a huge shower of barnstars without further notice.
Linguist 111 Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message as a courtesy 16:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Linguist111 - HA! Very well-written warnings, I must say. The 'purple monkey dishwasher' was a good touch as well. Now go forth and warn the vandal fighters! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


it was a mistake made by me sorry for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


it was a mistake so sorry for that ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Niezwmxa Boro

sir, I want to be an administrator , please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niezwmxa Boro (talkcontribs) 11:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Niezwmxa Boro - I hate to break it to you, man... but you have a very long way to go before you should even consider applying for it. I've been an editor since 2007, and I'm not one. I think you should keep your focus on improving and maintaining Wikipedia, and revisit this thought someday later. If you're still not convinced, read this. I admire your courage and your desire to become involved, but you should start in the right places, and move slowly from there. Good luck to you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Please Help me they Changing the real map of Somaliland please. This the real map of Somaliland Somaliland (orthographic projection).svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:11:EAA:F419:D12B:F94A:CDEC (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my several edits to Airport Community Schools

  It looks like someone was editing  Airport Community Schools wiki page under my account and making some nonconstructive edits. I also was blocked from editing. 

It looks like July 9th 2016 this all took place. I don't mind being blocked from editing, I just want to make it clear that i was not the one to make any kind of nonconstructive edits to that page. I have no reason to go on that page to begin with.

again Just wanted to clear my name and say it wasn't me that was doing this. If i can, i will change my password so this doesn't happen again.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Devsirme in the Ottoman Empire

Dear Oshwah,

You left me a message about an edit of mine that you reversed on the article "Christianity in the Ottoman Empire". Thank you for letting me know about it, I appreciate that at least it is done with notification and it shows some responsibility. I cannot say that I am fine with it for two reasons:

a) I think the article in its current wording is totally unacceptable as it whitewashes a historically painful practice (the forcible removal of children of one religious group by members of another), probably for political reasons. If the same were done in other contexts and other articles (for example, making slavery or colonialism appear less brutal than it was) I am sure some editor would step in to correct that. This is not a controversial historical topic--standard histories of the Ottoman Empire widely acknowledge the practice and I don't know why Wikipedia showcases the fringe opinion (of probably Turkish religiously conservative nationalists) that it was something akin to adoption.

b) I find the justification presented ("I did not find the edit constructive") to be entirely underspecified and lacking in substance. I cannot find any definition of what Wikipedia considers constructive editing and I do not see what is unconstructive about stating the sheer truth--that the removal of children from Christian families was imperial policy and usually involved force. What is unconstructive, in my opinion, is the arbitrary power given to editors to make decisions like this one. It is this kind of practice that has totally shaken my belief in Wikipedia and its mission and causes me to refrain from contributing to any of its fundraising drives.

Best regards,

Evan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah equals to awesome that equals to barnstar

Image-Vespula germanica Head Richard Bartz.jpg The Anti-Vandalism Barnwasp
Dude! Even this beautiful wasp thinks you are AWESOME, and you are one of the best guys fighting vandalism!

Please accept this barnwasp, since not very many people get the recognition from these cool looking wasps :) You are awesome! IlyushkaTalk!Contribs 01:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ilyushka88! This is probably one of the most creative barnstars I've seen! Awesome! Thank you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar; your very kind and thoughtful words mean a lot. Apparently, patrolling recent changes and reverting vandalism is something not a lot of people like, but it's something I enjoy doing. Someone's gotta do it! It was great to shake hands with you, and I wish you a great rest of your day and (of course) happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: America Martin Page

Hi thanks for the quick message.

I am America Martin's digital consultant. Both her and her ex-husband asked me to add this info. What should I use for a source? I don't think it was in the news.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofdunthorpe (talkcontribs) 02:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Im William Kennedy and this is my nickname... Please make me "Big Nips" Ryan changed his name to Engelniggger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:83C8:1C90:C95D:D30F:FFE5:8508 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Boris Kreiman

Do you actually believe in psychic powers or something? I was only telling the truth about Sylvia Browne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 122d Signal Battalion

Hello Oshwah. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 122d Signal Battalion, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. This is not an unabiguous copyright violation. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the website is in the public domain, as it is a work of the United States Army Center of Military History.
It would appear to me that the "" website has - without any identifiable grounds to make such assertions - claimed copyright over a work of a US federal government agency, howsoever described, at "". That might possibly be a matter between those parties; Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
What do you think about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
t/p/s Why don't you run it past Diannaa? She is the most clued-up copyright issues colleague we have here. Irondome (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Shirt58 is correct; works of the US Government are in the public domain. has no right to take the material to their website and assert copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Shirt58! Good catch! I didn't realize that the reference copied was a government document. Thanks for declining and for giving me a heads up. I very much appreciate it. Happy Friday! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi Oshwah - I tried to add my first husband to my Wiki last night but was unsuccessful...Could you please do it whoever you are? John Thackray 1965 div 1969 thank you so much. Marian Hailey-Moss — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My edit to "Combination Puzzle"


You have reverted one of my edits to the "Combination Puzzle" page, because you said it didn't appear "constructive" to you. The information I deleted was false, and I can prove it to you, so why was my edit undone?? Remember, just because the "majority" believes in something, that doesn't make it true. (e.g., evolution)

(Proof: Eliseo 3.14 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Eliseo 3.14 - How is this edit constructive? That aside, your edit clearly expresses a viewpoint that is not in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on editing in a neutral point of view. The "proof" you provided is simply a URL to a forum thread; it's not a reference to a secondary reliable source that is independent of the subject, references that Wikipedia's guidelines state should be used. I highly recommend that you review the policies and guidelines that I've provided for you, and make sure that you understand them. Please let me know if you have any questions about these guidelines. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. Thank you for understanding and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah - Sorry, I think I got mixed up with another page. Eliseo 3.14 (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)



The word Massari is an actual Arabic word that means money. The page should define what the word means not which rapper or celebrity wants to call himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction1001 (talkcontribs) 01:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Correction1001 - If this is true, why not add this to the article with a citation to a reliable source? Deleting content on a page because you don't like it is not a sufficient reason for doing so. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for understanding :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

National Intelligence Organization (Turkey)

Thanks for letting me know about the lack of citation which has now been corrected.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


I thought that's what your supposed to do was change it to correct it. The entire page should be about the word Massari. If you look up the word "Cash" the entire page explains what cash really is. It doesn't bring up the rappers who are also named Cash.

