User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2020-06

Slow motion?
Hi Oshwah, hope you're well. I wonder if you could help me out with something? There's an IP user from Jackson, Michigan, who keeps making the same edit every few days. I've tried to get them to join the discussion at Talk:Muslim world, and I left them an edit-warring warning, but they don't communicate. They've reverted four times, but not within 24 hours. I can't use dispute resolution because there hasn't been any discussion, and the last time I reported a similar problem (though over a longer period) to WP:AN3 (here), I was just told there was "no violation" of edit warring. I don't understand what someone is supposed to do in this situation. Should I go ahead and report it anyway to WP:AN3?

The IPs are 68.55.204.141 and 2601:405:8500:7F6:151F:6902:6037:F75A/64. The edits I'm talking about are these:, , , ,. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi IamNotU! I apologize for the delayed response. Edit warring is the behavior of repeatedly reverting or editing a page in a back-and-forth fashion between one editor and another to undo or reinstate their changes, and in substitute of proper dispute resolution protocol. Edit warring doesn't have to violate the three-revert rule in order for it to be edit warring behavior. The three-revert rule is simply a "bright-line rule", meaning that if an editor "crosses this line", they are almost always going to be considered to be engaging in edit warring and can be blocked if they've been warned about it and haven't stopped the behavior. It's a "line" that we established so that editors understand when they for sure have crossed into "blockable behavior" territory. Another way of explaining 3RR: It's not a rule that defines edit warring and when someone has or has not engaged in that behavior at all, it's a rule that provides users with a line that, when crossed, almost certainly will be handled as edit warring in nearly all cases. You can certainly file a report at AN3 if users are engaging in edit warring behavior. What administrative actions are taken (if any) will obviously depend on many factors: The administrator and their interpretation of the relevant policies, the number of times the user has reverted edits and how fast or frequently they've done so, the severity and content being edited, whether attempts at discussion have been made, if the user has been warned for edit warring and continued the behavior despite being warned, etc. I'd say that filing a report couldn't hurt; you're at least bringing the issue to the correct venue, and you're calling attention to the matter so that others can investigate and examine the situation. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions or if I can help you with anything else, and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers, and good luck!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hope you've been busy with good things! And thanks for your answer. I guess I have a pretty good understanding of the edit warring policy from that page, and the fact that 3RR doesn't necessarily need to be broken in order for something to constitute edit warring. It's just that AN3 seems to be strongly geared towards 3RR violations. I've had more than one report there declined when 3RR wasn't broken because it didn't take place within 24 hours, but over longer periods.
 * I'm talking about a specific situation I see often, where a user doesn't engage in any kind of communication - they have never used an edit summary or a talk page. They just keep coming back every few days/weeks/months and repeating or reverting the same edits. Typically they are small changes, e.g. to a population number or the national origin of something, by an IP or an account with a low edit count. Often they are tendentious. I've been here about fifteen years now, and it's always seemed like one place where there's a bit of a hole in the system. Using dispute resolution isn't possible, but admins at AN3 often won't block someone making a small change over a long period - and in any case a short block is usually not even noticed in this situation. There doesn't seem to be anything else helpful in the "Handling of edit-warring behaviors" section of WP:EW - so it just goes on.
