User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2020-01

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 January 2020. 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These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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.




Creator template

Hello and Happy New Year, You’ve been very helpful in the past, and I hope that you can help me now. On the page of the Biblioteca Marciana, I added images of the 21 roundels in the ceiling. I then added more details on each of the image pages. I have three problems. 1) For all of the artists involved (except one), there were creator templates. So I was able to add them. For one artist (Giovanni de Mio (or Demio)), there was not. I did some research and came up with this:

| Wikidata          = Q16559911

I added it to the image page (together with other coding), and it did create the template. So, it worked. However, the template does not appear at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_templates. I assume I did something wrong. Was I supposed to publish that code somewhere else? 2) For three of the roundels (12, 15, and 19), if you click on the image and then on more details, the titles and artist names appear twice (once outside the info box and once inside). This does not happen with any of the other roundels. I cannot figure out what I did wrong. 3) I would like the three columns to be equal in width (the center column is larger). How is this possible? Again, I thank you for whatever guidance/assistance you can provide. Have a good day.Venicescapes (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes! I apologize for the delay responding to your message, your questions, and your request for help with the Biblioteca Marciana article. I'll be more than happy to help you, assuming that my assistance is still what you need? Let me know when you can; if you still need help with this, no problem! ;-)
To answer your first question: I'm not overly familiar nor an expert with the {{creator}} template on Commons, but I managed to connect some dots and poke around some documentation for you. The reason that Giovanni de Mio doesn't have a creator template on Commons is most likely just due to the fact that nobody has created one for him yet. You'll most likely be just fine if you follow the necessary instructions and create it. ;-) I was able to locate this commons page and this template details page that will provide you with information and instructions for how to properly get that creator template created for this person. What you did by adding the "Wikidata" parameter in the infobox (as you pointed out above) seems to work perfectly fine, but if you want to have the categories and automated connections performed for you (as well as keep everything consistent), you'll want to have that creator template made for this person, then use that creator template on the image afterwards... That's what I believe is correct after reviewing the documentation, but I might be wrong. Check those pages out; they'll tell you what to do. :-)
I took a look at image for roundel #12, and I didn't notice a duplication of the title and artist names - is this still an issue? Let me know if it is, and I'll be happy to look into it further. Make sure that you've also purged both your browser cache as well as the server cache - this will resolve weird formatting issues that might have surfaced after performing edits involving templates or other linked pages.
Regarding the table column spacing: All three of those columns are different sizes than one another; you just only happened to notice that the center column was larger than the other two. ;-) Taking a look at the entire code for the table, I see that you specified a width of 90% (meaning 90% of the page width) for the table. Sure, that's fine... However, that style setting only applies to the table; it won't mandate or set the dimensions of any rows or columns contained inside of it - you have to set those values if this if you want (in this situation, you don't care about the specific width of each column; you just want them to be the same). Otherwise, if the height or width of a row or column isn't specified, it'll be done automatically (usually, they're set to the size of the tallest and the widest object contained inside of it). I went ahead and modified your table for you - you can see exactly what I changed by clicking here. I just specified the width value of each column to be 33% (meaning 33% of the width of the table, which is set to a width of 90% of the page), and as you can see - this set the table column widths perfectly to what you were asking for. I didn't have to set each and every row to be 33%, but not doing so leaves ambiguity, and the table can be translated and displayed differently depending on the browser that the viewer is using. Better to just set them all as a principle of good coding practice. ;-) Oh, and I also centered the width of the entire table as well. If this isn't what you want, feel free to remove the code I added here. :-)
Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Oshwah. Welcome back. Thank you for taking care of the column width and the centering. I'm not at all technically inclined and am always afraid that I'll crash Wikipedia. So it is greatly appreciated. I'm still struggling with the creator template. I've read through the various pages, and I seem to have the proper coding (it worked on the single image description page). But it's not clear where I'm supposed to publish it so that it is available for others and can be readily updated with information. I'll continue to look into the second matter. I connected from another computer and still see the problem. It only happens with three of the roundels (which is odd since I copied and pasted). Basically, when you open the image and then click on "more details", you reach the page with the infobox for the painting. I see the title and artist mentioned both within and above the box. Is there any way I can send you a screen shot?Venicescapes (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Venicescapes - Crash Wikipedia? Nah, making simple mistakes with table formatting or the code within a page you're editing won't crash the website. Just use the "show preview" button to double-check your changes before you save them, and you won't risk accidentally publishing anything that makes everything worse. ;-) Screenshot? Sure! You can email it to me if privacy or another issue is a concern to you. Just use a free image hosting website like imgur to upload your screenshot, then you can send me the link to it in an email. Easy peasy. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. I sent you an email with a link to some images.Venicescapes (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Venicescapes! I received your email. Please forgive my stupidity; I didn't see or notice the issue with the table until I took another look at it again later. :-) I did some editing and playing around on the three image file pages (namely, the 12th image - take a look at the edit history). After re-arranging a few things and scratching my head, my answer to your question regarding what's going on with these three file summary pages is "I don't know"... lol.
As soon as I removed the "title" parameter from each of the artwork templates within those three file summary pages, the issue resolved itself. I also believe that the "information field" template may be clashing with the "title" parameter inside of the "artwork" template when both of them are used together, though I'm not absolutely certain. Who knows... this may be just an issue with a bracket or parameter missing that I didn't catch and is causing inputs to shift, or this may be an issue that would require deeper troubleshooting in order to find. All I know is that removing the "title" parameter and the content you set it to resolved the problem (you used both the "it" and "en" templates, I had to remove both of them).
I spent over an hour or so troubleshooting and narrowing down the problem just in order to locate where it was. Forgive me, but while I'm decent with templates, parameters, coding, and building them - I'm not an expert on these particular ones and their requirements. It might be worth it for you to read and review the documentation for the artwork template and double check that we're not missing something or adding something that's incorrect. Let me know what your thoughts are. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Good Morning Oshwah. I'm sorry this has become so time consuming. It seems that you are right. For some illogical reason, the coding doesn't like short titles. I added an extended title to roundel 12, and it works. I'll do the same with the others and let you know. More to come....Venicescapes (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Venicescapes - No apologies needed; it's not like it's your fault or anything. I noticed that too! When I'd literally copy and paste the "en" and "it" templates (both from a different image and where they had long titles), it worked just fine! I thought that it was the issue with title length as well... I'm glad you noticed that too. Yeah, keep me updated. That's a seriously weird issue.... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. Well, it's beyond bizarre, but it worked. I added longer titles and the coding seems happy now. I'm not sure why, but it's the end result that counts. Thanks again.Venicescapes (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Venicescapes - No problem! I'm glad we were at least able to figure out what was causing the problem. Should you need any more help in the future, you know where to find me. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Miss Show Business

Hey there Oshwah!

I recently came across a Reddit post about them being blocked on Wikipedia. I've seen off-wiki rants before, but this wasn't the kind mean-spirited screed I expected. The user seemed rather reasonable and polite. I told them to DM me on WP:Discord, and I'd take a look at their unblocking situation. That's basically where we are now.

The user in question, Miss Show Business, seems to have actually had a case of mistaken identity. This is the typical edit of the blanned sock user. It generally involves completely erasing Synth-pop from the article. Sometimes they remove {{hlist}} as well. Lastly, they refer to the Synth-pop genre as synth-pop, but never synthpop.
Take a closer look at this edit from MSB. They keep "synthpop" in the lead and infobox (just putting dance-pop in first place). Then take a look at this edit. It's a different set of tags when MSB is on mobile... it's not the iOS app.
If you combine this all with the fact they also added a reference and the fact they are a Clean start account, then I think the case is strong that this is a different user.

Finally, it might be worth running a check on Evervessence728. I don't suggest this to disprove a connection with WSB, but because that sockpuppet's MO is to generally create a bunch of accounts at once, so it might be worth checking for potentially other alternate accounts.

Thank you so much for your hard work! :D –MJLTalk 02:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi MJL! Thank you for the message, and I apologize for the delay responding to it. I think the best thing to do in this situation is ping a checkuser such as Bbb23. The edits definitely appear to be doing the general same thing, but I also want to have your thoughts and input taken into account and for my actions resulting from the relevant SPI report to be given fair scrutiny in the event that you are correct and that I was wrong. Hence, pinging a third-party who has a good degree of experience with SPI (and, of course, the necessary tools) is the best way to have this looked into. Thank you for sharing this message with me and for expressing your concerns. Either way, I hope to have it resolved - even if it means that I'm found to have been incorrect with my assessment of the SPI case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the response! I was worried for a second that we had lost you to burnout!! Face-wink.svg @Bbb23: would you mind weighing in here please? –MJLTalk 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Zarb-e-Sukhan

= Can you help to reopen the article, Zarb-e-Sukhan of Ehsan Sehgal which was dishonestly removed, while it had multiple authentic sources, even though, ill motives contributors removed that unfairly. I found it on Google search - https://en.wikiredia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.208.220 (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This link you provided is not to an official Wikimedia host or domain. Why are you using this website instead of the Wikimedia official domain? If you click on this link, you'll find that the article is a redirect to Ehsan Sehgal, which exists just fine... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like my email removed from my page history that I created

Would like my email removed from my page history I created yesterday. Dragoreman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragoreman (talkcontribs) 19:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI:  Donexaosflux Talk 19:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Xaosflux - Thank you for taking care of this while I was offline. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

PeterJack1 Sockpuppets

Hi. It appears you were the administrator that blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peterjack1 back in April 2019. Based on several factors, such as the articles where active, content added/changed/removed, activities, tone/behavior, I suspect that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.160.217.229 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smith0124 may be sockpuppets of Peterjack1. I think an investigation is appropriate. For example. both the IP address and Smith0124 have an affinity for NY area highways and the 2019 Kentucky gubernatorial election (a very specific interest area). Also, Smith0124, like Peterjack1 before, likes to make and defend specific and particular edits on many NY area highways and is insensitive to criticism (such as poor sourcing or word usage). I also want to mention Smith0124 was recently blocked for 24 hours for edit warring (a block that was lifted by another admin). I could be wrong and I don't have the time and resources to investigate, so I wanted to bring this to the attention of those who do. Thanks. 108.21.182.146 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
––Hi, just as update, I also believe that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mark_P._8301 is affiliated and may be a sockpuppet of the several accounts I listed above. My main proof, other than the roadway and video game articles that this uses edits, the Mark P 8301 user page seems to have been created by Smith0124 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mark_P._8301&action=history). Thank you for your assistance. 108.21.182.146 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) definitely needs investigation: the user page creation by another user is a big red flag for me. Perhaps you could make a post on their SPI page. It is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peterjack1. You could copy and paste what you have written here there in a new report. You can follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to make the report or I can copy your statements if you want. Thanks for finding this and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi Dreamy Jazz, thanks for responding. Do you mind copying my statements and making the report? I am still learning my way around and do not want to do it improperly. Thank you and happy editing to you, too! 108.21.182.146 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz - Thank you for responding and for helping this user while I was offline. Much appreciated. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious edit/reverts