What do you consider a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction1001 (talkcontribs) 03:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Correction1001! See Wikipedia's guide on identifying reliable sources. It will provide you with everything you need, and will answer all of your questions. If you still have questions after reading through the entire guideline, please don't hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be happy to help you. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

article quality reassessment

Hi again Oshwah! The article Bruchus rufimanus has been edited majorly and I am sure that it is no longer stub class. Usually, I just submit a request for someone to re-evaluate the article but for Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification and Wikipedia:WikiProject Beetles/Assessment, there is no such thing. How can I get it re-evaluated. Thank you so much for always being there for me! NikolaiHo 04:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Nikolaiho! It's good to see you again! Sorry for taking so long to get back to you! I was busy last week and didn't get an opportunity to contribute here much. I believe the place you're looking for is Wikipedia:Assessment. This looks to be the main page where an article that isn't classified by a specific WikiProject can be classified. Please let me know if this helps you out. I'll be more than happy to answer any more questions you have. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I'm Peter SamFan. You probably remember me. Anyhow, I'm taking the summer off from Wikipedia, and I finally got around to asking you this: would you check my contributions from time to time to make sure that nobody has taken over my account and used it for vandalism? If someone has, I give you permission to ask an admin who has known me to block my account. Thank you. Peter Sam Fan 16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter SamFan! Taking the summer off from Wikipedia, huh? I hope you enjoy your time away, and that I see you back here again! Make sure that you keep a strong password set on your account and add and verify your email address with your account as well. I'll be happy to watch your user, user talk, and project pages while you're away, and the community will certainly keep watch and take action if edits suddenly suggest that your account has been compromised. Again, I hope you enjoy your time away, that I see you back here again, and that you make sure that those two steps are taken care of before you step away... very important!!! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Update OSTI information

The page at Office of Scientific and Technical Information is out-of-date, but we have been told it is inappropriate for staff to edit the page. Please advise the best way for us to ensure the information is accurate. Should I just go ahead and update until someone speaks up? Thank you. Nenamoss (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nenamoss! Welcome to Wikipedia! We encourage users and editors to be bold; never forget that. However, I acknowledge and I thank you for asking about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and guidelines before making edits to pages and article subjects where you may have personal ties or connections to. Editing articles where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged behavior, as it will typically interfere with the ability to edit the article in a neutral point of view. In these situations, it's always best to ask an uninvolved editor to update the information on the article, and give them the source you're citing so that they can verify it and check it for issues (yes, you'll want a reliable source to provide if you're asserting that information on an article is out-of-date or incorrect). This is the safest and best option, and will keep you out of any potential heat from others who may ask. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Darien National Park edit

I recall adding some information about Darien National Park. I don't know what citation to list and am not very familiar with editing Wikipedia information. My information about Darien is based on my 7 visits there, totaling about 2 months staying at Pirre Camp, as part of an entomology biodiversity study I have been conducting since 2007 as a research associate with the University of Florida, Mississippi Entomology Museum at Mississippi State University, Arizona State University, and the University of Panama.

Any assistance you can give me so I can provide accurate information would be appreciated.

Thanks, Albert Thurman, Phoenix, Arizona Albert214 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Albert214! Welcome to Wikipedia! I understand that you have personal experience and knowledge regarding Darien National Park due to your trips and visits there. While it's tempting to simply add and update information because you know that it's incorrect or missing, it's not something that should be done if the only source or reference you can provide to back up the claims are... well, yourself. This is what is known as original research -- adding content to a Wikipedia article based solely off of your research (be it experience, personal knowledge, writings, reports, or even published sources or articles). Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if you're able to locate a reliable source that can be cited in-line with the information you're adding or updating, you'll be 100% fine and good to go! I would start by reading the Wikipedia guidelines I provided for you, then try searching for a reliable source afterwards. You can go from there depending on the results of your search. You're also more than welcome to message me any time; please don't hesitate to do so if you have any questions about the Wikipedia guidelines I've provided to you. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Good luck, and have a great rest of your day! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing panel for New York naming debate

A debate is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city, the dab page or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. Would you be willing to exercise your wisdom and participate in a closing panel tasked with adjudicating this 15-year-old conundrum? Apply here: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Closing panel. Note that the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input. You might want to read those prior discussions to get a feel for the arguments. (Be sure to have your cup of tea handy!) — JFG talk 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi JFG! It's good to talk to you again! I apologize for the delay getting back to you. I was busy all of last week and didn't have many opportunities to contribute or respond to messages. Sure; I'll be more than happy to volunteer and help if it's what is needed. Is there still a need? Let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah, looks like we have a full panel already, but just hang on for a few hours in case somebody gets kicked out (never know what could go wrong in those emotional discussions…) Thanks! — JFG talk 07:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, no problem. Just let me know if I'm needed. I'll be happy to help if I am. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Panel is at work now, judging whether to revert a 15-year-old status quo… Exciting times! — JFG talk 01:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
JFG - Oh, I bet! Should I bust out the popcorn and get a front row seat? :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Jason Patric

Danielle Schreiber was only his GF from 2002-2008. They briefly dated again in late 2011 into early 2012. Also, his biological son's (legal) name is Gus Schreiber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Make sure you review Wikipedia's biographies of living people guidelines, as well as the guidelines regarding reliable sources and how to cite them in-line with content. Any unreferenced content in an article that is a biography of a living person must be removed immediately and on-sight - especially if the content is controversial or contentious in nature. Please let me know if you have any more questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Block User:Alexandraprice29

Hi Mr. Oshwah, can you please block User:Alexandraprice29 for failure to cite a source pages on Jillian Ward article? He or she keeps editing a wrong birth date on the said article but the source pages stated that Ward was born on February 23, 2005 and not May 23, 2004. Help me please? Biserific (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Biserific! Sorry for taking so long to respond to your message; I've been busy all last week and didn't have time to contribute as I usually do. It looks like this user just received a final warning for making unreferenced changes to biographies and data. If the user continues, he can be reported at AIV and blocked. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to assist you with them. Thanks for the message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Biserific, I just reported this user to AIV for continuing to modify birth-dates against references and without providing any. Just wanted to update your request and let you know. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to respond with them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Joe Budden edit

