User talk:Oshwah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is an edit filter manager on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has interface administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oshwah (talk | contribs) at 21:32, 15 November 2018 (→‎Religion in Israel: + both remedies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Let's chat


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

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


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


Diff from 11 years ago

Found this while going through your talk page history . Talk page vandalism  ? :) Kpgjhpjm 10:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kpgjhpjm- HA! Oh man, what a trip through memory lane! Well, I was a new editor to the project, much younger and less mature (this was during my adolescent youth... lol), and I obviously wasn't a model editor at the time. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky for you that you weren't blocked by a rouge admin. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JamesBWatson - HA! Indeed... with the disruptive edits I made at the very beginning of my contributions and over 11 years ago (pretty much right before I started getting into recent changes patrolling), those edits certainly could have gotten me blocked and I most certainly could have been as a result... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing G5 speedy deletion

Hi Oshwah! You recently speedily deleted Sanjay Kumar Tiwari pursuant to Praxidicae's nomination of the article for speedy deletion. Whilst she was right in her tagging, I would like to think that Tiwari—if I am recalling that article correctly—qualifies WP:NPOL as having been a member of a state legislature (vidhan sabha of a state). Hence, I would think that a restoration of the article may be in order here. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SshibumXZ! Sure, I don't mind restoring the article at all.  Done :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, thanks! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; always happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Abbott External Links

Hi Oshwah, Thanks for your message. I see that you removed an external link that I added on Diane Abbott's wikipedia page just now. The external link contains several hours of debate and talk footage from Diane Abbott and I thought it would be a legitimate and useful resource. It would be good if you could let me know what you think. Many thanks, EJM EJM808 (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EJM808, and thanks for leaving me a message with your input and concerns. I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. The reason I removed your external link from Diane Abbott was because I was concerned that the media you were linking to might be copyrighted to the network that was broadcasting the footage. Adding content to articles by copying them directly from copyrighted websites or works, or even providing external links to copyrighted content, represents a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. If I'm incorrect and this footage isn't copyrighted at all, please let me know and I'll take another look. Thanks again for the message, and I appreciate your understanding. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurkha

Hi Oshwah,

Could you change this in the Topic Page 'Gurkha' for below line which is really incorrect.

Please Change " Ethnically, Gurung, Magar and Kshetri (Chettri) or Khas, Thakuri mainly were the Gorkha tribes that united the erstwhile Gorkha Kingdom and fought against the British invasions. Today, Gorkha soldiers mostly belong to the Gurung, Magar, Thakuri and Khas. There are Gurkha military units in the Nepalese, British and Indian armies enlisted in Nepal, United Kingdom and India.

To

Ethnically, Gurung, Magar, Kshetriya, Thakuri, Kiranti (Rai people, Limbu, Sunuwar) mainly were the Gorkhali tribes that united the erstwhile Gorkha Kingdom and fought against the British invasions. Today, Gorkhali soldiers belong to the Gurung, Magar, Kiranti (Rai people, Limbu, Sunuwar), Tamang, Newar, Sherpa, Bahun, Chhetri, Thakuri and various ethnic groups in Nepal. There are Gurkha military units in the Nepalese, British and Indian armies enlisted in Nepal, United Kingdom and India.


2.97.173.130 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for the message! In order to suggest or request that content be modified on an article that you can't change yourself, you need to add an edit request to the article's talk page. Include exactly what you included above here (the old text and the new text to change it to), as well as the reason and any reliable sources supporting the reason for your changes. Someone will review your request and be able to modify it for you assuming no problems exist with your request. Thanks for the message and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Can you please semi Quilla Constance. Please see my talk and this discussion. I have a strong feeling that the IP is the connected contributor. Thanks, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nvrmnd, thanks. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FlightTime! I apologize for the delay responding to your request. It looks like the article has been semi-protected - perfect! Let me know if I can help you with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. I hope you have a great day and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humanae Vitae

Hi. There is no copyright on Humanae Vitae.

And ... my insertions were exactly the same as the other highlights already there.

So I think you are mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.229.24 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for the message! I ran the change through our copyvio tool and it came back that it was copied directly from another website. Was this content already present in the article before? Let me know; I want to make sure that my actions are fair and accurate. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flash floods in caves

Flash floods do periodically trap and or kill cave explorers, just as they do hikers in slot canyons. Underground stream passages in geologically young active wet caves are a very dangerous place to be in the event of rain storms. The danger is very real - example links that cite this very real danger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_caving_fatalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.121.174 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/GoochlandCaveMap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goochland_Cave

Look up the NSS cave accident reports for documented cases and statistics. Falling and drowning produce about equal numbers of caving accident fatalities. In one case, six boy scouts drowned.