 * On the other hand, when something like this goes to ANI, or directly to an admin, then it seems like WP:ENGAGE is considered and it's more likely that they'll receive a longer block until they make some effort to communicate. In the example above, where there was "no violation" of edit warring found at AN3, the user was later blocked for a month for the very reasons I had stated in the AN3 complaint, after doing it again a month later. I don't know how the admin found out about it. I thought maybe this ought to be considered more often at AN3. Well, maybe that's the answer, that it should go to ANI because it's not only edit warring, but combined with a lack of communication. But then sometimes ANI will say it should be taken to AN3, so it's a bit of a catch-22.
 * Thanks also for the explanation about the factors admins consider when making decisions at AN3: their interpretation of the relevant policies, the number of times the user has reverted edits and how fast or frequently they've done so, the severity and content being edited, whether attempts at discussion have been made, if the user has been warned for edit warring and continued the behavior despite being warned, etc.. How could I learn more about that? Say I wanted to be an admin someday, how could I improve my understanding of the thresholds of these factors that would or would not lead to a block in a given situation? --IamNotU (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi IamNotU! The short answer to your response above is that you're absolutely correct; I've seen the exact same thing, and I agree that there's a wide gap in the system of handling these kinds of situations. If it's an edit warring matter, it should go to AN3 and not ANI, since AN3 is a noticeboard dedicated to handling edit warring issues. However, the "threshold" of severity that admins in AN3 apply when deciding whether or not to take action has pretty much taught many of us that we need to go to ANI instead of AN3 in certain edit warring situations, since their threshold of handling matters is different. That sucks, and that shouldn't be happening. Keep in mind that there really is an answer to this very situation - we're just not using it like we should or as often as we should. The answer to this is with partial blocking, or the ability to block a user from editing only certain pages listed in the block. This allows the user to edit all of Wikipedia except for the exact articles listed. This can be applied long-term to a disruptive IP, and it will very likely only affect the person that it pertains to. Should the IP address "change hands", it is highly unlikely to cause collateral damage; the new user with that IP would have to edit that very page in order to notice that we've done something to them. So if you notice that admins are sweating palms or twiddling their thumbs in a situation where they're debating on what to do, and knowing that something needs to be done, chime in and suggest that they apply a partial block if the situation warrants it. Many admins forget that option, and there are (sadly) some that probably don't even know that it exists.
 * Hi IamNotU! The short answer to your response above is that you're absolutely correct; I've seen the exact same thing, and I agree that there's a wide gap in the system of handling these kinds of situations. If it's an edit warring matter, it should go to AN3 and not ANI, since AN3 is a noticeboard dedicated to handling edit warring issues. However, the "threshold" of severity that admins in AN3 apply when deciding whether or not to take action has pretty much taught many of us that we need to go to ANI instead of AN3 in certain edit warring situations, since their threshold of handling matters is different. That sucks, and that shouldn't be happening. Keep in mind that there really is an answer to this very situation - we're just not using it like we should or as often as we should. The answer to this is with partial blocking, or the ability to block a user from editing only certain pages listed in the block. This allows the user to edit all of Wikipedia except for the exact articles listed. This can be applied long-term to a disruptive IP, and it will very likely only affect the person that it pertains to. Should the IP address "change hands", it is highly unlikely to cause collateral damage; the new user with that IP would have to edit that very page in order to notice that we've done something to them. So if you notice that admins are sweating palms or twiddling their thumbs in a situation where they're debating on what to do, and knowing that something needs to be done, chime in and suggest that they apply a partial block if the situation warrants it. Many admins forget that option, and there are (sadly) some that probably don't even know that it exists.