Sorry its my first time. Here is the source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Kathryn Cartini

Hi Oshwah. I'm wondering if this user's account was hacked? The recent edits are very out of character. This user had previously been very engaged, courteous and open about their connections to subjects they had edited about. --Drm310 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drm310! I'd report your thoughts to WP:ANI or WP:AIV (if it's vandalism that's occurring) and get more input. That's the best thing you can do if what you believe is actually occurring. Let me know if you have any more questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hank Johnson

If you see that information is added, why don't you verify it before you erase it? I didn't think that was the way it worked. But its not my website, so I guess Ill refrain from adding additional content or make further donations. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for the message. I reverted your changes to that article because it did not include a citation to a reliable source. According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the burden of providing proper references and citations to content added is on the user that is adding the content to the article, not the person who is reviewing the content added. If you wish to add the content, you need to locate and cite reliable sources. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for understanding, and I wish you well :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Daren Sammy

Regarding [3]: I'm not questioning the move, but leaving a redirect seems sensible as it is a likely typo. Also not sure if this qualifies for redirect suppression MusikAnimal talk 03:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dang it, MusikAnimal (haha)! That has been bugging me ever since I performed that move... I thought that I should have left a redirect. Thanks for poking me with your input; I agree. Done - redirect added. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not me

I am sorry, my friend was using my account. Please forgive them ~Wallflowerkitten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallflowerkitten (talkcontribs) 03:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER EvergreenFir (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Help me?

The wiki page ==Kayla Ware== Needs to be made and I don't understand how to do anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallflowerkitten (talkcontribs) 03:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Now deleted pages indicate this editor has some growing up to do before they can contribute constructively. --NeilN talk to me 04:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films


USER NAME gulshadsaif ":"you was massage me that i have wrong entered in List of highest-grossing Indian films. i have checked url of bahubali and i have not found any article for bahubali that show 600 crore is completed. only found that it will earn 600 cr. so why that url is proper by you. i have also searched in google bahubali worldwide collection. tell me how i can check url is correct?Gulshadsaif (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Seancody (edit reverted)

The previous revert was going back to a version of my edit, and was also unreferenced...

Perhaps a citation needed template could have sufficed? Or just a comment on my page?Situphobos (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Situphobos! So, I acknowledge that my message to you could have been a bit more helpful (I apologize for that); however, I see that you cited a source! Perfect; you're good to go then. Problem solved :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
All good, you're just doing your job here. Thanks for patrolling. Out of interest, how did you stumble across my edit? Situphobos (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Situphobos - Thanks, man! I appreciate the kind words. There are Wikipedia tools and programs that allow experienced editors and patrollers to quickly navigate through the list of recent changes. If you're starting off with the place I did when I first started patrolling over 7 years ago, that would be the good olé fashioned recent changes log. Oh, good times... Anyways, if you run into any more questions or if you need help with anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be happy to lend a hand. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm yet to create the 'Give Oshwah a daily Anti-Vandalism Barnstar' so i guess I will have to do it manually in the meantime. Whenever your online it gives me a chance to maybe watch a movie or catch up on some reading. Hopefully reading this will give your 'D' key a rest for a while. David.moreno72 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
David.moreno72 - Hey man! Thanks for taking the time to leave me this very kind barnstar, and for the wikilove! Seeing the notification pop up that you left me this made me quite happy. Ahh see, the key that is being given a rest while I'm reading and responding to you is the 'Q' key ;-). That reverts for vandalism and leaves a warning. Then, of course, there's the 'S' key for marking an edit as suspicious, E for edit, O for open, R for revert, T for talk, and (of course) all of the custom shortcuts I created myself. Yeah, I've been doing this for awhile... lol. Again, I really appreciate your fist bump, and I hope to run into you again soon. Heck, I'm sure we will. Cheers, man! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Steve Shutt

Hey Oshwah, regarding my edits of Steve Shutt's page, I am currently very interested in updating or creating "playing style" sections for historical and current hockey players. None of the written content in that particular article (or any other that I have made) consists of anything other than statistics or opinions of people who observed that player. Even the "masterful goal scorer" quote is taken from sports journalist Brian McFarlane, as seen in the video used in many of my citations. Would it be possible for you to reinstate that part of the article which I have created? Update: I replaced "marvelous" with "multifaceted", and whenever a hockey expert makes an observation about Shutt within the documentary I have used for most of my citations, I put their name in the citation as the "author" to distinguish it from the others— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I note that you seem to be putting a lot of time into this article. However, there was a lot of issues that were added as far as adhering to a neutral point of view. The content added speaks favorably about the person, something we try to avoid. Encyclopedic content must be edited neutrally, and it can be hard at times. I highly recommend that you review and understand the guideline, as it will help you with adding neutral content. If you have any questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. I wish you happy editing, and a great rest of your day. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No subject

I live in Sheridan, Wy, where Forrest Mars lives, and he had a heart attack on Sunday and has now passed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheridanwy (talkcontribs) 01:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

moringa edit


I am the founder of The Moringa Company, the leading producer of American Grown USDA Moringa. My edit comes from my many years of research and expertise cultivating and experimenting with the plant and all of its capabilities. Please confirm my edit to you page as the more factual information available the better. Thank you

C.S Jones MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! I understand that you have personal experience and knowledge regarding the article subjects you were trying to edit. While it's tempting to simply add and update information because you know that it's incorrect or missing, it's not something that should be done in an encyclopedia. If the only source or reference you can provide to back up the claims are... well, yourself... it doesn't make the encyclopedia content verifiable.
All of your edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) -- are clearly based off of original research. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if you're able to locate a reliable source that can be cited in-line with the information you're adding or updating, you'll be 100% fine and good to go. I would start by reading the Wikipedia guidelines I provided for you, then try searching for a reliable source afterwards. You can go from there depending on the results of your search. You're also more than welcome to message me if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Good luck :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

PartyNextDoor age.