74.128.121.174 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for the message! I'm not denying that flash floods can cause danger to human life in many different aspects and ways. I removed your edit because I felt that it may have been worded in a manner that isn't compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. However, I also see that other sections in the article have used this word as well. You're welcome to restore the text if you feel that my assessment is incorrect, and please accept my apologies if this is so. I hope you have a great day, and I thank you again for the message with your concerns. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts

Hi Oshwah. I was wondering if you would mind blocking the following accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I created these a number of years ago, as is shown by this log, and doubt I could get into them again. Many thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thine Antique Pen -  Done. Let me know if I can do anything else for you and I'll be happy to do so. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Oshwah. Would you also mind copying some bits (autoreviewer, patroller, reviewer) across to my public account? I see myself using this account more often in the future. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thine Antique Pen -  Done. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to accept your offer, thank you

Dear Oshwa,

I ran across you somewhere along the way a few months ago, and you came across as someone who is really friendly and truly enjoys helping people. So, now that I ran into problems, I went searching for you.

I am a current math teacher, and former US History teacher. I am also older than you (age 47), which is my weak excuse for having piss-poor computer skills.

I began editing Wikipedia the way I imagine most people do: I'd be reading an article and see something obviously factually incorrect, or heavily biased, or find a typo, or whatever, and was too irritated to just let it pass. At times I got into trouble because my weak tech skills got in the way, e.g. not initially being able to figure out how to enter a source.

Now I've run into a larger problem.

I have always been one to to speak truth to power, which has gotten me into trouble all my life. (Growing up the youngest in a large family was probably the catalyst.) I have now actually been banned three different ways, which simply represents the elite trying to crush the simple truth-tellers. Duterte of the Phillipines seems to be the role model of certain WP administrators. 1. I was edit-banned for 31 hours. 2. I was banned from editing anything relating to the Israeli-Arab situation for 30 days. 3. I was banned from editing bioraphies of living or recently deceased people for 30 days.

This specific Wikipedian Duterte disciple, Doug Weller, has refused to respond to my inquiries: When the 31 hour overall ban showed up, I responded to him by email, asking, in essence, why? No response. When the 30 day Israeli-Arab editing ban showed up, which he had explained was due to my having edited such matters before I reached 500 edits, I sent him an email explaining that it was a misunderstanding: I thought I was to avoid articles related to the Israeli-Arab matter. My edit was on the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page, which I had not realized was included in the 500-edit rule. Weller again ignored me, and continued with ban #3, the biography-of-living-or-recently-dead ban, which is pretty much an across-the-board ban in my book.

When the 31 hour ban hit, I responded to him by email: The Orwellian nature of the ban is such that I could not respond on his talk page, because I was banned, natch.

Now that 31 hours has passed, I am able to add to a talk page, but I would rather go to you. I am fairly convinced that it is just a matter of time before a new ban hits me, perhaps permanently. I am now a target.

I know there is some way that I am supposed to be able to appeal Weller's ban, but I can't figure it out, because when you combine my lousy computer skills with the fact that I am typing on a Galaxy S6, it makes it pretty rough.

A little background on me: I am an anti-Trump conservative. In certain parts of the internet, I get viciously criticized by die-hard Trumpians for being honest about Trump's character issues, but at least they can't shut me up. On WP, I get into trouble when addressing naked liberal propaganda that sneaks its way into a WP article, which is when apparatchiks like Weller can ban me for telling the truth.

(Important note: When I taught US History, I was so careful to teach it down the middle that my students were actually pretty convinced that I was a card-carrying liberal. Just because I am a conservative does not mean that I am not open to both sides of an issue. Some WP administrators seem to only see their own side, though.)

If you look into the specifics of where I got into trouble, which is with the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article, and - to a lesser extent - the Jeff Flake article, you will see that my edits supplied the appropriate sources which clearly supported what I changed. Perhaps more importantly, WIKIPEDIA'S OWN ARTICLES(!) supported what I wrote. And yet I was not only reverted, I was banned!

The Ocasio page has a section regarding her political views on Israel, which is misleading to the point of being nearly false. I corrected the record, leaning heavily on the fully edit-protected WP article 2018 Gaza border protests, as well as by adding multiple sources. Nonetheless, some outraged editor accused me of "severe BLP violations", as well as "defaming" Ocasio. When I asked him for any examples of such, he ignored me, and instead sent me out for banning, which Weller then complied with. Neither individual has yet cited a single word that I added which does not belong, not one.

In the Jeff Flake article, there is a badly misleading phrase that claims that Flake voted to "change Senate tradition" (perhaps not verbatim, but close). I removed that claim because it is not terribly accurate, as I explained in the accompanying box with edit, and as shown by my links, and as also shown in the WP article Nuclear Option. No one seems to care about that, either.

Again, it is bad enough to see these articles propagating nonsense. But it is flat-out disheartening to learn that some administrators see WP as a propaganda machine, banning all who disagree with them.

I am asking (begging?) you to please get involved. Right now, I am really down on Wikipedia. It looks like a bunch of propaganda. Administrators are supposed to police malice, not ban views which differ from their own. Again, to be clear, the result of my edits was not that the article represented my POV, but instead reflected more balanced articles, which is what WP should contain - or so I thought.

I hope you can help.

Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) First, comparing administrators (or other editors, for that matter) to autocrats is not likely to result in a successful editing career here.
Second, your edits to Ocasio-Cortez's biography were rejected because they were wildly inappropriate and POV, having problems with original research, synthesis and poor, partisan sourcing (the Free Beacon is a right-wing propaganda site). You use an article about apparently-violent protests in October to support a claim about a statement that Ocasio-Cortez made in May — that's obviously not how it works. You need to step back, read and understand policies like WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V before you dive headfirst into controversial political articles, particularly those of politicians you obviously personally oppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vcuttolo, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm Kevin, and I'm another administrator around here. I can tell you care a lot about this topic and about making Wikipedia better. We do have a habit on Wikipedia (because we have so many bad edits, as we see it, submitted to Wikipedia compared with a tiny number of people reviewing those edits) of referring someone to a large number of links containing summaries of our policies and practices, and then blaming the user for not understanding our standards and practices. I know that can be abrasive, and I can tell that may be part of what is frustrating you.
That being said, I've reviewed the edit NorthBySouthBaranof refers to above and it was completely improper. We have a giant mass of policies, guidelines, and interpretive essays for a reason, and while I completely understand that you may not know the whole corpus of them, the community expects that (1) when a link is directly mentioned in a message to you, you read it and try to understand why the editor linked it for you; and (2) when you have the idea that someone disagrees or might disagree with something you're going to do, you ask (quite simple) before you do it. If you have not thoroughly read the links in the messages that have been left for you, I would advise you to do so before your next message to ask for help. I've had a look at your talk page, and I see a number of occasions where editors have left messages for you (containing many links to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines) that haven't been responded to.
It's getting rather late here (Pacific Time), and I haven't covered a lot of the things I was hoping to in this message, so I might follow up (or Oshwah might cover it himself too). One last, very important, note about your topic ban. Topic bans are "broadly construed", extend to all namespaces (including talk pages!), and remain in effect until successfully appealed. For example, a topic ban from "climate" would prohibit editing the "Weather" article, of course, but it would also prohibit editing the "Climate" section of the "California" article, editing about climate-related people, or discussing climate/related things anywhere on Wikipedia. In your case, I suggest that an appeal is overwhelmingly unlikely to be successful and you'd be better off taking this month off to review our policies and practices. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vcuttolo, and welcome to Wikipedia! As L235 has stated above, we have a lot of different policies and guidelines that govern how content should be written, worded, referenced, cited, and verified. The best thing that you can do in order to start learning these different policies and guidelines is to go through our new user tutorial and complete it fully. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be helpful to you (including article creation and content expansion). Most users who take this advice tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them, and led to them being saved hours (or in your case, days) of time and frustration. This is obviously your choice, but I would not skip going through this tutorial. It's for your benefit, and it will help you. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. Thanks again for the message and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor making changes without a consensus

Hi Oshwah,

It's Prisonermonkeys here, posting from an IP. I was hoping that you could help me out with something. Normally I'd go to ANI with this, but the page is currently protected from editing.

Could you please take a look at some of the recent edits made by DeFacto, particularly at 2018 Formula One World Championship, 2019 Formula One World Chsmpionship and 2020 Formula One World Championship? In the past week or so, he has been extensively editing the markup in the articles to enforce a variety of Wikipedia policies. Normally I would have no problem with this, but he is making wholesale changes to complex markup without consulting other editors and with no regard for the implications his edits are making. That markup is complex and parts are possibly redundant, but it was carefully crafted to add features (such as sortability) to tables without compromising the accessibility for tablet and mobile readers. Any changes really should be made in consultation with other editors, but DeFacto has pointedly refused to do so. To further complicate things, I have reason to believe that he does not understand the policies he is enforcing.

I have tried to remind him to discuss things with other editors and have pointed out the significance of the markup, but he has largely ignored me. I'm hoping that since you're an admin, a reminder about the need to work collaboratively will carry a bit more weight. 1.129.109.172 (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys, I'm not sure why you're trying to make a big deal over this, all I've done is make minor MOS recommended changes to the markup, with each edit explained and referenced to a MOS page in the summary. None of the changes I made alter the appearance to the reader at all, and each is recommended specifically for accessibility. Now talking about being collaborative this edit was also made by IP 1.129.109.172, so your goodself I presume, adding a whole column to a table without any prior discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prisonermonkeys - Assuming that you're really who you say that you are - why are you editing from an IP address and not from your user account? It looks like you haven't edited from your account in some time... what's going on? I obviously can't simply take your word for it; impersonation attempts happen frequently from anonymous users, so I hope you understand if I'm not inclined to believe this information from the get-go. DeFacto - I understand that you believe that your edits aren't major changes to these articles, but if other editors have issues with your changes or disagrees with them, you do need to listen to them and work with them on the articles' talk pages in order to resolve the dispute. Resorting to edit warring or other non-collaborative means is disruptive. The anonymous IP range that posted this message is now blocked from editing due to edit warring; I don't want to see this happen to you as well. Remember to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and best practices, and make sure any disputes are peacefully discussed. This way, the article content is reflected using the highest quality content possible. If anyone has any questions or further concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to help. I wish everyone good luck and happy editing. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your wise words Oshwah. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto - You bet; always happy to lend a hand ;-). Keep me posted and let me know if I can help you or provide any more input to point you in the right direction, and I'll be more than happy to do so. Good luck, and I hope the disputes come to a peaceful resolution either way. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Stop icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every user is expected to be civil, it seems that you are being too friendly. Please use Jimbo Wales' user page for any test "friendliness" you might have, and our guideline to when you have to be serious, even when sleeping. Thank you No problem. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HA! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Twinkle usage