Oshwah, you might like to see Special:Contributions/109.149.79.79; one of those two edits was of a similar sort (and a nearby IP) and on the same page as one you revdeleted. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And a few others on similar topics: [1], [2], and [3]. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Deacon Vorbis! Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding these talk page comments and your concerns. I've glanced through the diffs you provided, and I've rev del'd the ones I felt were the most necessary (which were serious BLP violations). This is definitely trolling by the same person; my primary concern given the timeline is to have any BLP violations or other serious matters removed. ;-) Thanks again for letting me know about this. If you run into any more edits by this person, please let me know. If the edits need to be ran over with the "revy devy", just remember to send those requests to me by emailing them instead of leaving them here for anyone to read. As of the time of this writing, my user talk page has 1015 user accounts that actively watch it. Messages with rev del or OS requests that are left here will almost always trigger the Streisand effect as users read the message and quickly rush over to view the revision and the content before they lose the ability to see it. This results in the content receiving the opposite level of attention than we want to give to it. ;-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Overwriting your comment - sorry

Sorry I overwrote your comment accidentally. I don't know why it did that. I should have gotten an edit conflict notice, shouldn't I? I only noticed what happened when I peeked at my contribs and saw my comment reduced the page's size. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Crossroads! Thanks for the message! Ahh, no worries... it's no big deal. I've accidentally done the exact same thing a number of times before, too... It's an accident. They happen. ;-)
To answer your question: Yes, you normally should be redirected to an edit conflict notice page in the event that you've attempted to publish changes to a page or section that has since changed after you started editing it. However, this won't happen in certain cases. The usual case where accidental overwriting happens is when someone edits a page and then copies the entire content in order to make the modifications elsewhere (like in Notepad or on a different program). What frequently happens in this scenario is that the editor will close the page after copying the text, and then click "edit" again when they're finished in order to paste the modified content back into Wikipedia. Since they closed the editing page when they copied the text, and then opened a new editing page after they finished their modifications elsewhere, the software doesn't know that they're editing based off an old revision and where new revisions have been published, and it accepts what was pasted and overwrites everything that was updated.
Thank you for leaving that comment in the ANI discussion. It definitely shows that there are ongoing issues with the user involved. I just hope that the message I left on the editor's user talk page is what helps to turn these issues around. I've managed to help users turn things around with messages like the one I left; all in all, there's nothing to lose by trying. :-) Cheers, and thanks again for the message - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Illegal use of rollback

[4] OK, if you're going to be that way, I'll just use a direct quote from the source. By the way, besides using rollback against policy, falsely accusing someone of violating BLP can also get you blocked. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Perfect; please do add a direct citation to a reliable source. This was the reason as to why your edit was reverted. It didn't appear to reference a reliable source, and it added content about a living person that can be interpreted as being contentious and controversial. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Oshwah, this Department of Defense IP is disruptive, and talking to them nicely is not going to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23 - When I reverted that user's edit to the article, I felt that it was BLP violation due to lacking a citation to a source and for adding contentious information to a living person (as you obviously know). This is why I responded above, "You have a reference? Great, cite it." Looking at the subsequent edits made to this article by this user shows a multitude of issues that I didn't see the first time. I wasn't responding above in order to try and encourage them to edit war or become repeatedly disruptive (and I'm sure you know me well enough to know that); I was simply trying to solve an issue that I believed to be unilateral. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
And yeah, I noticed that. The DoD? Wtf? ... Heh, I'm not surprised... As the user who blocked Congress 1-2 years ago due to repeated doxxing that made national news, this is not something I feel is a new one... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! This is Olivia Lufkin.

Some of the information on this page is wrong and needs updating. I never worked at a Kindergarten. And I would like to update a few things. How would I go about doing this? Should I send you a picture of my drivers license? Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Olivia Lufkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CCE0:3A40:3521:83E8:CC5E:C9EC (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! To address your concerns, you can follow the instructions here in order to contact the Volunteer Response Team. They have the ability and training necessary to verify your identity and help you with your particular concerns. Because you have an obvious conflict of interest with the article, you should not edit it yourself, as it will only make things more difficult for you to receive assistance with fixing. You're always welcome to file an edit request for another editor to review and complete the edits for you. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Please follow the link I provided to you above, as this is the proper way for you to receive assistance and have your concerns addressed. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me google that for you

[[5]]

Pick any source, add it as you like, be fucking productive, Wikipedia has become a shithole full of pedantic reverters

Do you really think _I_ will spend _my_ time to add a source and try to create a link just so _you_ or any other dipshit (see my previous attempts) can revert that because the source is not _good enough_ for your liking?

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 and let me tell you kiddo, the fun is gone.

So leave it out, the oldest working organ in France, one of the oldest instruments in Europe. Just don't mention that in wikipedia, because I didn't add a fucking source.

What policy are you referring to that allows you to revert my addition? Add a fucking source yourself if you need it so badly.

/rant off/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.27.215 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What policy are you referring to that allows you to revert my addition? WP:PROVEIT maybe? Adam9007 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. PROVEIT should be used for stuff that isn't easily verifiable, did you maybe click the pretty link I provided for your convenience. The bloody organ is there. There is no obligation the add a source for absolutely everything. Look it is stated "Lorris is located 7 km (4.3 mi) northeast of Sully-sur-Loire, 20 km (12 mi) southwest of Montargis, " without a source, oh noooo revert, revert it is not fucking sourced, what are we gonna do?
(talk page watcher) Please stop your obscene rants. Oshwah is a much respected editor and administrator who is only asking you to abide by Wikipedia conventions. If you continue you may be blocked from "contributing" to the encyclopedia. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Stop whining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.27.215 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If you're going to behave in this manner, at least do it toward me. There's no need to be uncivil toward the other users who comment, communicate, and respond here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! As pointed out to you in the response above, Wikipedia's policies state that the onus of responsibility that a user demonstrate verifiability of content lies with the editor who adds or restores material or content to an article. You're of course welcome to edit, improve, and expand articles and content on Wikipedia - we're absolutely not trying to discourage you from doing so. However, your edits need to directly cite a source that's reliable and can be used to support the content, establish verifiability, and be reviwed by readers to make sure that the content added is genuine, accurate, and true. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I will not edit a source in just so somebody else can delete it again, I am fed up with that. We'll just not mention in the english wikipedia that an old organ is there, we'll simply leave it out. As I type this I am listening to nice relaxing music played on the organ in LORRIS, one of the oldest (unverified claim) organs still in use. I also don't care that the rest of the LORRIS lemma is not sourced either, not the mayors, not the history, nothing is sourced and I am happy that you don't care about that either, otherwise the whole LORRIS lemma would not exist. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.27.215 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
That's disappointing to hear... Looking at your contributions, you seem to have at least an intermediate level of proficiency, familiarity, and experience on Wikipedia and how to navigate and communicate. Given some additional time to learn and grow, understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines more in-depth, and make more edits and changes - I feel like you have the potential to become a great Wikipedia editor who can mentor others and make a big difference around here. I obviously can't force you to do anything you don't want to do, but should you change your mind and want to help us while we help you, I'm available and happy to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Been there, done that, made me into the old grumbling uncivil IP editor I am today. Thank you for staying so polite, but it is wasted effort on me. Sources exist, but I won't go through the trouble of giving it my best and then another blessed editor thinks it is not good enough for him and reverts. Now I will just go and look at some nice YOUTUBE videos of the old LORRIS organ. A very strange experience to watch a completely unverified organ playing, unreal, you should try it sometimes. No hard feelings, just a grumpy old disappointed editor (with ~100 started articles across 3 language wikipedias since 2004, when things were still fun and people tried to HELP each other to actually improve articles. I will stop wasting all our time now, you will have plenty more reverting to do, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.27.215 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
You're not wasting my time at all, and I appreciate your compliment regarding my civility and conduct. I avoid battling fire with fire; it only just... makes more fire... and that's obviously not going to help. ;-) If you'll allow me, I'd like to add the content you wrote back to the article and then add a source as a citation for you. Do you know of a source that will be the best one that we can use? Would you be willing to locate one? I can do the rest from there. The most important thing out of all of this is that we're here to build an encyclopedia, and building an encyclopedia is what I must put above all else, including my wants, my "pride", or what would benefit me... This is why I'm here, and this is why I want to work with you. If anything, I hope to be the one user that you found to be different from the others and who cared enough to make things right. Who knows, maybe it'll help you consider changing your mind and perhaps joining us (or returning back) as an active member of the community (though having an account is entirely optional, it's definitely recommended). ;-) Let me know if you're okay with finding a source; I'll be happy to do the rest. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
see my comment further below. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.27.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This is perhaps a silly question, but how do you know that that all this IP's edits were made by the same person? Adam9007 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Adam9007 - I'm just looking at this user's formatting and edits to my user talk page here. This user picked up on how to indent their responses, was (attempting) to make an argument in regards to WP:PROVEIT (it seemed as if they've read this policy before), and the user has obviously been keeping an eye on this page in order to communicate. Compared to the level of skill that other new users have around here, this user obviously knows how to learn and has the potential to be a great editor if they really wanted to. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I will conclude with providing two links (http://www.orgues-koenig.com/lorris-en-gatinais/ - the guys who did the restoration) and (http://lorris.org/index.php?action=orgue - "friends of the Lorris organ" group) that last one talks about "La date d'origine de l'orgue est indiquée par deux sources" two sources, neither of those we silly wikipedians can access easily. But for me it is safe to say that the organ dates from the early 16th century. An organ restorator and a group of friends of the organ say so. BUT those are self published web pages, no prime sources, so any proud trigger happy self righteous wikipedia editor will cite the appropriate policy and delete my hard work. no sir. The organ is there, but not according to Wikipedia policies. Keep up the hard work guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.27.215 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take a look and see what I can do. I can't make any promises. I know that we didn't meet in the best circumstances nor do so on the right foot, and I'm sorry for that. Please know that my user talk page is always open to you, and you are welcome to message me for input or assistance any time you need to. I'll be happy to lend a hand. Until we meet again... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Snapchat