His soundclick page verifies that he is 31 years of age. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a content dispute; it should be discussed on the article's talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply to message

Hello Oshwah,

I saw that you sent me a message on a page that I have been editing today. You said that you wanted to talk to me about something? Is it about what I have been editing to the awards page? Because what I am contributing to the page is all true from MTV. If you are nominated as a featured artist in a certain category, you are a recipient of that certain nomination. Last year, Kendrick Lamar won the award for Vid of the Year. Cornerstonepicker is basically saying that he did not win that award because he was a featured artist. What I am saying is that I am correct. I wish that this editor that I mentioned previously would please stop taking out Lovato's nomination. She is nominated for it since she is featured on it. Even MTV's Twitter account agrees. This person is basically saying that only Demi cannot have a nomination as a featured artist and everyone else can. Meanwhile there are dozens of singers who have won VMA's as featured artists and cornerstonepicker does not even care and is not acknowledging that and isn't leaving the nomination alone.

Please respond to my reply!

Thank you!

Lovatc543 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Anopheles albimanus page

Hi Oshwah,

I'm sorry my previous edit was a bit sarcastic; that wasn't nice. I did want to help though. The two pictures with the red background on that page are not the correct mosquito--something in an entirely different genus. They should be changed or removed, but I wasn't sure how to remove an entire image.

Best, Ethan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:B402:C100:A80B:6F65:DB63:216 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Steve Shutt

Hey Oshwah. As stated in my edit of the last message I sent, I have removed any "romantic" language which does not come directly from the sources I have cited, or is not justified by them. I also must dispute the allegation of "original research". Every claim I have made about Steve Shutt's shooting ability, positional awareness, etc. is cited and backed up directly by those citations. Furthermore, the references used are actually video footage of hockey experts and analysts being interviewed, rather than written material - this would seem to make each claim far more reliable, as you are hearing it "from the horse's mouth". Could you please reinstate my edit to the Steve Shutt article? If not, I would very much like to know specifically which parts of the article you find at fault. All the best! Update: Thanks for your last message. Steve Shutt is a Hall of Famer, and generally considered to be one of the best hockey players of his era. That is confirmed by consensus and statistics. I find it difficult to not make note of this by describing his various skills. Is it the tone you have a problem with? Because I can only say that skills which make a player better, and their team better, are a positive thing and can only really be described in positive terms, just by their nature. In other words, you say that I describe Shutt "favourably". I can only say that I was describing his playing style favourably, but in the words of people who saw him play. His playing style and stats speak favourably for themselves, which is why there was a documentary made about him and why he is in the Hall of Fame. For example, his slap shot WAS more accurate that the average player of his day. Stating this is a fact, but is also favourable by any definition. Do you see the dilemma? All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No subject


you're source isn't credible. please read it, it is clearly asking a question based on no evidence at all.

this is an interview the artist had and it clearly states he was born in 1993,

"He's just 21 years old, born on July 3rd, 1993" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbb12345 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi, can you please tell me why the

page was locked? you've been tricked by vandals into believing the wrong date of birth

i gave you a source on the birth date, the wrong source was listed on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbb12345 (talkcontribs) 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zbb12345. The article has been semi protected due to numerous modifications to a biography of a living person that has conflicting sources and no consensus or discussion reached. You should discuss your arguments on the article's talk page to get input from the community. You should take your discussion there so that the community can have visibility and provide input with your assertions. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thank you for the reply, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion there. I've noticed a ton of vandalism on the page today such as changing the date of birth, and adding foul language to the page. the current source is not reliable, can you please read through that reference listed, it is a gossip site. This is a reputable source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbb12345 (talkcontribs) 04:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Zbb12345 - Ah, so you should start a new discussion with your concerns. This will allow others to respond. If you start a discussion there, I'll be able to look into it and give input :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: I removed the DOB per BLP. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
JJMC89 - Good call. I considered doing that myself. Both sources seem about the same to me, and I'm not sure if either one is reliable; a discussion must take place before either of those birth-dates and sources go back on the article. Thanks for doing that, my friend! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong person

Never edited Wikipedia before. Are you sure you sent the message to the right person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're using a public or shared IP, consider registering an account in order to avoid being warned or otherwise blocked from editing due to edits you may not have made. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

reliable sources or not?

check links and reply is that source is reliable


2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulshadsaif (talkcontribs) 06:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

reliable sources or not?

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulshadsaif (talkcontribs) 06:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gulshadsaif! What article is this in relation to? I'd have to see the actual article that you're trying to use as a reference. In general, homepages of websites shouldn't be used as sources; you should instead use specific external articles or peer-reviewed writings outside of Wikipedia to cite the content you're trying to add. Take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources, as it will provide you with the information you're looking for an answer any potential questions for you. If you have more questions after reading this guideline, definitely let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Username Issues

Hi Oshwah, i hope you fine.

how to change the username related to wiki policy. And see this page, how they created with their company name.

Please instruct me to create a wiki page in step by step process. I have checked many blogs, videos for how to create id. Waiting for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalithaa jewelleryMartpltd (talkcontribs) 09:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I responded to your questions on your talk page. Just follow the instructions and you'll be all set :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Lori Robinson

Her biography on clearly states that Robinson was commissioned a 2ndLT on May 24, 1981, not 1982. The wiki article states that same date under "Effective dates of promotion". You find a link on the bottom of the article, pointing to Robinson's bio. 2001:7E8:C248:9301:F154:D344:33B8:9548 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Vandalism on the Article Syed Qaim Ali Shah