I wanted to ask for your opinion on disruptive twinkle usage. Has happened at least twice I am aware of. First incident happened here. Second incident happened here. The user is using Twinkle to revert every edit on articles that he doesnt agree with. Rather than discuss, time and time again, he has simply deleted articles rather than open a merge proposal. Also, he has been involved in at least three edit wars since September as well. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Figfires, and thanks for leaving a message here with your concerns. While Twinkle can be used to make undoing changes much easier, it would be an abuse of the tool only if standard rollback was used to undo good-faith edits (since it leaves only a generic edit summary). In the diffs you linked me to, they were not using rollback. On top of this, rollback can be used like any other revert method if the user provides an edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the edit (see this section of the rollback policy). While I can't go after anyone for the individual reverts you pointed me to here, if they're engaging in edit warring and disruption in place of proper dispute resolution protocol, that's obviously another story. You should do your best to discuss disagreements and disputes on the articles' talk pages as soon as you notice such a dispute that you're involved in. However, if edit warring is occurring and despite attempts to discuss the dispute and despite the involved user(s) being warned on their user talk pages to stop, report them to AN3 so that an admin can handle it. While Twinkle is a great tool to use and those who use it accept responsibility for their actions should they use it improperly, it's not considered abuse of the tool simply because they're using it to undo a good-faith edit but how they're using it to do so. Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to help you further. Thanks again for the message and I hope you have a great day! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we have tried to talk it out with him. He has at least 3 standing edit war warnings in the past few months. The articles he removed with Twinkle wouldn't rise to the level of edit warring imo since he only made one reversion. I know external chats and such have no bearing here, but it seems like he removes things based on how he personally feels rather than by wikipolicy. Would that be considered vandalism? Additionally, myself and a few other people have tried to talk to him without any success. He doesn't seem to even acknowledge what has been posted on his talk page. I get that Twinkle is a tool used to make undoing changes easier. It seems that this user is using a feature in Twinkle that is similar to rollback without actually using (or even possessing) rollback permissions. Actually, there is another instance in which he blanked a page without any discussion. The article may have been created a little too soon (maybe a day or so), but that still doesn't warrant removal when the storm is rapidly approaching land and watches have been issued. I hate to report him, but would that be the best course of action in this situation? FigfiresSend me a message! 22:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Figfires - No, that wouldn't be considered vandalism in this case. Remember that Vandalism is where someone maliciously and purposefully makes edits and changes to Wikipedia with the intention to troll, add inaccurate facts, trash or mess up content or pages, obstruct or defeat the project's purpose or disrupt other users from being able to do so. It seems like the user is making what he/she thinks are good changes but is being unresponsive when disagreements and disputes arise from them. Since this is a pattern of behavior, I'd open an ANI discussion next time the user engages in edit warring and disruptive behavior and I'd discuss the user's long-term and repeated issues. This way, the community can investigate the repeated issues and someone can take action since the disruption is continuing at that time. Don't wait until an episode of behavior turns stale or until after you discover the same behavior later to report it there - admins won't be able to do much if it's not currently in progress and the behavior isn't recent. Continue attempting to communicate to the user and point them to discussions on the articles' talk pages that you've started. If anything, it builds documentation to help with action being taken at ANI, since it will show that you've tried your best in good faith to work things out and make it easy for the user to participate, you've tried multiple times, but despite your attempts the user has failed to respond or participate and the behaviors kept continuing. Let me know how things go and if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so if you do. Good luck with everything, and I hope that things come to a successful and peaceful conclusion either way. :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your help! FigfiresSend me a message! 22:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Figfires - You bet; always happy to help. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anon removing content

There is a anon who is quite bound and determined to remove content from at least a dozen or more articles. The anon often makes a single edit via mobile then the IP changes. So, blocking is probably not useful. I have been going through numerous edits and made a list here: User:Jim1138/Single use IP. It contains fourteen articles that seem to have a common thread. The IPs seem to all be in Taipei and the edits are all regarding Chinese history WWII and shortly thereafter.

The anon often makes references to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User-4488 as in "sock of 4488" Also the anon often avoids reverting autoconfirmed users. Seems to prefer reverting older IP edits which have the same effect as reverting the immediate changes. I suspect to avoid notifications to A/Cs. Often calls editors who revert their edits a "sock of 4488"

I just went through that list and undid the anon's edits and got a rather rapid reaction from 49.215.129.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I left an EW notice to no effect.