Hi,

Are those violence threats? Adam9007 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam9007! I'm taking a look now... They looked to be typical childish vandalism to me upon first read, but I'm gonna go back and get some more "context" out of what little sense they made... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Adam9007 - Nah, they're just really crudely sexual in nature... AKA typical childish vandalism. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, it looked like childish vandalism to me too but of course I'm no expert in determining whether threats are genuine. Adam9007 (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Adam9007 - Nah, you're fine. Had the vandalism said "slay her throat", I would've interpreted that as a potentially violent threat. Instead, it said "slay that vagina" followed by "smash her" afterwards in the next edit, with both terms being often used as a (pretty pejorative) reference to having sex. So, no violence. But definitely understandable for someone to raise concerns having read those edits... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Racist IP

Is this actionable, or should we just treat it as ordinary vandalism? Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Adam9007 - I just RD2'd it and blocked the IP for BLP violations. I was originally going to just leave it, but I have to put things in different shoes: If the edit had said the same thing but with the word "white" replaced with the word "black", it certainly would be considered an RD2. Hence, I went ahead and hit that revision with the revy devy. Vroom vroom! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm probably taking a risk by saying this, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who considers racism to work both ways :). Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Adam9007 - It's unacceptable in any form. While I believe that certain racist terms, remarks, and (horrible) jokes are much more severe than others (thinking in terms of the Jewish population, African American population, and others), I have to recognize that this is likely my own thoughts and bias. And I cannot let those thoughts influence how I handle situations and make decisions. I try my best to ask not what the easiest thing to do is, nor what the popular or the less-stressful thing to do is. I try to always ask, what's the right thing to do? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, racism is a sensitive subject, and I've been falsely accused of it here on Wikipedia more than once before. If an innocuous jocular comment can be misinterpreted as racist (you should know what I'm talking about), this report certainly could have been (yes, a part of me was actually afraid to make this report...). But I did it anyway because it was the right thing to do, as you say. Adam9007 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
And speaking of racist edits: 1. Adam9007 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Adam9007 - Oh joy.... It is now smooshed. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Does this need revdelling?

This. (S)he's lucky that word means something else to people like me. Adam9007 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Adam9007 - Argh another one... aaaand it's gone! XD... Oh, let's start emailing these requests to me instead of leaving them here. It's policy and we have to do it... not to mention the fact that I have 1000 people who actively watch this page... lol. Avoiding the Streisand effect is going to be especially important here. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Who are u

who are u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:8500:4A50:C195:2EBD:16D1:9C66 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm Oshwah! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
[citation needed]LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

BDP/COI/UAA alphabet soup

Hi Oshwah! Hope all is well in your corner of the wiki. I saw some edits on my watchlist from a new account, and given their nature, I think the situation might merit some review from an admin who can handle things with sensitivity before the templates start flying. So I checked to see who was online and here I am. Contribs, for background. Thanks in advance! Levivich 02:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Levivich! Sure, no problem; always happy to help! I'll take a look and see what I can do... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Levivich -  Done (permalink). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift response as always! Levivich 02:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Levivich - You bet. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Levivich - LOL, I just now read the section header you put for this discussion. For the record, I let out a loud snort while laughing in the middle of a quiet public place because of you... Thanks for that. Hope you got more of that alphabet soup to share :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure... whenever I stop by your talk page I try to bring some soup or something to go with my whine :-) Levivich 14:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Tessa Majors

Here's the thing: it is objectively true information and my contributions are objective facts which do not include any point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahqfowler (talkcontribs) 22:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Hannahqfowler: We actually don't care what the truth is; we care about verifiability. Further, you admit to having a conflict of interest compounded by the fact that you think your beliefs belong in an article. People like reading Wikipedia because they trust us to not let content become skewed. Please respect our policies and accept that you can't make edits this way. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hannahqfowler - I completely understand that you feel that way. But you went into this article with the intent on changing it from being focused on the murder of this article subject to be "remembered for her life", and because the way it's presenting information right now is "insensitive". You wrote this in your edit summaries while you were making inappropriate changes to the article. How is this thought, and your intentions on changing the article's narrative regarding the murder, not a particular point of view? How is this objective, as you worded it above?
Hannahqfowler, I'm not blaming you or trying to say that I don't have any level of compassion or understanding in regards to how you feel. However, I have to reemphasize my point: The fact that you are personally and emotionally involved with this article subject is causing you to make changes to the article that are inappropriate and not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is why you cannot make edits to the article directly. If you wish to have changes made, you need to file an edit request so that another editor can review your request, approve it (assuming no issues are found), and make those changes on your behalf. Wikipedia has a number of core principles regarding how we build this encyclopedia, and I highly recommend that you take some time and complete our new user tutorial so that you can learn and understand them. After you've done so, I believe that you'll see why they're necessary and important. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for the message. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain

The International Bounty Hunter Union is a bona fide organization. Please explain why you deleted it from the page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.152.199 (talkcontribs) 04:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Whether they're bona fide or not is irrelevant. We are not a directory for organizational links. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! See the response left above. Wikipedia is not a directory or list of links to organization and company websites. Depending on the links being added, it can be considered as spamming or trying to advertise by doing this. Please review the policies and guidelines that I've lined you to, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Why delete my userpage?

It didn't have a webhost thing or something, i just said some things what i did and stuff. De --CBTover (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

CBTover, you added what appeared to be your Wikipedia account password to your userpage. It said, "Hi my pass is [PASSWORD]" (or something very close). I had to delete that page under any guideline so that I could suppress that information and make sure that it couldn't be found. If I am incorrect and if that wasn't you trying to put your password on your user page, please accept my apologies for the mistake and the misinterpretation. If that was you adding your password to your user page, yeah... umm... don't do that. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
understandable, have a nice day --CBTover (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
CBTover - That wasn't your Wikipedia account password that you added to your user page, was it? ... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for catching my mistake there. XXX antiuser eh? 10:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Antiuser - No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ubnutu 18.04.3 lts

On virtualbox i have 10gb space, and 2.2 gib ram, it keeps freezing, do i need more ram? It only has 3gb space left. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thegooduser - What happens exactly when Ubuntu "freezes"? You need to describe this much more in-depth so that I have an understanding of exactly what's going on. When is it freezing? What are you doing when it happens? Does it happen at the same place, in the same program, or during the same process each time? Or is it random or unpredictable? Is 2.2 GB how much RAM your physical system has? Or is it how much you're allocating to the VM? You can try increasing the amount of RAM, but I wouldn't expect having a less-than-adequate amount allocated to the VM to be the cause of crashes to the OS. If anything, it would run very slow and it would notify you of issues concerning low memory. Your hard drive is fine; if Ubuntu fits and installs, then it works. You'll just have only 3 GB of HDD space to play with is all... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
When I watch youtube it crashes, also when i plug in my computer while using virtual box the fan starts screaming and when i unplug it the fan goes quiet, does increasing the ram in it take up system ram? I have 12gb ram but only have about 8 gigs of system ram left... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
2.2 gib is how much the vm has, physical system has 12. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thegooduser - You could try increasing the amount of RAM that you're allocating to the VM, but I very much doubt that it's going to resolve the issues that you're seeing with it. Yes, when you tell VirtualBox that you'd like it to allocate a certain amount of RAM toward the virtual machine you're using, it uses the physical RAM that you have in your system to make that happen. So, if your system has 12 GB of RAM installed and you tell VirtualBox to allocate 2 GB to your VM, you can expect your system to be unable to use that 2 GB of RAM while that VM is running. 12 GB of total system RAM seems like an odd amount to have, but it could be that you actually have 16 GB of RAM installed. It's perfectly normal in laptop computers for your graphics card or other hardware components to utilize the "on-board memory" it needs by telling your BIOS to allocate it from your system RAM. My old HP laptop does this for my graphics card's memory. It sounds like you need to change or reset your fan / cooling profile in your system to something else. It seems like it's not spinning up your fans automatically based on the current system's temperature and needs, but instead just setting them to 100% when certain events occur (such as you plugging your laptop into AC power). You'll need to check with your instruction manual for exactly how to do this. For my system, I can change its cooling profile in the BIOS or do so by downloading a program within Windows - I always choose the former. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for telling that you can change my username i did not know that Sended by:Combo Panda

Peter Chinnery

Oshwah ref your message of Feb 19 I've just picked it up so apologies for not responding earlier. Its been so long I've forgotten the edit, can you remind me? """" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.74.139 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The edit is this one. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation

Hi Oshwah. Could you please take a look at Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation? A new editor as well as an IP(could be the same person accidentally editing logged out) are removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. I added sources to the unsourced content they added yesterday, they removed the sourcing and added a bunch of new content that I simply do not have time to add sources to (it's kind of a lot). I left them a note yesterday about adding and removing content yesterday and low and behold they did it again today en mass. It is possible they are the (un?)official tribal historian given their user name. Thanks in advance. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

After taking a second look it was two IPs. This has been occurring over a four day period. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Indigenous girl! I took a look at the article's edit history and saw that you've reverted those edits made, and that some of those revisions were RD1'd. Your edit is still the article's current revision, and the net changes from before 2020 and today (diff) appears to be okay. I don't see any blatant red flags, paragraphs of unreferenced content, or possible original research added. Do things look okay as it is now? Or am I missing something? Let me know if the issues continue, and I'll close the front gate with a grey lock for awhile. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Oshwah! Yes I reverted and then Corbie hid the edits that were problematic after I dropped her a note as well and commented on the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Hopefully the editor(s) will respond to my queries and add the content after they are able to source it and fix the copyvios :) Indigenous girl (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Indigenous girl - Sweet deal; thanks for the update! If there's anything I can do to help, just give me a holler! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Rida888/sandbox

Hi Osh... You have blocked this user (socking I believe): I came upon the s/bx draft via AFC/userspace submissions. It had been tagged for speedy as promotional; which I removed. I then went to tag 'in use' so as to clean it up and got the blocked pink-message at the top of the page (didn't see it when rmvg speedy). I'm not certain of the correct procedure as the creator is blocked. Should it be speedied as G5? Cheers Eagleash (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh... never mind, Robert McL has moved it to draft space. Eagleash (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Eagleash - No worries; glad it's been taken care of. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

rollbacker

Hi Oshwah, I'm interested in having access to this tool. Tks, --Nyook 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nyook - No problem;  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You took away my correction for Unum

I am the Unum corrections person. I know what need me to be there. You don’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnumCorrect (talkcontribs) 19:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Really? Unreferenced?