HEy Dear Oshwah , Thanks for your Vandalism corrections on the Qaim Ali Shah article, which is currently under Vandalism attacks. I have replaced the Vandalism text edits of some IP and THis USER who changed the real name of the article person [HERE SEE HIS VANDALISM] including some new Users listed here User_talk:Zahiddar143, (User talk:Adil naveed), (User talk:Saadusman17) see more Vandalism on history page of the article Syed Qaim Ali Shah..--Jogi 007 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Oshwah, some people in real life questioned the reliability of Wikipedia, and said If any one can edit Wikipedia, even without registered user name i.e I.P and makes wrong edits or spoils the content of Wikipedia, such as putting a wrong information suppose some editors through its registered account or IP edit Wikipedia article London and edits that the London is in United States rather than UK, how will it be reliable that anyone might put a wrong information, and if a person reads that article and go to London but thinking that London is in USA as information placed on that article. or suppose there is any article of a city in which some editor (IP) puts wrong info which does not really exists there, suppose one puts a info that bla-bla (City) has a prostitution/ brothel, but actually that city/town does not have that thing, then how Wikipedia is reliable, what happens to these edits, MY response was that the senior Wikipedian could revert that incorrect info edits which is called Vandalism on Wikipedia. but again they asked if no senior Wikipedian reverts that wrong info on the article for two or more days then that wrong info must be existed in the article. but still they were stubborn to accept it, I was confused how to convince them, but I persuaded that the wrong information or vandalism is reverted by the Wikipedia bots or the authorized users. could you please undrstand what they actually wanted to say and did I asnwered them the right information as I could? and does really Wikipedia is not 100% reliable subjected to the Vandalism?.

Thanks...Jogi 007 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi Oshwah,

Please review the latest updates and let me know what you think. If you have any questions for me or if there's anything more I can do to help, just let me know.

Regards, Scottjcamp (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ulidia

Collapsing wall of text. See my request below if you two want help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are able or even really interested anymore (I'm sure this mediation is turning out to be a far more onerous task than you ever imagined). The Afd at the Kingdom of Ulidia talk page desperately needs your attention. As you can see from the last paragraph of Mabuska's last edit to section 3.3 of the Afd "General discussion", which I have copied below, he is now threatening to go rogue and to engage in Edit Warring because the discussion is not concluding as he would like. Also the discussion is remaining horribly off point. Contrary to a portion of Mabuska's comments below on actual topic of the Afd, all editors expressing an opinion have unanimously cconcluded that the title Kingdom of Ulidia should not and should never have been redirected to Ulaid. Albiet (talk)Albiet

Mabuska - "I agree with Brianann that the ball is in your court Albiet rather than mine considering the evidence on display, and a line will need to be drawn. If you continue to fail to provide modern academic evidence to refute what I've provided (preferably from an expert in medieval history such as Byrne and Duffy rather than a Biblical scholar) and to back up your increasingly contradictory and speculative arguments, then I will proceed in a weeks time with the redirect with a working consensus (at present 3 to 1). A weak one considering the amount of editors to provide input but a strong one none-the-less considering the evidence provided. That should give you time to find something. If you fail to and still protest after the redirect then I'll happily go for an AfD citing all the problems above and the redundancy of the article, and you'll have a hard time proving against it."