 * Sigh... which comes to my answer to your question. There isn't any "policy page" in regards to what administrators must or should take into account when deciding that one situation warrants action (and for how long the block should be for), from another situation that might not warrant administrative action at all. It varies between what the situation is, the different circumstances surrounding them, and shoot... it can vary between administrators themselves. My knowledge of this "threshold" and what should be taken into account when making these decisions come from the same policy and essay pages that I'm sure you know about well, and my overall time and experience on Wikipedia with handling these situations, reporting users for action, and participating in relevant discussions about all of the different ways that users have caused disruption here. With that said, a big part of gaining community trust and being known as a senior-level contributor who understands what he or she is doing (as well as being trusted to hold a set of "admin keys") comes from being able to demonstrate that you have that knowledge and experience and that you can make the fair and right call when issues arise. It just takes time... and you'll gain that experience by just participating, making mistakes, and learning from them. I'm definitely no "God" on this project (as much as some editors have said to the contrary... lol); I've made more than my fair share of mistakes while contributing here... And I've made some very fine mistakes... Very fine ones. ;-) Don't be afraid to fail or make mistakes; just own up to them, apologize, be civil at all times, and follow up on any promises you make to improve or learn from them. That being said, you don't want to be careless or stupid either. :-D


 * I hope that I answered your questions and provided you with the information you were looking for. Unfortunately, there are circumstances and issues that exist on this project that a policy, guideline, or essay isn't there to provide an answer for. Either way, you're doing the right thing by asking these questions and bringing your thoughts and concerns to a discussion. We can't stop and think about if what we're doing is right, or think about what should be done in order to fix a problem, if nobody speaks up. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

nuke
please nuke all my talk page archives -- Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 17:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Thegooduser. Why are you requesting this? You should keep those...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you nuke them for me? I don't want it nor do I plan to edit here often anymore but rather edit on simple english wikipedia -- Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD problem I can't figure out how to solve for Somatosensory rehabilitation of pain
On May 30, tried to AfD the article Somatosensory rehabilitation of pain, but for some reason it did not get added to the AfD page on May 30. I later came across the AfD notice on the article and tried to add it to the AfD Medicine list, but it gets added with no title or search line. I don't know how to fix this to make it a plain old everyday normal AfD, so I am hoping that you or your talk page watchers can help with it. Thanks!! HouseOfChange (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I manually substituted {{subst:afd2}} and added it to today's log. Hope that helps. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your quick and exactly-what-was-needed help. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi HouseOfChange! I apologize for the late reply. It looks like your issue has been resolved; a big thanks to Alpha3031 for providing assistance while I was offline. Much appreciated! HouseOfChange, if you need help with anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I would be grateful if you could help get more eyes on that AfD if possible. I have a !Vote recorded but would be grateful for some people experienced with medical-therapy articles to express more informed opinions than my own. It may well be a fine therapy, and I understand that the therapists who support it, including its creator, do not see themselves as having a COI because they see the therapy as helping their patients. But I am troubled by the lack of independent MEDRS (big caveat: that I can find.) But again, I am not experienced at medical topics and unfortunately the people who want to keep the article are not experienced at Wikipedia so they are not (IMO) making a good defense. I would not like to see Wikipedia lose a good article (or keep a bad one) because of their incompetence or mine. But how can I get wider input without WP:CANVASSING (which I am trying not to do here)? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * HouseOfChange - Remember that simply asking for input to the discussion in a non-biassed way is not canvassing. It becomes canvassing when you do it with the intent to influence the outcome of the discussion in a particular direction. It would be canvassing if you were to only ask those that you know would "vote" in the direction you desire to participate, or if you use non-neutral wording or encourage a certain "vote" when you ask for participation. So long as you avoid this behavior and intent, you should be fine.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to ARBPIA topic ban
User:Oshwah, shalom. I have submitted an appeal to my topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. The procedure requires of me to inform the one who imposed the topic ban, and Administrator Ed Johnston thought that you should also be informed.Davidbena (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Davidbena! Thank you for letting me know. I've added my statement and I will discuss it and respond to you there. :-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - Assistance / Guidance needed
Hi Oshwah, i need help in getting the following articles deleted due to 'A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)'. In this case i am talking about the following people who i guess have no or very less importance to have a separate dedicated article on them. They all are common members/supporters of the movement Pashtun Tahafuz Movement.

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

I would appreciate if you can guide me on how to nominate them for speedy deletion or who should i reach out to. Any suggestions would help. Kami2018 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Kami2018, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your request for help. I'll be happy to answer your question regarding how to tag an article for speedy deletion under A7, but I feel that it's important that I help explain this criterion and help you to understand it first.


 * These articles are questionable and don't appear to meet the eligibility for A7, as I believe that they've established a credible claim of significance in the articles' content. Keep in mind that a credible claim of significance is different than notability (what's required for an article to be kept under the articles for deletion process and guidelines). A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability. It only need be a statement that, if sourced or following additional research, could (possibly in combination with other significant information) cause the article subject to be notable. The best explanation to this term can be found here.


 * Given this test, I don't feel that these articles would be eligible for speedy deletion under A7. We also only speedily delete articles under clear cases of eligibility; if the article is even borderline or questionable as to whether or not it meets the criteria, it shouldn't be applied. I recommend that you nominate these articles for deletion under the articles for deletion process, as I believe that the notability of these subjects is what they may fall short of meeting. The directions for nominating an article for deletion can be read here (follow the directions on the right that's titled, "Does this look too complicated?"). It's way easier than doing this manually, although you can certainly do that if you choose.