I pulled it DIRECTLY FROM THE DEATHS IN 2020 ARTICLE AND IT IS ALREADY IN THE INFOBOX. SOMEONE FORGOT TO ADD IT TO THE MAIN ARTICLE. DO YOU PEOPLE JUST REMOVE THINGS BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE IT? DO YOU BOTHER TO EVEN READ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.156 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No. That's not how it works. If you add content like that to an article, you must support that content with citations to reliable sources - period. This is required for articles that are biographies of living persons (including recently deceased people). No source? Then no content. I've semi-protected the article due to this issue; you're welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page and collaborate with others in order to locate reliable sources and update the article in compliance with policy. Thank you - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
That has to be the fastest deletion i've seen, ever. You deleted it just as I was CSDing it! Thanks for your hard work on anti vandalism (and thoroughly surprising me) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf! Thank you for the message, the barnstar, and for the very kind words. Yeah, I noticed that you had tagged the page for G11 at the same time that I was pressing the 'delete' button. HA! Good timing! ;-) Thanks again for the message, and I appreciate your hard work with recent changes patrolling and the time you spend keeping the project clean. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm honestly not the most capable when handling article space, so instead I handle everything else, and so far that's worked quite nicely. Any edit from new/learning users that are outside article space I'll notice.. Wish there was some sort of subdivision tool, that split the feed up a bit among multiple people so that trying to watch all recent changes wasn't a endless barrage that simply can't be methodically processed. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - Have you look at this list of tools? They'll definitely help make patrolling recent changes and reverting vandalism and disruption an absolute breeze. Let me know if you have questions about any of these tools or which ones to recommend, and I'll be happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, but the main problem is that I do the majority of my editing on a school-provided chromebook, which does not support running the majority of tools (webapps only). --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - Oof. Yeah, that's going to restrict the list of programs and external tools you can download, install, and use. The tool that I'd recommend for you would be Lupin's Anti-vandal tool. It's web-based and and works right in your browser, it's easy to use, it filters recent changes based on their likelihood that they're bad faith, and it gives you the ability to easily and quickly revert bad changes. It's one of the first recent changes patrolling tools that I used back in the day when I was building my proficiency with patrolling, and I used it for many years. Give that tool a try and see what you think... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
One quick check later.. and the tool seems to no longer work, at least for me. Shame. Maybe, once I have freetime, and am at home, I could just work on my own tool (Haven't touched JS in ages, will have to jog my memory a bit. I've spent too much time using Rust.) We'll see. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Correction, it does work, but it doesn't like it when I tab away, which I do to an excessive degree. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - I was just about to say... I saw that you added the import call to the correct page; it should work. ;-) "Tab away"? As in you navigate or click over to another open tab in your browser? It seems to work fine when I use the filtered changes feed and go back-and-forth between tabs in my browser... What exactly does it do when you do this? Yes, it's definitely an old tool. It was around when I was somewhat new to patrolling, so we're talking 11 years at least... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

tl;dr it slowly accumulates "Updating..." notices, as Chrome doesn't seem to like it processing in the background, likely due to the low-end hardware. I might try and fix that myself in a bit, as the script seems fairly well documented. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf - Interesting... I'd see if it does the same thing on an entirely different computer and OS. If it doesn't, then you're probably correct in that the Chromebook is to blame. If it does, then you'll obviously know that the issue isn't related to any factors outside of the browser. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I decided that poking around at designing my own tools would be more fun. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - Yeah, that would sound like more fun to me as well. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
1 hour and 40 minutes later, I have the heart and soul of a antivandal tool, pattern matching, in a nice, configurable, and usable state. Now just to draw the rest of the owl. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I am so glad I chose to use OOUI instead of doing what tools like twinkle do (build their own UI from scratch). Now I got something of a test bed, which really I should've made earlier. User:Moonythedwarf/HandymanFilterInterface. And of course I have a frontend now. libavtools provides the underlying vandalism-fighting/detecting tools, handyman functions as a frontend and UI for these tools, and provides some of its own tools as well when they're not really appropriate for libavtools (i.e. anything messing with UI). So far so good. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - NICE! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

You're better and smarter than all the Microsoft technicians combined ;), just don't eat the goat, i don't know if it taste good...

Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Thegooduser! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Huggle

Huggle Mess Up

I messed it up by accident, right clicking to add back the stuff don't do anything, and reinstalling it does not do anything too... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thegooduser - Those settings might be saved to your huggle.yaml.js file instead of your computer's settings (I've noticed that some are and some aren't). Does reverting that file back to the day before you messed up your Huggle resolve the issue? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I might actually be incorrect here. The last change that was made there was when you resolved the issue with the oldest edits being automatically removed from the queue when it fills up, which was back on December 27, 2019. Local computer settings for Huggle will be saved in your AppData folder within Windows. You could try locating it, renaming the folder to add a '1' or something similar to the end, and then re-launching Huggle afterwards. It'll believe that no local settings are saved and it might resolve that issue when it reverts back to default views. Be warned that you'll need to change some Huggle settings back to the values you wish before using Huggle again; those local files store those settings and won't be available after you rename the directory. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Civility

Hi Oshwah, could you please try to explain this new editor that this sort of comments are not per Wikipedia:Civility (plus the edit-warring) - [6] ? I did my best here to go per BLP which was met with the same sort of comments - [7] Thank you kindly, cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sadko - Sure, I can talk to the user about it. Thanks for the message and for letting me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Sadko -  Done (diff, permalink). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert and revdel on The Amazing Johnathan

I was about to revert that same edit because it looks like typical vandalism, but a quick Google search shows it was probably accurate. The added content was cited to the documentary, so it wasn't unsourced. Surachit (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Surachit! Thanks for leaving me a message about this and for letting me know. I understand that the content points to the documentary itself as a reference, and that your research shows this to likely be true. However, any content that's contentious or negative in nature about a biography of a living person must reference a reliable source that's secondary and independent of the article subject. Merely pointing to that documentary or the IMDb link of the documentary isn't enough. Hence, I'm going to leave the revision alone and keep it rev del'd. If anything, this will prevent someone from accidentally restoring the article to that revision in the future, which would publish the content and without the references required. If you have any further questions or objections, please let me know and I'll be happy to discuss this with you further. Again, I appreciate you for taking the time to message me and let me know about this. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit Reverted

Hello,

I recently attempted to revise the article page named "Mobolaji Dawodu" and wanted to know how I could fix it? thanks in advance for the help.

Dawodu Assistant (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Dawodu Assistant

Hi Dawodu Assistant! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your wish to modify the article and improve it. Looking at the edit summary that you left with your edit to the article here, you state that you were attempting to edit the article "to have updated information while removing information that was too specific per the request of Mobolaji Dawodu himself." Are you editing Wikipedia and this article on behalf of Mobolaji Dawodu himself? If so, then you have a clear conflict of interest with the article subject and hence you should not edit the article yourself. You should make edit requests on the article's talk page instead, so that other editors can review, approve, and make those changes for you. You should also encourage Mobolaji Dawodu to follow these instructions in order to contact the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. They have the tools and training necessary in order to verify his identity and resolve his particular issues and concerns with the article. Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great rest of your day. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Hakethant

Looks to me like he was reverting vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi DuncanHill! The user's edits themselves seem okay, but their edit summaries were the complete opposite. They were blatantly malicious and sexually explicit, and there's no question that they were inappropriate. I'm almost wondering if this account is part of a series of "good hand, bad hand" editing... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't say I recall the summary at Slum, but I don't think it struck me as objectionable. DuncanHill (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
DuncanHill - "Decadent fart queef" is what it said. That one was probably the least-explicit and least-inappropriate edit summary compared to the others he left... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, Decadent Fart Queef, fell apart after their difficult second album. DuncanHill (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
DuncanHill - Heh, what? Am I missing something? lol... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Usernames and email addresses

How come IP addresses don't have an email address here? 2001:569:78BE:4700:A8BF:5DB1:C76:8CC8 (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your question! That's because of the fact that IP addresses refer to anonymous users who don't have an account on Wikipedia. IP addresses can also often be public networks, shared between many users, and are often reassigned from one end user to another and without their knowledge or control. If we were to establish and hook email addresses to non-static information such as an IP addresses, it would result in numerous problems that would be wide-reaching and impossible to resolve. Your IP address could suddenly be assigned to someone else, and your email address would no longer be connected to the correct IP address that your computer or device uses. To be able to add an email address and configure it in your preferences, you will need to create and use a Wikipedia account. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A Request

Would it be possible if you could hide this edit [8] due to vilely worded harassment by, apparently, an IP-hopping troll?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apokryltaros!  Done. :-) Next time, you'll want to email rev del requests to me instead of leaving them here where they're publicly visible. At the time of this writing, just over 1000 editors have this page added to their watchlist, and emailing me these requests privately will help to prevent the Streisand effect from taking place, as people will be notified of your request, and will then quickly rush over to view the content before they lose the ability to see it. ;-) No worries though; it's not a big deal... we just want to make sure that we avoid drawing attention to revisions that need to be hidden from the public, and for obvious reasons... lol. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
And now I know better.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Apokryltaros - No worries; please don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can be of assistance with anything else. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Email usage notice

You have quite the notice there with your Email User page. Is it possible to set up a custom notice for my own email, or is this a right reserved for Interface Admins? --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Moonythedwarf! Nope, you can do it too! Just go to this page in order to set one for yourself! Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Featured Article deletion.. failed?