Any suggestions? Cheers Jim1138 talk 11:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim1138 - I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. Is this still an ongoing issue that I need to look into? Or has this been resolved? Let me know and I'll be happy to take a look if this is still a problem. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oshwah, not a problem currently. I should put the PP expiration date on my calendar! We'll see what happens. Really strange editor. Must be doing their editing from Starbucks. Cheers Jim1138 talk 23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jim1138 - HA! Wouldn't be the first time that someone's done that, and it won't be the last. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ip 83.240.186.98

83.240.186.98 (talk · contribs): This ip has been on my radar for using unreliable sources. I was going to leave a final warning, but there's one there already and a previous warning from you. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problems escalated, so I reported to AIV, where it went stale... --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz - I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. It looks like the IP has stopped editing since November 12, so it's obviously much too stale to do anything now. If the edits and the same behavior of adding unreliable sources to articles continue from this IP address, let me know and I'll be happy to take another look and handle it. Thanks for the message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for the response. Other editors jumped in and cleaned most of it up after the ip stopped. Hopefully that will be the end of it. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz - I hope so too, but don't hesitate to let me know if it isn't and if any shenanigans continue. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing edit toolbar

Hi Oshwah or watchers, my edit toolbar has been missing for several days. Any idea where I can go to track down a solution? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @BilCat: Do you mean the "Edit" bar next to the "View History bar"? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the edit bar above the editing screen. I found the answer at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 November 7#Missing edit toolbar. - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat - This is the editing toolbar within the editing window that adds functions like Bold, Italics, etc, correct? I believe you turn this on and off in your preferences... are you still experiencing this issue? Did you modify anything in your preferences? Maybe install a new add-on in your browser that might block Javascript or anything else from running? Let me know. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. The one that is missing is the 2006 version. It was phased out. See the link above for more information. - BilCat (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat - Ahhh, thanks. I missed that link somehow... Yeah, they've been updating and phasing out a lot of old things this year. Older tools are typically phased out and replaced when they rely on older methods or functions to do what they're supposed to do and those methods are about to be replaced or changed to where the toolbar would no longer function. As an engineer myself, I'm sure that they figured that they should update the edit toolbar while they're at it and while "back-end stuff" is being changed. As crummy and as frustrating as it is to be forced into change and into using something different than what you're used to, it's necessary to do if our goal is to implement new useful features and make editing and contributing easy for everyone (especially new and novice editors). Either way, I'm glad that you managed to figure out what was going on. Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help. My talk page is always open to you (as you know); stop by any time you'd like. Cheers :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need to update, especially back-end stuff, but I HATE the newer toolbars. Why is having a clearly-identifiable button for each function considered "old-fashioned"? The Wiki engineers need to remember that older folks, even ones like myself who've always been computer savvy, take longer to adust to new things, especially as our eyes get older. I've heard some people are working on an add-on feature for the old-style toolbar, and I hope they get it working pretty soon. - BilCat (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat - Make sure that you leave feedback and express these thoughts in the relevant feedback discussion so that those who are implementing such changes can see and review them. It's important that everyone has a say and that they leave feedback regarding changes like this. Regardless if the feedback is "good or bad", it's important that it's heard and taken into consideration nonetheless. Otherwise, if you don't say anything - there's probably a good chance that someone else feels the exact same way that you do but is also not leaving feedback (most likely due to thinking that "someone else will"). This is where the "bystander effect" would totally apply... if you haven't heard of it, read the summary paragraph and you'll agree... don't let the bystander effect apply! Say something! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People definitely complained, and WritKeeper stepped up to help with a replacement, as you can see here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo - Awesome; thanks for responding with the link. I'm glad to see that people are stepping up to leave feedback and say something about new changes here. It's highly important that they do, and it's good that they're doing so. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: Thanks, Ponyo. I'm glad that some people do listen. - BilCat (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The js script works; I just installed it myself.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I just installed it myself. Thanks for telling me about it. It's hard sometimes to find all these disjointed discussions, especially if one doesn't spend much time at Village Pump, which I don't. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat - I'm glad the code works and that you're all set. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you've read the section I've linked to, you'll see the developers aren't very interested in feedback that disagrees with them. I've also seen this attitude over a number of issues, especially the move of the Short description functions from Wikidata to Wikipedia. In my experience, the WMF developers don't care what we users think about their changes. So, beyond some occasional complaints, I'm not going to waste my time leaving feedback in which my specific complaints are likely to be ignored, but is also likely to bring in a bunch of developers who will proceed to tell me they don't care what I think, they're going to do whatever the heck the want to because they can, and I must like it. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat - I'm sorry that you've been left with a feeling that developers don't listen and don't care. As a Software Engineer myself, that kind of feeling is absolutely something I would not want to see if it were me that's in charge of a project... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah

What pages are you working on recently? Maybe I can help out a bit.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seahawk01! Thanks for the message! I'm not working on any articles or major projects at this moment, but I might be soon. What articles are you interested in editing or expanding? There's most likely a WikiProject associated with those kinds of articles that you can join. They'll definitely have a list of articles that you can help with! Let me know if I can help you with locating one and I'll be happy to do so. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Crazy

Template:CrazyOshwahDiscloseLakesideMinersMy Talk Page 15:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DANG IT! It is no longer a thing... LakesideMinersMy Talk Page 15:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LakesideMiners - LOL... I don't see that this page ever existed? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
fak LakesideMinersMy Talk Page 22:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
??? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Cassis - resending

Hello

I see my draft on Rami Cassis has been deleted.