How is that threatening edit-warring and going rogue considering you have failed to provide any evidence to back up your increasingly erratic and contradictory arguments? Consensus does not need to be unilateral, and despite your intentional misrepresentation of the other two editors views, you are the only objector and you have nothing to back up your objection. Modern academic experts in Irish medieval history, including Byrne who you rate so highly, disagree with your claims. I have repeatedly asked for evidence from such experts and you haven't provided any. Most of what you provide is OR and speculation and intentional distortion of sources - which you continue to refuse to acknowledge or answer questions about when called up on it.
In any case, on Thursday (as I said, a week after I posted the above comment) I am moving to redirect the article. For added insurance I am requesting an uninvolved admin look at the RfC to determine a close and judgment based on what evidence has been provided and the views of the other two editors. I did give you a week to find evidence from experts in the field, instead you resort to making false allegations. Mabuska (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Mabuska, Albiet - Aww, come on now... Have you two made any progress together as far as working with one another, discussing issues, and seeking consensus? I don't see an AFD discussion; I think you meant to say 'talk page discussion' (AFD is short for articles for deletion). Making threats to edit war and make edits against consensus is not only disruptive, it demonstrates battleground conduct, which are both behaviors that can lead to being blocked or even sanctioned by the community. Have you filed a request for mediation, as I suggested previously? If the threats continue and/or policy violations occur, such as edit warring or engaging in personal attacks, you're probably going to wind up back at WP:ANI, and without the option of accepting help by a mentor.
I can certainly offer input and assistance regarding specific content disagreements, issues with sources, or questions regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Even if you need help with responding to a message or uncivil behavior in the right manner, and help you respond with a calm and cool head... you bet. That's what I'm here for. What I cannot and will not do is sort out your personal grudges, arguments, nor will I help draw lines in the sand and build battlefields. It's up to you two to sort these things out yourselves. I can give input and coaching, but I won't stand in the way and watch battles ensure; that's a complete waste of time for everyone. Now, with that being said, is there any questions I can answer or assistance I can give? Are we going to have to file another ANI report? Help me out, here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Who ever said you were to draw lines or sort of "grudges", and who ever said anyone was going to edit-war other than Albiet? Getting an uninvolved admin to come to a determination for closing the RfC and enacting the redirect if they deem it so can hardly be called edit-warring. The message I took from the AN/I was that you where to mediate the discussion, in other words scrutinise both of us, both sides of the argument and call us up on any issues. That never occurred. I am still having to deal with an obstinate editor with clear WP:OWN and WP:COI issues who refuses to provide evidence disproving the evidence I have provided, who also likes to intentionally mislead and twist, and failing 99% of the time to answer questions asked of them, though make that 100% of the time in regards to questions on their misleading. Albiet can make up whatever allegations they want and continue to post walls of text that don't progress the debate, however I have a consensus backed up by the other two editors involved and evidence from academic experts in the field of medieval Ireland - one of which Albiet cites as the "utmost authority". As stated, on Thursday I will be seeking an uninvolved admin to take a look and come to a determination as Albiet is apparently willing to argue his moot point forever regardless of the inanity of it. Such behaviour itself is disruptive. I only see the need to go to AN/I if Albiet refuses to accept this. Mabuska (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Mabuska - Thanks for responding and for letting me know what you're thinking and how you're feeling right now. I apologize if I caused confusion, frustration, or if you miss-interpreted my previous response above. I'm not making any accusations of edit warring, nor do I believe that I'm actually drawing lines in the sand or constructing your "battleground" :-). I was simply making a general initial response without pointing any fingers towards anyone individually... yet ;-).
I typically try and mediate disputes by giving those in the dispute appropriate space to discuss their grievances and work on collaboration by themselves. If a bump in the road is hit, I make myself available to step in when asked, and then assist neutrally with sorting out the bump. Then, I step away and give you space and let you two continue to work on constructive collaboration until I'm needed again. I think that an appropriate mentor and mediator understands that a proper balance needs to be found with when it's time to step in and when it's time to step away. When "mediators" begin taking over the discussion entirely, it generally adds more frustration and issues rather than less, because people will believe that the process is being hog-tied with red-tape and constantly interrupted with unnecessary commentary when there isn't a need at the time. Then things just go downhill, and the encyclopedia left with no improvements made... obviously not good, since this is our #1 goal here :-).
When a dispute gets to the point where that proper balance must be constantly broken to resolve issues -- such as arguments, behavioral accusations, heated emotions, etc -- we know that there's obviously a problem. Sometimes it's due to editors wanting to kick dirt at one another, other times it's due to persistent edit warring and battleground conduct, and the list goes on... the point is, there's a problem that mediation can't resolve (usually because one or more editors aren't actually willing to mediate). I hope that this helped explain what I'm trying to do, as well as clarified what I initially meant to say.
I'm reading through the mediation section of the RfC; there's a lot to go through. I think that you're right; someone needs to step in and determine the status of consensus in the RfC. Since I'm already involved as a mentor/mediator, and... well to be frank... there's a lot of text to read, I think that bringing in additional uninvolved eyes to help discuss and close the RfC is the best thing to do at this time. It would sure help me a lot :-). Remember that you're welcome (and should) report any violations of Wikipedia policy that occur (should it happen) to the appropriate noticeboards, and that you're always welcome to open an ANI and ask for administrator action. That's an option that's there for you, and you certainly have the choice of doing so. If you're ready, I think the next step is to ask for uninvolved admin input and additional eyes to help close the RfC. You can ask for uninvolved eyes at WP:AN, or for additional help wit closure at WP:AN/RFC. Once you have asked for assistance, I can provide support and input as a neutral party from there. If you have any more questions, or need help with additional processes or items, please let me know. I hope my response has helped clear the water and explain how I try and offer neutral mediation with an appropriate balance. Thanks again for expressing your concerns and frustrations to me; you're always welcome to talk to me if you feel the need to. My talk page is always open. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that response Oshwah and for the time you are putting into reading the walls of text provided by both Albiet and myself, it helps clarify things for me better. Though to state there has been no edit-warring of any kind, only the reverts Albiet made before the discussion started. Excluding the issues with Albiet I have already raised, and my frustrations with them, which is noticeable from my frequent pointing out of their contradicting and ever changing arguments and their lack of in-depth knowledge on the topic matter, I wouldn't really say there is any real battleground conduct from either of us.
I would simply relist the RfC for more input however I know that one of the first responses will be a wall of text from Albiet, followed up by one from me discounting them and pointing out the problems with their argument, and so we'd put people off all over again as happened last time. Yet if Albiet can answer the questions asked of them in an appropriate manner without a mass wall of text and allow other users to see the sources themselves, then maybe more editors would participate.
In regards to Albiet's apparent conflict of interest in the article, should I report that at the COI forum? And for what end? Just to prove there is a COI? Just to point out: the Kingdom of Ulidia article focuses heavily on the Donlevy's, even on events centuries after the end of "Ulidia". The Donlevy's are the attested ancestors of the McNulty's, and in Albiet's short time on Wikipedia they have created 114 articles, of which 80 are to do with McNulty's and variations. Of Albiet's 2,400 edits, over 400 have been on the McNulty article alone. The sources used in the Kingdom of Ulidia article are also antiquated family history/pedigree sources. Then add in edits like [4] and it is clear there is a conflict of interest of an apparent familial link to the McNulty's/Donlevy's, hence the puffery in the article and the desire to protect it from change or redirection. Mabuska (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to highlight that in the interest of getting unilateral consensus and to show that I am willing to work things out I have made the following compromise proposal to Albiet to take into issues I pointed out to them in my previous few comments at the talk page. This is more than reasonable in light of the many issues with Albiets arguments. Mabuska (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for your intervening comments. They appear to have broken the log jam. At least, there is now, finally, on the table an initial proposal for resolving this dispute, and I shall do my part to keep the ball rolling. I am working up and shall respond on the Kingdom of Ulidia talk page with a detailed and what I think is a very reasonable counter proposal, which User:Mabuska should find palatable. I shall also post the counter proposal on your talk page, so you can evaluate it. I trust your judgement. If you think that I am being in anyway unreasonable, please, let me know. Thank you again. I can’t believe that you are still hanging in there through all of this prattle and still interested in helping Mabuska and myself. Job (biblical figure) has nothing on you.

I apologize for my brief delay in responding to you, but I had to step away from editing for a few days to cool off. It is very difficult for a man not to precipitously react in response to such tirades of base insults and innuendo. Mabuska’s latest efforts at "amicably" resolving this situation have escalated to include in addition to having repeatedly previously called me a deceiver or liar (accused me of intentionally “misleading” Wikipedia users) to now most recently implying that I am an incompetent by stating that I should stop editing in this area and leave that to “competent” editors like him. Some people just need to get over themselves. I am not interested in filing an ANI for Wikipedia:Personal attacks. This would just mean more interface with Mabuska, which appears now to be finally, otherwise, coming to a merciful end. I also cannot see how that path could anyway facilitate the resolution of the issue before us, which is really a very, very simple one.

The very simple, single issue that Mabuska raises is whether the article should be labeled Kingdom of Ulidia. I am not even the editor, who named the article Kingdom of Ulidia. Another editor did this back on March 21, 2015. Mabuska’s opinion is that naming this article Kingdom of Ulidia violates Wikipedia policy, specifically “[p]er WP:COMMONNAME”, because the word Ulidia is in his opinion anachronistic and has been supplanted in modern histories by Ulaid. Editor Brianann MacAmhlaidh echoes this opinion: "As far as I can see, modern historians don't seem to make such a distinction, or even use the term Ulidia." Mabuska’s exact words are “Although nineteenth century historians sometimes used Ulidia, modern ones don't seem to. It's merely a Latinised form of Ulaid” and “The majority of sources that make use of Ulidia however are not academic, and if they are, they tend to date from the 19th and early 20th century. Adding to this the fact academia now tends to take the native Irish language name as precedence”. At the same time, Mabuska is of the inconsistent opinion that the title Kingdom of Ulidia should be redirected to his revised version of the article Ulaid. When I pointed out to him the incongruity of these two position and the inherent illogic in maintaining both, in light of the vitriol that ensued from him, I quickly realized that the opportunity of prevailing upon syllogistic or rational persuasion here is at best very limited.