Even after you deleted it, all edit history somehow persisted and rose from the grave. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf - The user recreated the template page after it was deleted (twice) and added the same content back to it. Edits were made back-and-forth since the last recreation, which made it appear as if the template was recreated and pulled out of the grave. However, this didn't happen. Also, make sure you're not confusing Template:Featured Article (the template that the user created) with Template:Featured article (the legitimate template used on featured articles)... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Oshwah, Yea, I wasn't making that mistake, mostly due to the fact every single retag was me clicking [rollback] from the recent changes page. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - Heh, well, the user is blocked now. If you see this page get recreated, let me know so I can take a look. It'll likely be because of sock puppetry... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

source / citation for my edit on "Maria B" wiki

Hello!

please have a look at this source. This is so far most relevant and useful information found on the subject. Everything You need to Know about Maria B. Let me know what do you think. :) Moreover, if you Google "who is Maria B" , this source pops up in Google Feedback too. just FYI :)

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad affan x (talkcontribs) 10:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ahmad affan x, and thank you for leaving me a message here regarding your edits to Maria B. Unfortunately, the reference you linked me to above appear to be from a blog or similar website. This external page also does not cite or reference any of their sources to support where they are getting their content or information from, which makes this unverifiable to readers - especially when it comes to a biography of a living person. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, and reliable sources for biographies of living persons for more information. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Death threats

Did you tell the foundation? I also found this.[9] Doug Weller talk 14:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller! Yes, I've emailed the emergency team regarding the threats. Thanks for letting me know about the additional account. If you see any more, do let me know so that I can make sure that everything on my end is taken care of (assuming you don't already have it handled). I'm also available to help with anything if needed; you know where to find me! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. No point in my dealing with it as I'm sure you're doing a good job of it! Doug Weller talk 14:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller - I appreciate the confidence and the kind words - Thank you. :-) Nonetheless, feel free to reach out to me should you have questions or need anything. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

HI my name is chad. Whats your name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad12345654321 (talkcontribs) 16:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chad12345654321! Welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Oshwah. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can answer any questions or help you with anything, and I'll be happy to do so. Have you gone through Wikipedia's new user tutorial yet? If not, you definitely should! It'll provide you with a lot of good information and help with getting started. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

New message from Target Barsado

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Oshwah. You have new messages at [[User talk:Target Barsado#Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed|Target Barsado's talk page]].
Message added 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I would like to apply for the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed in good faith to contribute and use tools and assist in vandalism. Thanks, Target Barsado (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Target Barsado, and thanks for notifying me about your request for the extended confirmed user rights. Please see the response I left for your request here. This user right is granted automatically by the system once your account reaches 30 days of age and has made 500 edits to Wikipedia. That permissions request page is for users who are already extended confirmed to request the permissions be extended to their alternate or other legitimate accounts. This user right is almost never given out early by administrators to new user accounts. Once your account has reached the required tenure and number of edits, the system will grant you this permission automatically. Use this time to learn about Wikipedia and how it works, go through our introduction with editing and making improvements, and learn more about the projects and areas you wish to participate in. You'll reach the requirements in no time at all. :-) Please let me know if I can answer any questions or help you with anything, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No subject

I am cousin to Lucey Bowen (daughter of Croswell Bowen, distinguished reporter, journalist and biographer). In the late 60's or early 70's, I attended Lucey Bowen's wedding ceremony to John Rothchild. They two met in the Peace Corps and did not have any children. I am not a "computer person" and do not know how to add this marriage to John Rothchild's data in Wikipedia. I am not interest in going further with this. It might take someone just minutes of a computer search to validate their Legal marriage. Lucey Bowen's father, Croswell Bowen is in your Wikipedia system and the legal marriage can be found on the internet. - B. Bruvold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.253.203.179 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! You need to cite references to reliable sources with any changes you make to articles like this. Any content that's challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be accompanied by an in-line citation. If what you're saying is true, then you have an obvious conflict of interest with this article subject, and hence you should not be editing this article directly. Instead, you should create edit requests on the article's talk page so that other editors can review, approve, and make the appropriate changes to the article for you. Please review the links I provided; they will take you to the relevant policy and guideline pages and provide you with more information and with instructions. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions about any of the policies or guidelines I've linked you to. I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

New message from Target Barsado

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Oshwah. You have new messages at [[User talk:Target Barsado#Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback|Target Barsado's talk page]].
Message added 17:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I would like to have rollbacker rights to be able to fight vandalism more effectively, currently I do a bit using Twinkle and is not as fast and easy like other tools such as Huggle. I am aware that I have just 200 mainspace edits, but I hope that you take my request seriously. I don't have sufficient editing experience yet, which may definitely be a concern. I'm currently pursuing training at Wikipedia:Training/For students, which will definitely gonna help me in editing and contribution. Thanks Target Barsado (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Target Barsado! I recommend that you wait until after your account has become extended confirmed and after you've accumulated at least a month's worth of time and experience demonstrating the ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from bad faith edits and unconstructive vandalism, as well as the proper reversion and removal of vandalism and bad faith disruption, the warning of users for their bad faith edits, and the proper filing of reports at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for repeat offenders and after they've been given sufficient warnings. Rollback is not a user permission that's granted to new users, and you have a good amount of time and experience to gain before this statement no longer applies to you. Once you are able to demonstrate a record of consistent and solid work and experience doing these very things, only then should you consider requesting the rollback user rights. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Oshwah: should I revoke the request from the [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback]Page. I don't want failed attempt please suggest. Thanks Target Barsado (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Target Barsado - To be honest, I'd withdraw and remove the rollback request if I were you, yes. Just go back to the page and undo your edit if you wish to do so. You're much too new and lacking the necessary amount of experience; no administrator is going to grant your request at this time. Even if an administrator responds and declines your request, it's not a big deal. Just wait 1-2 months and after you've gained the experience needed, and you'll be fine to make another request when the time comes. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Target Barsado - I just went ahead and removed the request for you. There's no need for you to do anything. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I would to edit the Page Karan Singh Grover for two references and a minor change which no editor is interested to do so. You can [10] and [11]. Please allow me to proceed you can trust me. Thanks Target Barsado (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Target Barsado - Sure, I'll be happy to help. I just need you to create an official edit request on the article's talk page so that your requested changes can be documented and officially approved through that process. It's necessary in order to make sure that the community can review and provide input if anyone feels that this is necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions with how to do this, and I'll be happy to answer them - just follow the instructions provided on the guideline page that I linked you to, and you shouldn't have any problems. Let me know once you've filed the request, and I'll be happy to take a look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thanks, please guide me. I want to contribute, a major and minor change is left to be corrected. So please arrange a edit request so that I can contribute. Target Barsado (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Target Barsado - Have you reviewed the guideline page and instructions for creating an edit request? If not, you need to start this process by doing so. If you have any questions about anything on that page, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of my edit

I did forget to leave a source to my edit I will use one next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake Grimzy (talkcontribs) 19:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jake Grimzy! Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) No worries, and thanks for the message! Since you're brand new here, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial. It'll provide you with a lot of help and good information with getting started, and how to navigate around the website, locate important policies and guidelines, and how to perform other important functions. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can help you with anything. I'll be happy to do so! :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Block

Anonymous user 116.33.83.190 is REALLY getting on Oh My!'s nerves! Yeah, I checked on https://www.iplocation.net that the user is from South Korea, and... regardless... please block them for vandalism. I, using Twinkle, will report the page for semi-protection. --Keyacom (💬 | 🖊) 19:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Keyacom! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your thoughts and concerns regarding the IP user and the Oh My! article. I'd normally agree with your thoughts and your assessment (in fact, I would've blocked the user earlier today had other users left warnings like they were supposed to), but this IP user hasn't edited at all since I reverted their last edit to Oh My! and left a note on IP user's talk page regarding their disruptive editing. Because of this, the user is likely stale now - hence no block is needed at this time, and no application of page protection appears necessary at this time either. If the IP user makes any more disruptive edits, or if more disruptive edits are made to the article by other users or editors, I'll of course be happy to reconsider that position and do what's necessary to keep things in order. However, no administrative action is necessary at this time unless edits, disruption, or other relevant circumstances change. Please let me know if you have any questions or further concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and discuss them with you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Template purge behavior.

Editing a template automatically causes the server to re-render all pages that transclude it. Does purging a template's cache do the same thing? --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