Although I'm a former business journalist and an experienced editor, this is my first time writing entries on Wikipedia.

Can you please advise what I need to do to make the draft more acceptable.

Many thanks

PTooher (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PTooher, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your question. Your user page was deleted because it appeared to only talk about yourself, and you had made no edits outside of it. I went ahead and restored the page for you and moved it to your sandbox so that you can continue to work on it. Though I have done this for you as a courtesy, I highly recommend that you don't write an article about yourself. It's highly discouraged by the community because this represents a conflict of interest (since, after all, you're writing about yourself). Most articles and content that's written by editors who have a conflict of interest like this eventually wind up being removed, deleted, or reverted and I'd really hate to see your time ultimately wasted like that. Because of how new you are to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial and before you do anything else here. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be helpful to you (including article creation and content expansion). Most users who take this advice tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them, and led to them being saved hours (or in your case, days) of time and frustration. This is obviously your choice, but I would not skip going through this tutorial. It's for your benefit, and it will help you. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. Thanks again for the message and I really hope that you take my input and recommendations here. Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of Magnitude

A number of the articles in this template had deletion discussions, with most of them resulting in redirect. {{Orders of magnitude}} {{Orders of magnitude AFD}} What needs to be done to these articles that got redirected or deleted in order to be articles? —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eli355, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions. If the articles, given a deletion discussion, were found to be better suited as a redirect than being an article on its own, it's best to leave them as redirects unless significant events unfold or the notability associated with the individual articles change. Article content is typically turned into a redirect when it's found by consensus to not be notable enough as an article on its own. The content from the page to be converted to a redirect will sometimes be merged or moved to the parent article if it's found that the content is useful as part of a parent article subject. Take a look at this section of Microsoft Windows as a good example of where content is great for being a part of a parent article, but is also notable for having its own article as well. The Windows XP section consists of a well-written summary of an important section of the parent article, Microsoft Windows, but it also contains a link to the full article on Windows XP if the reader wishes to read more about it. In your case, the editors decided in the AFD discussion that the articles were best suited as a section of the parent article instead of being a separate article by itself. If notability changes and its an article subject that should also have its own article, you can write a full article where the redirect is, then link it from the parent article and leave the content moved there originally as a summary (just like the example I linked you to with Windows XP). Just look at the individual AFD discussions and read through the reasons given as to why the article was made into a redirect. They will give you a good idea as to whether or not it's worth it to consider writing an expanded article and link it to the parent from a section. Make sure that you also have strong knowledge and experience on notability before you consider doing so as well, as failing to make an accurate determination of notability for that separate article first will usually result in hours (if not days) of your time ultimately being wasted. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. I wish you well and I wish you happy editing. Good luck :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, Orders of magnitude (density), Orders of magnitude (momentum), Orders of magnitude (volume) are notable enough to be their own articles, while the others should be in a section of the article that they are redirected to. I think that the problem with the three articles listed above is that they do not have enough references, and if they have more references, they can exist as their own article. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knowledgeable Researcher

Knowledgeable Researcher (talk · contribs) appears to be another GTA5Player (talk · contribs) sock. You and Ohnoitsjamie have tackled this sock in the past. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, tagged and bagged. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Ohnoitsjamie beat me to the punch. My thanks to Flyer22 Reborn for reporting the user, and of course to Ohnoitsjamie for handling it. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn - You bet! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're a gatekeeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.22.150 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect data

This wiki is very miss-leading. The most populace city in FL is Miami at over 5 million. Jacksonville has around 1.1 million. Can we correct/show better stats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.44.156.66 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for the message with your thoughts, input, and concerns. Do you have any reliable sources to support your statement here about the population of different cities in Florida? Your edit here didn't cite any in-line. I also see that another editor, Acroterion, has also talked to you on your user talk page here regarding the sources that already exist on the article, as well as the need to cite reliable sources with your changes - especially with dates, data, numbers, or other such information. You need to follow the input that both Acroterion and myself are giving you, and let us know if you have questions or need help. I'll be more than happy to help you if you need any; just let me know. I appreciate your message and your thoughts, I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing :-). Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the IP is using metropolitan area populations, while the article was listing populations of each city proper. - BilCat (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat - Oh! Interesting! I'm not familiar with the difference... I assume that one population measurement includes people that live outside of the city itself in surrounding areas, and the other one doesn't? What is the exact difference between the two population measurements, and what's included in one that isn't included in the other? Thanks for chiming in and providing your input here. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the city proper is within the city limits. See City proper and Metropolitan area for more information. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat - Perfect; thank you very much! I appreciate it a lot :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That's the fun of working on an encyclopedia - we get to learn too. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why’d you change my really good edit?