 * If you still wish to nominate these articles for speedy deletion under A7 of the criteria, you would just edit the article and add to the very top of it. Alternatively, you can enable the Twinkle gadget in your preferences (see the directions for AFD above), and you can use the "CSD" menu to fill out the form and have Twinkle do it for you. Either way works.


 * Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and good luck! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be 'could'? It's not uncommon for an article to survive A7 but still be deleted as non-notable via PROD or AfD. 'Would' there sounds like notability to me . Adam9007 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Adam9007 - Yeah, that word would make more sense compared to "would". Fixed. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for all the help and guidance that you have provided me. Surely i will nominate these at Articles_for_deletion under the notability and reliable sources guidelines. But as these are many articles can i use TW to nominate multiple articles or i have to do one by one. Also the reason part should it be detailed or small description of notability question be fine ?
 * Thankyou again. Kami2018 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Kami2018 - Definitely use Twinkle to nominate those articles. Doing so manually is a multi-step process, and I remember accidentally forgetting an important step in that process on more than one occasion back when doing so manually was the only option. ;-) You should nominate these one-by-one, and provide a good explanation in your nomination statement and with links to the relevant guidelines cited. If you look at some of the nominations that I've posted, you'll get a good idea of how it should be done (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).


 * One thing that I definitely recommend you keep in mind is the fact that the articles for deletion process does not take the quality of the article itself into account; it takes notability, and the availability of secondary reliable sources that can be researched and found (either on the internet or in print media) to establish that notability, into account. Think of it like this: If, for example, the Barrack Obama or Abraham Lincoln articles were only a few paragraphs long and didn't provide many or very good sources, these articles would be kept if I were to nominate them for AFD. That's because, well, they're notable people... It's quite easy to go onto Google and type those names in and pull up numerous sources that are reliable that show that these people are notable. We don't delete those articles under that process just because they're not great... The same principle applies with all articles.


 * Please let me know if you have any more questions or if you need additional help. I'll be happy to lend a hand in any way that you need. :-) Good luck!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thankyou so much. I really appreciate your help.
 * I would appreciate if you could leave this information for few days on your talk page so that i can get guidance from here. Kami2018 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Kami2018 - No problem! I always clear my user talk page in chronological order (I take things off the top), so this'll be up for awhile. When this discussion becomes archived, you can easily find it by using the search tool near the top of this page. Good luck! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Timka1306
Hi Oshwah. The user keeps changing genres after final warning. Can you please block this? 115.164.56.33 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Blocked for 24 hours.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Demanding user is back
Hi. is back as and clearly hasn't changed his tune. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 06:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi AlanM1! It looks like this account hasn't edited since their user page was deleted. Let's keep eyes on it, and please let me know if it begins engaging in disruption. I'll be happy to put a stop to it. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * More drivel: Special:Diff/963389273. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 20:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note the similar posts to user and article talk pages, too.) —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 20:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of pinging you yet again, I wanted to clarify that the above should be read as my least demanding and most appreciative voice. (Bugging you with it directly because you were involved in their previous incarnation) —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 20:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi AlanM1! I do see some edits to WNET, Interstate 84 in New York, WHLL, and others - but I'm also seeing that this user is participating in talk page discussions and help desks. Have we gone to ANI or SPI with these concerns yet? It might be worth doing so...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. It seems that took care of it. FWIW, all I see is re-posting of the same demanding, repetitive, nonsense to users and talk pages –  not one response to other editors, other than to delete a warning from their talk page. Many of their edits showed the same CIR problem as their talk page nonsense, being reverted for failing verification, grammar, MoS problems, etc. —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 05:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that I have not perma-blocked them, just given them a longer block in hopes that they will calm down and realize that there is no deadline in an encyclopedia. This, of course, assumes that they are inept but acting in good faith, as opposed to engaged in some bizarre kind of meta/performance-art behavior. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Hi Oshwah, Cardinal Law was a child molester, why're you deleting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.212.243.123 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi anonymous user! Thanks for asking!  Usually edits are reverted if they violate our core policies WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR or do not comply with our style guide.  As much as you may be editing in good faith, information that you add that is unsourced or that makes the article non-neutral, even if you know is true, is likely to be reverted.  That is why your edits have been reverted.  Please do stick around and contribute constructively within our policies.  Aasim 19:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: Bernard Francis Law CiaPan (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are absolutely no references cited in the article that support what you're stating. Therefore, those edits will be removed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

2017 edits on Rocket League
Hi. Youre mistaking me for someone else. I have never made those changes.