For reference, i'm trying to figure out an effective way to make all of the April Fools related notices (and a link to the page) appear auto-magically on April 1st 2020, and am trying to minimize the amount of effort to get all the notices to appear. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - To answer your question: Yes, it does. However, we should go over exactly what happens in a bit more detail so that there's no confusion if inconsistent results are observed. When a backlinked or transcluded page is saved (such as a category or template), a list of pages to re-cache and repopulate are put into a job queue, and are executed and re-cached when the server load is low. Depending on how busy the server is, the page may take days, or even months, to be updated (if we're referring to categories and backlinks). This is rare, but it has happened where the server load has been extremely high. Manually clearing the server cache for the target page will resolve this, but only for that individual page. Remember: The page to purge is the one that transcludes (or references the template using transclusing), not the page that gets transcluded (AKA the template page that other pages reference via transclusion)... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Oshwah, So at the end of the day manually purging the 3 pages to update their notices is the best way to do things. Alright. That means my {{Fools-gate}} and {{Not-fools-gate}} templates are sufficient. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - Sorry, I went and corrected a few details I gave above in order to make them less confusing and more clear. If you're looking to modify a template and add April Fools content to it so that it transcludes to other pages on April 1, just perform that modification to the template when the time has nearly arrived. Depending on how many potentially affected pages we're talking about here, it shouldn't take very long at all for the change you make to the template to be reflected upon the pages that transclude it. If all else fails, just clear the cache on those pages that are being stubborn and you'll be fine. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - I took a look at the two template links you provided in your response above. Yeah, what you're doing should work assuming that there's no issue with the conditions and code. That template should render and transclude long before that date arrives... Then, if the date isn't April 1st, nothing will display per your condition. Otherwise, it should display. Might be worth testing, but I believe that your strategy should work fine... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I tested both by simply changing around the dates they check. They appear to work fine, and should, at most, need the containing page's cache purged. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - Yes, and you could set the template up well in advance before the date arrives and the target pages will update long beforehand... No need to even worry come April 1st. ;-) I would've just designed the April Fools theme and template and updated it a few moments before April 1 arrives so that they'll update... and then remove it when April 1st was over. But your method of handling this with date conditions embedded in the template rendering is much better... I'd definitely go with your strategy over mine. LOL! Maximum laziness and automatic implementation and appearance, and with much less room for issues and weird caching and frustration. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Laziness is the key to efficiency if you apply just the right amount. Another question: Do the CURRENTMONTH and CURRENTDAY magic words happen to make the template rerender when the day or month changes? --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - I do software programming, and no truer words have been spoken! ;-) The template will render and transclude regardless of the conditions and magic words. What is actually displayed (if anything at all) depends on if those conditions are true or not when the user loads the page with the template transclusion included. If the date changes between page loads, nothing happens until after they refresh the page. So... Here's a test template code snippet that I wrote in order to try and answer your questions and build something that'll work perfectly:
Test template code
{{#ifeq:{{CURRENTMONTH}}|1|{{#ifeq:{{CURRENTDAY}}|21|TODAY IS JAN 21!|TODAY IS NOT JAN 21!}}|TODAY IS NOT JAN 21!}}
As you can see with the example I put together, mine isn't perfect at all. Ideally, as a good programming practice, you don't want to have two places in the code where the "false" result is called upon (I have "TODAY IS NOT JAN 21!" added twice - one for if the CURRENTMONTH is not equal to 1, the other for if the CURRENTMONTH is equal to 1 but where CURRENTDAY is not equal to 21). I'm trying to figure out how to resolve this and code it in a way where there's only one positive result called, and one negative result called.... I'm trying to remember how to do this... I might have to reference some of my past work in order to figure it out... LOL. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite familiar enough with templates to solve this, but I think using #ifexpr would be the solution here. Something like {{#ifexpr ({{CURRENTMONTH}}=foo) and ({{CURRENTDAY}}=bar)|yes|no}} --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - HA! I figured it out. That was easy...
Test template code (revised)
{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTMONTH}} = 1 AND {{CURRENTDAY}} = 21|TODAY IS JAN 21!|TODAY IS NOT JAN 21!}}
You just compare the two conditions as one expression with the AND logic, and it seems to work just fine. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
So I was correct on my notion, good to know. Maybe I'm actually able to state I have some level of proficiency with templates after all. Going to go rewrite and merge the Fools-gate and Not-fools-gate templates. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - Indeed you do! :-) Cool deal; just don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can answer any more questions or provide any more help. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access

Hey Oshwah, hope you are well! Just a heads up, you probably will need to revoke talk page access for I don't like the Americans. (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Looks like a LTA account. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi LuK3! I hope you're having a great day! Yeeeauupppp, you are 100% correct - that user is definitely an LTA. Thanks for letting me know; talk page access has been revoked. :-) Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

accident

Thanks for finding my accidental reversion on the Alto page. It seems that I clicked on it at just the wrong time, didn't notice that you had already done it. It seems that I can read the diff, without noticing which side is which. By the way, in Seattle there are actual working Alto machines. (Also, that was my last thing right before sleeping, so I might have been a little tired.) Gah4 (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Gah4 - Accidents happen, man... It's not a big deal at all. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I mostly think it is funny! I was pretty sure at the time that I did it right, though. Gah4 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Gah4 - HA, I do it all the time... edits and admin actions clash, and you're left realizing that your edit tripped over someone else's. ;-) Oh well... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SINCERE REQUEST

can you blacklist the indian akhil turai so he can never have a wikipedia page? please i request you! :) he is scam all his article is fake his instagram photos are all photoshopped and all the videos are photoshopped 2600:1700:36A1:110:90AA:309:C757:8F85 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! There's no need to "blacklist" anyone. If the person does not meet the notability requirements for having their own article on Wikipedia, then any attempt to have one created will be unsuccessful in the long-run. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hoping you have experience with the API and javascript..

Do you know what the best way to only fetch the most recent entries from the Log would be? Working on the actual patrol feed for my tool, and can't for the life of me figure out a decent way, probably because i'm a bit rusty with JS still. --moonythedwarf :(Braden N.) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you need to know what query i'm making, see like 167 of User:Moonythedwarf/handyman-usernames.js. the leend variable was one of many attempts to try and make the server do the work of not sending the old values, but I've given in there, so you can ignore it. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 23:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf - Sure, let me take a look and get back to you... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Oshwah, Polite reminder that this thread existed :) --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Moonythedwarf! Sorry it took so long to get back to you! I was able to retrieve the last 10 recent log entries for en-wiki using this API call here using the sandbox. Looks like you just need to add the 'lelimit' parameter (to make sure you put a limit as to how many results are returned). It should return the latest entries by default. If you need to filter the list by certain types or kinds, you can add more parameters to go from there. See the code I wrote below (pulling from your handyman-usernames.js file):
Code
action: "query",
format: "json",
list: "logevents",
lelimit: [ADD A LIMIT HERE],
...
I think that you're definitely pretty much there - I looked at your code and it looks good. I hope that I was able to answer your question fully. If not, please let me know so that I can help you further. I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Frequent usage of revdel on here...

With how frequently revision deletion occurs here, I'd almost say to protect this page, but that would likely be disastrous with how much collateral damage there could be. If only pending changes level 2 still existed, it might've been really useful here... InvalidOS (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

InvalidOS: I'd personally be fine with keeping a close eye on this page for PCR should that ever happen.
On a sidenote, I was considering requesting PCP for my own talkpage, but right now i'm not doing much anti-vandal work (I decided to try and revive Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Computer_hardware_task_force, and am sporadically working on both antivandalism and various computing topics, so the need isn't there anymore (For now) --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonythedwarf (talkcontribs)
@Moonythedwarf: Signature? InvalidOS (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, sinebot's done it Ok, I should check edit histories. InvalidOS (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
InvalidOS, [re: page history] We're all derps here, it's a important part of existing. also you broke styling :) --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf, At least this was on a user talk page? InvalidOS (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
InvalidOS, Next time, break styling on april fools, then you can use "it was a prank" as an excuse :D
I personally have Oshwah's talkpage already watchlisted, but PCR level 2 would've been mildly useful here, I agree.
--moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi InvalidOS! HA! At times, I don't blame you. However, yes, it does cause collateral damage each time my user talk page is semi-protected. I help a lot of new and novice users on Wikipedia, and they can't contact me directly to request assistance during those times. Sigh... there definitely are situations on Wikipedia where Level 2 pending changes protection would be useful versus other protection levels, and I do miss having the option at times. Phasing that out was a community decision, and as much as it can leave less-than-stellar options available at times where it would be useful, we must respect the community's decision and we must honor it. *Shrug* Oh well.... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sky burial: Images

Hello Oshwah. I don't want to take a trivial stuff like this one to the ANI board - it seems like a better idea to ask an admin. Would it be an appropriate action to remove certain images from Sky burial per WP:GFFENSE? The content guideline is not specific enough. Puduḫepa 14:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Puduḫepa, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and concerns regarding the images currently published on the Sky burial article. I apologize for the delay responding to you here - I've been busy with real life events and I'm just now catching up with all of the Wikipedia messages, emails, requests, etc that I received. :-)
Yes, as the content guideline states, offensive content is allowed on Wikipedia articles and we do not remove images of such content solely because they are offensive. However, it also states here that offensive content should not be added solely because it is offensive, either. The spirit of the policy should translate as this: the image should not be given weight for addition or removal because it is offensive. Instead, it should be added and remain on the article because it adds encyclopedic, educational, and informational value to the article, and do so in a neutral manner. If you personally feel that the images are offensive to you, that is not a reason to request or discuss its removal. However, if you feel that they do not add any kind of encyclopedic value to the article, and you can provide true and level-headed reasons as to why, then you would have a fair case to present in a discussion. Remember that Wikipedia is based off of collaboration and consensus; you'll be expected to comment and communicate civilly and respectfully with everyone - including those who disagree with you (including those who may not behave civilly toward you).
Take a look at the policies and content guidelines and make sure that you understand them, and let me know if you have any questions. I'll be more than happy to answer them. Thanks again for reaching out to me. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Password

Hi Oshwah, I recently changed my password to log into EN Wikipedia and now get this message when starting Huggle: "Login failed (on enwiki): The bot password for bot name "huggle2" of user "Samf4u" must be reset." Can you help me find where to make this change? Thanks - Samf4u (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Samf4u, (talk page stalker) you can reset bot passwords by going to Special:BotPasswords. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Got it! Thanks Dreamy Jazz - Samf4u (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Samf4u! Sorry for the delayed response! As Dreamy Jazz said above, you just needed to create a new bot password and you'll be set to go. Bot passwords will become invalid if you change your password, if your account goes idle for more than a large number of days, or if you haven't used that particular bot password to log into Wikipedia for a certain amount of time - It's for security purposes. Please let me know if you need help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. I'm glad that you're on Huggle again! Welcome back! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Good info, Thanks! - Samf4u (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Samf4u - No problem! Glad you're back up and running. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

UTRS appeal 28664

Hi,

You blocked User:Mark Peres a year or so ago. They've now issued an unblock appeal on UTRS and your input would be appreciated. Basically they're saying that their block is wrong and denying all knowledge of sockpuppetry. I haven't requested CheckUser yet but I will do. Your thoughts on the unblock appeal at UTRS would be appreciated.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah?-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi 5 albert square! Sorry for the late response to your message here. If you look at the SPI archive for this user, you'll see that a CU confirmed this account to the others that I reported at the time. Hence, I blocked the users involved. Is my input still needed? If you have any more questions or if you need me to step in and respond to this UTRS personally, let me know and I'll be happy to do what you need. I hope that my response provided you with some helpful context and information (and, of course, if it didn't - let me know). Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
5 albert square - No problem! Glad I could help! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Oshwah, could you please do me a favour and look at this unblock request at AN? It's a CU block and the editor wants to be unblocked now but the discussion at AN seems to have stalled. The trouble is two editors voted to unblock and two voted to remain blocked! I'm not entirely sure what to do - would I need to tell them to go to ArbCom for a decision?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
5 albert square - The user is CU blocked, which means that unblocking the account requires a checkuser to either remove the block themselves or give permission and approval for a non-CU administrator to do so. No community discussion, "vote", or consensus can overturn this block without checkuser approval. If the user wishes to appeal their checkuser block, they must email the Arbitration Committee in order to do so (per this section of the block appeal guide, this section of the block appeal instructions, and this section of the blocking policy). There's no point in continuing that unblock discussion on the administrators' noticeboard; CU blocks cannot be overturned by community consensus if no CU gives their consent or approval for it to be removed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've messaged the blocking admin-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
5 albert square - No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice hair Emblem-cool.svg