I am very disappointed and angry that you edited my hard work that took a long time to make. I do not know why you had to edit it, even if it was real information. I am very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihackthis (talk • contribs) 02:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Script

I want to create a user script that restores the old MediaWiki Menu bar. How can I do this?--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the old/classic Wikipedia skin? See if changing your skin to 'Monobook' in your preferences under the 'appearance' tab is what you're looking for... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No just the Menu bar. Not the entire thing. :) --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Support_ends_for_the_2006_wikitext_editor? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sorry. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Menu bar"? Can you describe this to me in-depth? What menu bar exactly? Where at? Where would one normally click to use it on Wikipedia? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thegooduser (Alerts) (Notices)..... Contributions Log out--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, so you're talking about the notification and alert icons and the row of links that are always on the very top-right corner of every page you visit on Wikipedia. If I remember correctly, there were no notifications at all before the notification and alert icons were first introduced - just the large notification you receive when you have a new message on your user talk page. Other than that, I don't believe that the other links (such as preferences, watchlist, contributions, etc) have changed at all. So basically, you want to remove the notification and alert icons and use the old large template we used to use when you receive a new message. I believe we discussed this before, and someone (I believe MusikAnimal) even chimed in with necessary links to point you in the right direction in order to use the original new message notification. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I don't remember, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen =p Maybe you're talking about User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/oldschoolOrangeBar.js? That's really old though -- the removal of the giant orange "You have new messages" banner happened 5 years ago, well before Thegooduser joined us. Or maybe you're talking about phab:T58845, where the preference to hide the smaller "You have new messages" bar was removed. There are some possible solutions in the comments of that task. Anyway, I will again point y'all to WP:VPT. These people sit around all day hitting refresh, waiting for questions like this, assisted by an army of tech-savvy kittens. The truth is, every time you ask Oshwah or me a tech question directly, one of these kittens will die. Save the kittens and direct your tech inquiries to VPT! It's not just about the kittens though -- asking at VPT has the side effect of helping other people who have the same question. It's the responsible thing to do :) — MusikAnimal talk 16:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with MusikAnimal more here... you must think of the kittens... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, MA, that's really old. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we've separated from using that old template for quite some time now... time flies... lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no!

I have been biting new users on my user talk page. How can I stop?--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you've taken a significant step already by catching the behavior and acknowledging it. Where exactly do you feel that you've been biting newcomers on your user talk page? Do you have diffs of examples where you've responded to messages there where you feel this way? That would be helpful. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
here--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just confused his/her response here (which I read as an exclamation of frustration in general) with incivility towards you. If that's the only diff you have as an example to say that you're biting newcomers, then you're much better than many editors that I've had to talk to about this. Why not follow up with this user, leave him/her a message on their user talk page, and see if they still need help? If they're brand new to Wikipedia, you can point the user to the new user tutorial and recommend that they go through and complete it. It's a good tutorial for new users like this person and it'll provide a lot of good information and learning. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol

?--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: Looks like a April Fool's Day special MfD. Kpgjhpjm 04:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HA! It was ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Cassis entry

Hi Oshwah, and thank you for your reply.

There's been a slight misunderstanding - I'm not writing an entry for or about myself (my full name is Patrick Tooher) but about Rami Cassis, who (in the interests of full disclosure) is a PR client of mine.

Apologies if that was not made clear - as I mentioned, I'm new to Wikipedia!

PTooher (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PTooher! Thanks for responding and for clarifying. I've restored the page and moved it to your sandbox - you can access it by clicking here or by clicking the "Sandbox" link located next to the notification and alert icons (top-right corner of every Wikipage you visit). If you need anything else or have questions, let me know and I'll be happy to help you. Thanks again for the messages, I'm glad we were able to get everything sorted out, and I wish you a great day and happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PTooher - Oh, and if I didn't mention this earlier: Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through Wikipedia's new user tutorial and complete it fully. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be helpful to you (including article creation and content expansion). Most users who take this advice tell me later that it was significantly helpful to them, and led to them being saved hours (or in your case, days) of time and frustration. This is obviously your choice, but I would not skip going through this tutorial. It's for your benefit, and it will definitely help you. Good luck and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No subject