Both MacAmhlaidh and Mabuska, however, are anyway dead wrong. I provided Mabuska with cites to some dozen major contemporary historians, who like major historians for hundreds of years before them, use the term Ulidia in lieu of Ulaid. Many of these contemporary historians are Wikipedia notable, and one has additionally been awarded the Order of the British Empire for her work in the field. I went further and explained that these historians use the medieval (academically fabricated) Latin word Ultonia when referencing Ulster or the greater Ulaid or, really, the territory that the then arch-powerful Irish race the Ulaid occupied in prehistoric and, only, later legendarily recorded times. I went further to note that these historians used, instead, of Ultonia the medieval (academically fabricated) Latin word Ulidia to demarcate the medieval Irish kingdom that existed as the smaller or lesser Ulaid remaining after the late 5th century encroachments of the Ui Niell. I noted in discussion the sources themselves give three reasons for this: 1) the over-kings of the greater, though, by then, dismembered Ulster or the subsequent Kings of Ulster were rarely also the kings of this medieval Kingdom of Ulidia, 2) the majority of the territory of the medieval kingdom was not even occupied by the Ulaid race or Irish Ulothi tribe any longer. The tribe held a very, very small area in the far east of the kingdom roughly contiguous with today’s smaller diocese not county of Down, Dún da Lethglas. The Irish annalists even came to distinguish this area of eastern Ulster from the greater Ulaid as the ‘’province’’ or the “In Coiced, ‘the Province par excellence’’’, and 3) not just members of the Ulaid tribe but also members of the unrelated Cruthin tribe were for substantial periods over-kings of this kingdom’s 3 principalities or sub-kingdoms (Dalnriata, Dún da Lethglas or the Kingdom of Down, and Iveagh) and during their later ascendancy the Ulaid’s rule as over-kings of the Kingdom of Ulidia was largely titular anyway. Although he had, himself, relentlessly badgered me to produce such contemporary in his words "modern" sources, Mabuska then just dismissed all of this stating that it proved nothing, basically, that it meant nothing anyway.

For this reason, I became increasingly convinced that Mabuska was simply being disruptive of the Wikipedia, using the Rfd forum not to progress the Encyclopedia, but, rather, in attempt to berate and humiliate me, his perceived nemesis, before the World, while telling it how great and talented he is. And, he can’t succeed at this anyway. Fewer than 10 people a day of the, some, half billion English speakers in the World even read this article, and I doubt any of them besides you with your great fortitude has the stomach to ever view, let alone attempt to parse, the relentless ramblings on its talk page. Mabuska is basically writing epistles in praise of his glories to himself. I can certainly live with 10 a day of the world’s half billion English speakers thinking me a fool, if Mabuska can actually convince them of such. At least now, there appears to be some light at the end of the tunnel.

In interest of facilitating continued progress here (now that some progress has finally at long last begun to occur after your prompting), I think it important too to dispel the rank speculation of WP:Conflict of interest that has been ventured, I am neither a MacDonlevy nor a MacNulty nor is there any issue of a “family history interest” or WP:OWN here. Again, I did not even name this article Kingdom of Ulidia another editor did over a year ago, and my counter proposal shall include my own proposal for a redirect of the title, as well as text for presenting both legitimate views of this matter in Wikipedia articles. I simply take issue with the redirect as proposed by Mabuska for the reasons that I have stated above and because he took such action, which effectively deleted the article, unilaterally, and without any prior community input. I have, myself, simply been trying to document for the Wikipedia a comprehensive history of this final lesser patronage of the Ulaidh nation and its legacy into modern times. In a series of 4 diaspora the last chieftain clans occupying this lesser Ulaidh or medieval Ulidia spanned into other areas of the British Isles, to the European continent, into British North America and to British Oceania after the collapse of their nation. In this diaspora, these few, last, small noble houses of Ulidia have had a significant and vastly disproportionate influence on the course of contemporary history. I have created or contributed to articles on all of these small families and many of their members not just the MacDonlevy (> MacNulty). Their former high royals the MacDonlevy (> MacNulty) family just figure prominently amongst the others. The individuals include the medical scientists who first brought empirical methods to medicine on the European continent, first applied electrocardiography in medicine, performed the first bone graphs, and devised the indispensable Coulter counter, the heads of states of major nations, including the United States’ William McKinley and France’s Marie MacMahon, and others, major motion picture, stage and television stars, dozens of flag and general officers and war heroes of the US, British and Commonwealth Armed Forces, commanders of their major battles, dozens of prominent and historically significant Roman Catholic or Anglican Cardinals, Bishops or other prelates. I could continue, but, the fact that just one of these small families as Mabuska notes has over 80 persons noteworthy enough to warrant independent Wikipedia articles speaks volumes. This is why Mabuska sees certain passages in the Kingdom of Ulidia article as WP:Irrelevant and wonders why I restored them along with the articles other content. This is a reasonable question. They are transitory passages not yet connected to discussion of the diaspora. The article, as all Wikipedia articles, was a work in progress. In concession, I probably should not have included the transitory passages until I had completed the discussion of the diaspora and without it.