--c o r t e x 04:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cortex128! Thank you for the DANGEROUS mac and cheese! I'll enjoy it to my last bite! ;-) I hope you're doing well and that you're enjoying your time on Wikipedia. If you need my input or assistance with anything, you know where to find me... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by unblocked account

Hi, Oshwah. You recently unblocked 73.94.200.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and it they then returned to make the same type of edit [12]. Looking at the page history for Superman Returns, it looks like the user has been on several related IPs, although they appear to only make one or two edits on each one. Not sure if anything can be done, but wanted to let you know. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wallyfromdilbert, and thanks for letting me know about this. I unblocked this IP user recently because it was accidentally set to an indefinite block, which should not be set on IP addresses or ranges unless under extreme circumstances. I went ahead and re-blocked the IP user for 6 months. If disruption continues from it after the block expires, let me know and I'll apply another block. :-) Thanks again; cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No subject

The additions I made to Rep. Shea's page were accurate and stuck only to the facts as they happened. They were pertinent and backed up by sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.56.109.252 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Your edits were clearly in violation of many policies and procedures on Wikipedia, including Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy - one of Wikipedia's founding principles. Please review the warnings and notices you received here, review and understand the relevant policy pages that they link you to, and let me know if you have any questions about them. Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User 105.27.205.134 block

Hi, I have just reverted an edit by this user, but see on their talk page that they had been blocked by you about an hour before their latest edit. could you have a look at their block? cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

going mad, sorry, saw the time but missed the date. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi IdreamofJeanie! I just took another look at the IP user's edits, and I see that they made another edit to the same article on the day you reported this. This issue obviously isn't going to stop unless I do something further... Hence, I've applied a 72 hour block on the user. If you notice that disruption continues from it after the block expires, please let me know. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

OH HI

O H , H I. How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.39.24 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm good! How are you? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please help me for article writting

Please help me for article writting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.chinmayroy (talkcontribs) 10:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr.chinmayroy! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'll be more than happy to point you toward the right pages so that you can learn the basics of Wikipedia, how everything works, where important policies and pages are located, and (of course) how to contribute to the encyclopedia. :-) Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and complete the tutorial tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise. Please let me know if you still have questions or need any help after you've completed the entire tutorial, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you with anything you need. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User block?

Bit confused by this recent edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&diff=next&oldid=938351675&diffmode=source

It was already reverted, but would that template be sufficient to actually block a user? Myoglobin (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Myoglobin, The template is just a template. Blocking still requires admin privileges, as it's its own thing --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Myoglobin! As moonythedwarf briefly stated above, the template you saw someone leave on my user talk page here is just that - a template. It's one of the many block notification templates that can be left on the recipient's user talk page after a block has been applied to their account or IP address. They include information such as the duration of the block that was applied, an explanation of the reason for the block (with references to the relevant policy pages), and instructions for appealing their block or requesting an unblock. The act of actually blocking the user is a completely different process that takes place on Special:Block. Once the block is actually applied, the user is notified - which is where these block notification templates come in. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Interstellarity (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity - Hey, sorry. Just sat back down at my computer. I'm taking a look at my email inbox now; stand by... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Interstellarity - Received and replied. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. Interstellarity (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Username

I noticed you blocked Bob the Troll 2.5 for a username violation. This could have many different meanings. See Troll or Internet troll. Can you please take a look to see whether they violated our username guidelines? Interstellarity (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Interstellarity! Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding Bob the Troll 2.5. In my experience, usernames like this rarely contribute productively to the project and wind up being blocked as vandalism-only accounts. Wikipedia's username policy disallows usernames that are disruptive, or show an intent to troll, disrupt, or harm the project. However, as you stated, the term "troll" could mean more than one thing, and I did my best to take that into account. This is why I applied a soft account block to the user instead of a typical block you normally see. A soft block only applies to the account itself, and allows the user to create a new account or request their username be changed on their current account. Looking back on this account and my decision to soft block it, I agree that waiting for the user to edit first so that I would have a clear understanding of the user's intent would've probably been a better action to take. I appreciate the message and your input and thoughts regarding this situation; thank you, and please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you feel that any of my administrative actions or decisions were questionable or improper. My ultimate goal is to do the right thing, and having users such as yourself who message concerns and question my actions help me to make sure that this is what I'm doing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I trust that you try to do the right thing. That's why I sometimes reach out to you for assistance. I feel that when we talk about the situation, it helps me understand it better so that we both can be better editors at the same time. I appreciate you looking into this and also for all the work you do on Wikipedia. Just don't let it interfere with real life!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Interstellarity - I appreciate your very kind words, and (more importantly) your trust. :-) HA! I try not to, but no promises! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The account has been globally blocked. Interstellarity (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Interstellarity - Ah, thanks for the update. Looks like the user was an LTA. Whelp, at least it didn't have a chance to cause disruption on this project... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, c'mon. Bob might be a fantasy creature who lives under a bridge and demands goats as tribute. Assume legendary monstrous faith! Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul Tipton

Talks openly about haemophobia. OK, the other one was cheeky but the haemophobia is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.5.228 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I was just having fun i didnt mean to hurt any one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku S.S.F (talkcontribs) 20:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

Do you have my talkpage watchlisted? If not, mind watchlisting it? I'm going to be taking a break for a bit soon, so it'd be nice to have someone that might be able to answer any messages that come my way.. Things got unusually stressful lately, and I'd rather Wikipedia not be the thing that causes me to buckle. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf - Sure, I can do that. You're also welcome to add a note to the top of your user talk page and redirect users with questions over to mine. This will probably work better, as I have a lot of pages watchlisted and to the point where I need to go through and clean that list out. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you're currently active, would you mind helping out with the backlog at WP:RFPP?

I posted about the backlog here [13]. Since then there's been a few more requests. I understand if you're busy doing other things, just thought I should ask. Clovermoss (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Clovermoss - Can do! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Clovermoss - Alright, RFPP is all caught up! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for handling the backlog at WP:RFPP and responding to 19 requests! Clovermoss (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Clovermoss! Thank you for the barnstar! And you're very welcome - easy peasy... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:BIO

Kind of what I expected, but just to retro-clarify, this was (still is?) a "slow-editwar" case (or I would have gone to WP:ANEW anyway). What seems to've been happening was someone got really enamoured of "the right version" at Tina Fey, then went and changed MOS:BIO to agree with it, to use that as later leverage/bludgeon at their pet article. No one really noticed (or rather noticed that the tweak involving Fey was actually contradictory to practice, to the rest of the guideline, and to what its meaning on the matter has been for years. Often small changes are taken at face value/AGF as just clarity improvements when people don't make it clear they're engaging in a substantive change, since most people know better by now that to try to do one and pretend it's not. The Fey stuff continued to be a debate with reverting, so it got brought to WT:MOSBIO. We then noticed what had been done to the guideline without discussion or consensus, in direct connection to that same dispute, and reverted it, after various concerns were raised about it. And I also fixed the Fey lead to comply, which resulted in reflexive reverting there and also a reinsertion of the nonsense in MOS:BIO, as if proof by assertion is going to work there. I then suggested an edit at the Fey article that would just sidestep the entire debate at that particular article (I don't know if it stuck; it was to do "Full name, better known as short name" format), and I put the MoS stuff back to quotation-marks-are-for-nicknames, as it's been for...ever. But I'm expecting another revert of that at any time (these "activities" have not been rapidfire and all in one day), despite the ongoing discussion on its talk page, because that discussion had no effect on previous PoV-push-MoS-until-I-WIN antics. I appreciate the semi-protection gesture, but I don't think it'll have any effect (and I thought all WP:P&G pages were supposed to have that by now anyway, to thwart drive-by vandalism); none of the involved editors appear to be noobs, so they'll already be autoconfirmed or whatever the proper term is for immune to semi-protection. Hopefully just the fact that the request was made and resulted in some increase in protection level will send a "knock it off, BRD exists for a reason" signal, but I'm loath to hold my breath.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish! I owe you an apology; I wrote a response to your message here shortly after you had saved it, and I must've gotten distracted and didn't publish it. I'm sorry for such a late reply to your follow-up to the page protection request and your explanation of what was going on. I've unfortunately seen this before; editors pushing a certain point of view or who are trying to add or modify content within an article and in a way that is not in compliance with policy will "tweak" the actual Wikipedia policy page with "small improvements" or "small changes to clarify the wording". They keep doing this over many small, subtle changes, in order to slowly morph and transform it over many months and after many other edits so that it's now worded to reflect policy, in spirit, in a manner that's completely different than what was originally discussed and approved by consensus. Has this issue subsided or been resolved since you messaged me about it above? I'm sorry that this issue was able to become so complex and (very likely) so frustrating... my decline of your request obviously didn't help much either... I evaluated the edit history of the article, and looking at the number of changes made, the context and content behind each change, and the situation as a whole - determined that applying protection wouldn't be justified under the policy; I'm sorry that I wasn't aware of the entirety of the issue. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
No deadline! :-) And I'm not objecting to the decline (or, rather, the semi-decline with semi-protection), just providing background on what's the issue. I've left it alone for a little while and will check it out again later. Because the "civil PoV-push" has been so slow-moving anyway, it's not something I expected immediate revert-warring about. I am heartened to see that you're so keenly aware of the "slow-editwar" problem as it affects our policy pages. Too few people seem to know it is happening. In this case, it's a pretty trivia style peccadillo thing, though it isn't always.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish - Indeed! Keep me updated and let me know if I can do anything to help. People do sneaky, desperate, and out-right low and pathetic things in order to push their points of view, my friend... I've seen some legit sneaky stuff happen around here over the years that I've been here (some that I'd even dare say were damn good attempts). They'll find different ways and methods in order to try and tip-toe things through, but in my experience, we're either one step ahead or we catch it at a fairly decent stage once it's discovered... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings! Referred to you by moonythedwarf

Hi ~Oshwah~!

Moonythedwarf said I should get in contact with you. I'm in the middle of teaching an undergraduate writing for media course, and my students are adding marginalized athletes who have won the Twin Cities Marathon.