I was threatened with this person and I can’t make an official complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdh m (talk • contribs) 17:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Vdh m - You're of course allowed to file an official complaint with the Wikimedia Foundation if you feel that this is necessary, but you're not allowed to threaten legal action on Wikipedia like what you did here on Lukespen's user talk page. You need to remove that threat from Lukepen's user talk page; it will result in you being indefinitely blocked until you retract this statement if you don't. I just left Lukespen warning for his message on your user talk page and told him that any further harassment toward you (or others) would result in being indefinitely blocked. I'd say that after you remove the threat, report any issues to AN3 or ANI if things continue... stooping to his level and responding to angry messages with even more angry messages will do nothing but make things harder on you... trust me :-). Let me know if you have further questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help you. Thanks for the message and I hope you understand. Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mailed to the wikimedia adress for help.
Thanks fir helping me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdh m (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vdh m - You're welcome. Please remove that threat for me, okay? Lets not have something like this be the reason for you being blocked... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think i deleted it. Will you check it for me? I didn’t know it wasn’t allowed. Please accept my apology. It ‘s a Constant battle with this person who has multiple accounts and i was tired of it. Sorry :) Thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdh m (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vdh m - You're welcome; always happy to help :-). You're close! You just need to go here and remove your threat from his user talk page as well, then you'll be good to go. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think i’ve done it right this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdh m (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Vdh m - Yep, you did just fine! Your removal from your user talk page was also needed; I didn't realize that you followed up with a threat there as well - I thought that the entire thing was Lukespen. I've protected both articles due to repeated addition of unreferenced content and for two weeks. If issues continue from this user, please don't hesitate to report the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so that the matter can be handled. Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help you. Thanks again for listening and for following my input and advice. Happy editing and best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome.
As a police officer I am used to do everything officially so I didn’t know I was doing something wrong here. I just wanted to defend myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdh m (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vdh m - I understand that completely, but we have policies and rules here that have to be followed... which is why I left you a notice when I saw the threats being made. Just keep in mind what I said earlier: stooping to the level of other editors and responding to angry messages with even more angry messages will do nothing but make things worse. It will never make them better. It's always better to report issues to the appropriate noticeboards for help instead of resorting to making threats. There are many different noticeboards that handle different matters that are available to help. The noticeboard for incidents (here) is where you'd report matters such as this (harassment, threats, and BLP issues). If you need anything else, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Good luck, and I wish you happy editing and a great rest of your day. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow this is amazing !!!! She also has multiple accounts on instagram ( about 5 ) and they are not as quick as you 😂😂
I grew up with wikipedia ad a good source ( used it tons of times for school ) and the way persona like this act... they make fun of this ‘ source of info ‘


I am glad you’ve talked to me, now I feel more comfortable kn wikipedia, it was a struggle with this person. Just realize she will make a new one...
Thank you for helping me so much !
I really really appreciate it !
Wow 😁😁 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdh m (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vdh m - Haha... I'm glad you're happy with the result that followed everything. We do our best to keep sock puppetry and disruption off of the project and we take those violations of policy very seriously :-). Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have a great evening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdh m (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vdh m - You as well! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PM on IRC

Hi, thanks for the help just now. Just so I know for next time, how do I PM an individual on IRC? I haven't used one before except for asking for revdel, so haven't had to do it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit! I'm glad I was able to help and take care of things with you on IRC :-)! It depends on the client you use, but you can usually PM individuals by right-clicking on their username and clicking on "PM", "Send private message", "Open dialog window", or similar option. If all else fails, you can also send a PM by entering the command '/msg [username] [message to send]' (so for example: '/msg Oshwah Hey I need your help!'). This method usually just sends a message and doesn't open a separate window, however... I usually tell new users to IRC to start a PM conversation by right-clicking. We typically hang out in the #wikipedia-en channel, and you're always welcome to join, say hi, and chat with us! There are many good editors who frequent this channel (I'm on IRC usually 24/7) and they'll be happy to help you with IRC questions, tips, and other cool stuff - you should come join and say hello! Just click here to use your browser to do so! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I tend to use Microsoft Edge; not sure if I tried right-clicking on names, TBH I didn't want to experiment on the admins' channel! I'm going to try the #wikipedia-en one out now... GirthSummit (blether) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Israel

Hi Oshwah, can you please remove the ECP from this article? The article has nothing really to do with the conflict. thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir Joseph! Sure - let me give the article a read-through and verify for certain that it doesn't apply. If it indeed doesn't, I'll have no problem removing the protection. Stand by... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph - Sorry, but this article definitely falls within WP:ARBPIA as well as WP:ARBPIA3. It contains content and information regarding the Law of Return, this section (including the picture) alone show that this article falls within this conflict, and content including, "After capturing the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967, Israel found itself in control of Mount Moriah, which was the site of both Jewish temples and Islam's third holiest site, after those in Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia: The Haram al Sharif (Temple Mount) from which Muslims believe that Mohammad ascended to Heaven" - show a history of conflict within this area. For these reasons (and many more that I could list), I cannot remove the extended confirmed protection from the article. However, if you disagree and still feel that it doesn't, you're welcome to file an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to have it reviewed. Don't worry, I won't hold a grudge if you do (lol); what's most important is that the article is properly and accurately handled to reflect Wikipedia policy and actions that are authorized by the Arbitration Committee; it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong ;-). Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to respond, discuss it, and help you further. Thanks for the message, I hope that you're doing well and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oshwah&oldid=869014143"