Looking at Mabuska’s user page, I could make the same types of accusations of conflicts of interest against him. Almost the entirety of the page is dedicated to espousing his what can only be called extreme fringe political views for an Irishman that all Ireland should be reunited with whatever on earth today is still left of England. I could speculate that he is editing virtually every article on Irish history in the Wikipedia in an attempt to diminish the achievements of these Irish patriots and, later Jacobites, who resisted English rule. Mabuska’s name appears in foot long reams on almost all of the edit histories for these articles, obscuring the very existence of prior editors, just as my name appears as creator of many articles on MacDonlevy and MacNulty. But, both are evidence of nothing. If I so acted, I would have no more evidentiary support for my wild speculations than Mabuska has for his. There is no basis for assuming that either Mabuska or I are not acting in good faith. Going down this road is simply silliness and is just going to distract further from the potential resolution of this dispute, which now appears within reach.

battleground conduct - And, Oshwah, whatever Mabuska’s current protests and back peddling, you did not misread his comments when reviewing the Rfd. His exact words demonstrate the meaning that you interpreted: “a line will need to be drawn … If you continue to fail to provide modern academic evidence … I will proceed in a weeks time with the redirect”. Hard to misinterpret. After later repeating in response to my communication to you these very threats above on this very talk page, itself, “In any case, on Thursday (as I said, a week after I posted the above comment) I am moving to redirect the article”, only then does Mabuska belatedly add “For added insurance I am requesting an uninvolved admin look at the RfC to determine a close and judgment based on what evidence has been provided and the views of the other two editors.”

Wikipedia:Personal attacks - And here are just a few verbatim examples of where Mabuska calls me a liar and deceiver just in the mediated section of the Afd: “Also please stop trying to mislead”, “Also you have destroyed your own credibility by intentionally trying to mislead editors.”, “Are you refusing to answer because you know the source does not state or imply this in any way at all and that you were trying to intentional mislead editors?” and above on this very talk page “questions on their (my) misleading” (parenthetical added for clarification) and “intentional distortion of sources”.

mislead … to lead in a wrong direction or into mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit … syn see DECIEVE” (caps are original) from Merriam Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary

Why should an editor, who is simply trying to engage in a debate to resolve issues in the Wikipedia and, thereby, hopefully, advance it have to suffer such vicious and greatly offensive barrage? If I did misinterpret some text, and I did not, Mabuska has no basis for assuming that I acted in bad faith when doing so and for leveling these types of serious accusations. Any reasonable person would take extreme offense. Regards Albiet (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet

When you intentionally mislead editors with distorting sources to back up statements they don't make and fail to explain yourself when called up on it then yes you are lying and doing it willingly. It is not a personal attack when pointing out the truth of the matter. Mabuska (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Albiet's counter proposal in compromise of the Rfd

User:Oshwah For your review and comment, this is the proposal for a compromise that I made to User:Mabuska to settle the Rfd dispute.

I would propose the following compromise in resolution of this Rfd.

1. In concession to your position that some historians employ both the medieval Latin words Ultonia and Ulidia to reference Ulster (I. Ulaid) or lists them synonymous, I propose that we agree to your redirecting the redirect Ulidia (kingdom) from Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulaid. I don’t believe that it is necessary to keep the word “kingdom” in brackets. Without the brackets, Ulidia kingdom should appear among options anytime that someone begins to enter Ulidia as a search term. I make this concession even though I do not agree that a source’s stating generally that both words are used to reference the Ulaid in anyway establishes how each word is used when referencing the Ulaid province (e.g. as referencing Ulaid during its entire history and fluctuating expanse or just during portions thereof).

2. I propose that we agree to insert the following edit into the article Ulster before the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of its Early history section: “For a variety of reasons not the least of which being that the rulers of this remnant Ulaid were not always also Kings of Ulster, some major historians have through the centuries and into contemporary times demarcated this medieval Ulaid, which was confined to eastern Ulster, as the Kingdom of Ulidia.[1]

3. I propose that after making this edit, we agree to redirect Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulster#Early history.

4. Finally, I propose that we agree that sometime during the months of August and September of this year, I shall create an article MacDunleavy dynasty and then redirect MacDunleavy (dynasty) and MacDonlevy dynasty from Ulaid to the new article. You recently redirected the last 2 titles from Kingdom of Ulidia, an article which contained at least some information on this dynasty, to Ulaid which has even far scanter almost non existant information on the dynasty. The only reason that I can think of for this after looking at the web of redirects and linkages that you have made to your revision of the Ulaid article is that all roads must lead to the glories of Rome. I am already familiar with 50 or more both antiquary and contemporary sources from which I can craft a comprehensive description of this dynasty and its rule for the Wikipedia.

I can’t envision how you can have any reasonable objections that would make this proposal a complete non starter. Albiet (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet

Seriously Albiet? That must be the biggest wall of text you've posted yet and most of it wasn't even needed. Like why not simply link to your proposal? Why post it in its entirety here? However I must refute... both me and Brianann are "dead wrong"? My argument is based on fact, yours on misinterpretation and over-dependence on antiquated sources. You've failed to disprove my argument in any shape or form! Mabuska (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Also I am not even the editor, who named the article Kingdom of Ulidia - maybe not, but you created it as Ulidia (kingdom). Not a real difference there is there? Mabuska (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is what I need

Mabuska, Albiet: I'm sorry, you two... but I honestly do not have the time to go through this massive wall of text, as well as the HUGE wall of text on the article's talk page, nor will any other editor (let's just be honest here). If you really want help, then we need to start over by making a TL;DR statement each on the article's talk page (make sure to ping me too, please). If you two still need my input, I need your arguments in less than 300 words each. No conversations directly at one another, no "you did this, you did that". I need just the following information, please:

1. Your content statement. - Exactly what should be changed in the article? / What should not be changed in the article?
2. Your reasoning. - Why should it be changed? Why is it important? / Why should it not be changed? Why is it important?
3. Your references. - The references that you feel support making this change / The references you feel that oppose making this change?

This will make everything a lot easier for everyone. Please put this on the article's talk page, as this is where discussions like this should go. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention, I would like more input from other editors even via reposting the RfC but the walls of text don't help. I assume you will ask both of us questions directly and that we are only to respond to your questions, not each other? If so then that is 100% fine with me. Mabuska (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Good call, Mabuska. I'll add a section for other editors to provide input. You can put discussion in the comments section. I'll make sure that space is available for that as well :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ See Flaherty, R. Ogygia (Vol. II). (1793). (J. Hely, Trans.). Dublin, Ireland: Printed for translator by W. M’ Kenzie, pp. 290-291 and Lyndon, J. F. The Lordship of Ireland in the Middle Ages. (2003). Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, p. 56