You might have seen the slight kerfuffle, which has since been rectified, where I was blocked when my class all posted their assignments at the end of our class hour.

I did get directed to Wikiedu for future assignments—it looks great! I'm not sure I have time to revamp anything now, as we're moving on to other assignments next week.

I hope to finish grading (and slightly improving) the students' posts over the weekend. Meanwhile, I'm asking myself "Why did I do this again?" It's a lot of work! But you know, working with the students in class as they were posting was exponentially rewarding.

My goal is that they see Wikipedia as a collaborative writing, verifying and editing project that *includes* them. They will in turn see it as a source made of people who are as competent (and as fallible) as they are.

Thanks for being here and giving any tips you might have about college educators working to develop lesson plans around adding material to the site.

Comm260 ncu (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Do you know of Wiki conferences specifically for educators? Thanks!

Hi Comm260 ncu! Thank you for the message and for the very kind words! You're welcome; I'm always happy to help other editors with anything that they need! :-) To answer your question: I am not currently aware of any Wiki Conferences that are tailored specifically for educators. All planned and upcoming meetups, conferences, and get-togethers are always listed on the Meta Wikimedia website (a WMF site for project coordination, announcements, changes, etc) as soon as they're finalized and announced. I'd check there and see if there's anything in that regard that interests you. If there aren't, you can also use that project site in order to discuss the possibility of having one and request such a conference. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can help you with anything, and I'll be more than happy to give you a hand. ;-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Frank Figliuzzi

I requested page protection for this article. I am an experience editor and former sysop. I do not make such requests often - it's been well over a year - and not without very good cause. I am disappointed that it was denied perfunctorily. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bearian! Thank you for leaving me a message here with your honest thoughts and feedback regarding my decision to decline your request for page protection on the Frank Figliuzzi article. I apologize for the delayed response; I've been busy with real life, and I'm just now catching up with all of the Wikipedia messages I received. Your message here was likely made in the somewhat-relative time window that I declined your request (around the last week of January). Looking at the page history, I only see that two edits were made in 2020 (one here by a bot, and another here by a user in order to remove a few honorifics) - why do you believe that applying page protection to this article is/was necessary in this situation? Remember that, according to policy, page protection in the article space should be added in a reactive measure (or in response to issues and disruption that are taking place and viewable using the page's edit history) and to prevent further issues, disruption, or abuse. It should not be applied to a page within the article space (AKA the mainspace) solely in a preventative measure (where the edit history shows little to no issues or disruption are currently in progress). I'd of course be lying to you if I said that I've never applied page protection to an article in situations where the reason weighed significantly higher on a preventative measure compared to a reactive measure; different circumstances, situations, evidence of imminent disruption or soon-to-be targets of high-volume abuse or vandalism, etc will call for different levels of consideration, accommodation, and action. However, in this case, I don't see any kind of recent edits at all, let alone recent disruption or abuse, that would justify applying protection to this article. Am I missing something? Can you elaborate or explain further so that I can understand? My decision to decline your request was not to question the number of edits you have or your level of experience on Wikipedia, or because you don't have a certain list of amount of user rights on your account - I determine and base my decisions off relevant information only, and I do my best to not allow irrelevant, unrelated, or (God forbid) political reasons to determine whether or not applying page protection to a page is justified and within compliance of policy. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I met the subject in real life, and he went off on a very public harangue about Wikipedia at the New York State Bar Association annual meeting, with many important people (including the NY AG) in attendance, who left the room as he went off on Wikipedia. It appears that he requested help from sysops and was rebuffed for some reason. I promised that I'd look into the problem of vandalism on his article, which I did. (As it turns out, he also made some minor edits to his own article.) I looked at the page history and there does indeed appear to have been vandalism twice in 2019. However, it's extremely subtle, not very obvious. Even if I linked the vandalism, a reasonable person who didn't know better might say, "What's the big deal?" An analogy is: somebody says Elizabeth Taylor had blue eyes, but in fact she had violet eyes. It's that sort of thing. Linking the diffs to the vandalism, without context, would be a waste of time. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Bearian - I completely understand, and I appreciate you for taking the time to explain the situation and the context behind the issue and your request. I've been in that position before, too... Where someone you see is very angry at Wikipedia for their own reasons, and you promise to help sort these things out so that maybe they'll see Wikipedia in a more positive way. It's been hit-and-miss for me overall; I've been able to help some people with their situations (who were happy as a result), and I couldn't help others (mainly due to reasons beyond my control and reasons that they caused upon themselves). It's disappointing when I promise to help someone to find later that I really can't. Either way, you did the right thing by trying to help, and I commend you for doing so. Please let me know if you need anything else, and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Thanks again, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello, thanks for protecting Race and intelligence. Could you please consider extending the protection beyond February 3rd? In this discussion, one editor seems to be suggesting that he intends to continue edit warring against consensus as soon as the article's protection expires. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, it appears that you have inadvertently protected the Race and intelligence article on a controversial version after an edit that appears to legitimise the views of infamous racialist authors such as Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Arthur Jensen, as well as referring to white people and black people as "whites" and "blacks" respectively. Could you please revert the article to a version without these changes? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Now, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Following me to an admin's user talk so you can ask him to restore your preferred version? Paradoxically, in the time since the article was protected, the editors who were opposed by majority opinion seem to have become more determined than ever to restore the version of the article that had less support. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't follow anybody. I found out who protected the page through the page protection archive. I am not asking anybody to restore anything to my preferred version, only a version that does not include those inappropriate changes. Of course, there is no majority that explicitly supports those changes. I'm not against the page being protected, I'm just raising the issue that it was protected on a decidedly bad version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 and Onetwothreeip! Thank you for the messages and discussion here regarding the protection of the race and intelligence article. I apologize for the extreme delay with responding here; life has kept me busy, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, requests, etc that I received. :-) Looking at the edit history of the article, it looks like further back-and-forth reverting has occurred since the full protection expired (as recent as a few days ago). If the article needs to be fully protected again, I recommend creating another request on the page protection noticeboard so that an administrator can review it. It'll result in a much faster response to do this rather than asking me to extend it here.
To respond to Onetwothreeip's request (in retrospect), the answer is usually always "no", sorry. This is (was) a content dispute, and unless the current revision of the page contains any serious violations of policy (such as BLP, copyright, etc) that must be removed immediately, modifying or restoring the article to a certain "favored" or "better" revision without a consensus being reached on the article's talk page to do so (which happens quite a bit) would be inappropriate on my part. It would inadvertently imply that I'm taking a side in this dispute, and I obviously cannot do that. When a page is fully protected, it's done at the revision that happens to be the current one at that time... Call it "the luck of the draw"; it doesn't get modified or restored without a consensus, or a legitimate reason explained above. The solution is to remind everyone involved that they need to take the issues and the dispute to a discussion on the article's talk page and work things out there (which is the purpose of the full protection). Traversing down that slippery slope of responding to individual requests for "this change" or "that change" to a fully protected page, aside from being inappropriate and unnecessary, only delays that discussion and inadvertently encourages users not to do so.
If either one of you has any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, I thank you both and I appreciate your messages and the discussion here. I hope that you resolve things peacefully between the two of you, and that this issue is worked out and the article updated to reflect the best quality content that can be written and the full compliance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Normally I do not contest which version an article is fully protected on, but in this case it was a version that was legitimising the racial science views of white supremacists. This may not be a matter of BLP or copyright violation, but would surely warrant consideration as you indicate other matters may be of similar importance. I would greatly appreciate your response to this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip - I completely understand, and I (in normal circumstances) would be inclined to agree with you here - the content is just plain awful and doesn't belong in the article. However, content that's "just plain awful" (by my definition and for lack of a better word) is completely different from content that's "a serious violation of policy", and I can't let my personal opinions and feelings get in the way of my duties and obligations when I have the "admin hat" on. At some point, a line must be drawn regarding the things that would justify the protecting admin to modify or restore the current version of a fully protected page to a different one and without it being seen upon or considered to be unnecessary and inappropriate. The consensus (and what's stated on the protection policy page) is that it's universally always viewed upon by the community as a legitimate justification for the protecting admin to modify a fully protected page when the current revision contains serious violations of Wikipedia policy (as I explained with examples above). Outside of this situation, or situations where the reason is obvious (such as the current revision is where a user added blatant vandalism to the page, or where someone removed half the code to an infobox template resulting in major errors on the page, things that are not content-related or content dispute-related or potentially seen as controversial or the admin taking a side), the protecting administrator should not modify the page without consensus to do so. And, really, when it all comes down to it - if the content is really that bad, it won't take long at all for editors (or the editors involved) to reach a consensus on the talk page to restore X revision or remove X content from the page pending a discussion regarding the dispute or other matters at-hand... This is why I would've declined your request to modify the current revision of the protected article had I seen it at the time. Please let me know if you have any more questions or if I can discuss or address any more concerns, and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but let's be clear about what the concern is in this case. This is not about article that is "just plain awful", this concerns racist content. This is not about whether the content is correct or incorrect, and I would agree that an administrator should not intervene to correct obviously false statements. As for the suggestion that anything clearly offending would be easily removed by a consensus, this may be true of most ordinary circumstances, but the possibility of full page protection is not raised in ordinary circumstances. In particular here, as there has been significant off-wiki canvassing, it would be far too optimistic to hope that a brief and simple consensus would be sufficiently reached.
The question is not about wrong or awful content remaining in the article, but whether racist content is sufficiently across the line as BLP violations would be to justify intervention by an administrator, and if not then why not? This question is much more about the general principle of when an administrator can intervene in a content dispute, particularly where the article is fully protected, than the actual dispute being referenced here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip - If it's blatant racism that's grossly insulting, degrading, and offensive, and it's clear that it was added maliciously in order to be disruptive or vandalize, I'd remove it and rev del it under RD2 - there's no question about that one. However, I was under the impression that the text was worded in-line with the article's content and it didn't seem malicious. However, I do admit that I don't have much context or knowledge of the article subject nor was I aware of any "off-wiki canvassing" that was going on. "Racist content" is too broad in order to give a black-and-white (no pun intended) answer here. Someone could interpret content as racist, or the content could be malicious and actually meant to offend others (AKA trolling). In situations where it's a content dispute and where users are calling the content "racist", I have to step away and let the two sides discuss the matter. If it's a case of abuse and trolling, you bet that I'd remove it without question. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)