Kind regards, Mattias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.106.220 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That message was left three years ago so, no, it wasn't probably you. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Like Chris troutman stated above, this message was left years ago; you're simply using an IP address that someone else had before you, and they were warned for their editing. You can ignore the message; I suggest that you create an account in order to avoid this issue in the future. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Thegooduser/UISU.js
how to activate this? Do I copy and paste into common.js? -- Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 17:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thegooduser - Yes. You'll add  to your common.js page, and perform a cache-bypassing refresh in your browser after you save the changes.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have a question about dell usb ports can I ask? -- Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 00:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Either I am terrible at coding or the script is broken... -- Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 00:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

no subject
Hello Oshwah, I am respectfully replying to being blocked from editing or being involved in an edit war. Patricia Churchland is a friend, client, and a world-renown neurophilosopher. We have been updating her website (patriciachurchland.com) and she had asked that I please update her Wikipedia since she is not allowed to update her own page. When I was blocked from doing so, I asked my son Tyler to please make the update. Below is the original email from Pat requesting the change. Would you be so kind as to tell me how to proceed. This is the only edit I have ever made on Wikipedia and having been in advertising and marketing for 30+ years take this very seriously. Kind regards, Cindy Cochran (CochranC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CochranC (talk • contribs) — CochranC (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Template
How do you add a template? Critical1056 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Critical1056! Are you asking about how to create a new template? Or just how to add one to a page? If you're asking about the latter, you simply edit the page, and add (the name of the template surrounded by two brackets) to the content text. If the template needs to be substituted instead of transcluded, you'd do the same thing but add "subst:" in front of the template's name . You'll want to review the template's documentation in order to find which method is needed. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   00:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Template
How do you add a template Critical1056 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See above.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 * Ss112 - Acknowledged; I'll check it tonight.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ss112 - Replied.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Reducing the protection level of today's featured article
Hello. I just noticed that you reduced the protection level of George Washington and slavery, which is on today's main page. Because it is featured in such a prominent page, there is a possibility that vandalism can occur there. And when you reduced the protection level to allow pending changes from IP users and new users, the vandals have begun to come in. I wonder what was the rationale for doing so while the article is still featured on the main page? There are other editors who are willing to revert vandalism as they happen, but with more disruptive editing being allowed, there is something to worry about. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * LSGH - I didn't reduce any previous protection that was already added to the article. The article wasn't edit protected at all; I simply added pending changes protection to it, which still allows editing by anonymous users, but must be reviewed and approved before their edits become visible to the public.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. You indicated, "why not try this instead of semi-protection", so I assumed that it was already protected. But nevertheless, thank you for responding there immediately. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * LSGH - No problem! Sorry for the confusion! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No subject
Thank you Oshwah for your welcome to Wiki note. I am a new Wiki Scholar and in my training course at present --Arual Mackey (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!
I don't know your exact policy with these talkback templates, and I'm sorry if this is something that bugs you, but I think this is something you might want to look at. Thanks in advance. – Toxi  Boi!  (public) 08:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ToxiBoi! Please accept my apologies for the delay responding to you. I'll be checking my email tonight and I will respond to your message. Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ToxiBoi - Just replied.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletion request
Hey Oshwah, can you please delete this revision from history. It has a grossly inappropriate edit summary about two famous people. If possible, you might want to block the IP for sometime because they clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks a lot. I would appreciate if you ping to reply to me. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan  ( talk ) 04:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Jack Frost (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Field Marshal Aryan! I apologize for the delay responding to your request here. It looks like it's been taken care of, so I'll leave it at that. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can do anything for you. I'll be happy to help! :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , No probs. Would it be better if I email you for every revision deletion request, in the future, or leave a message on your talk page. Your edit notice did say that I should email you but I didn't feel comfortable intruding in your non-wikipedia life. I do understand that in extreme cases it might be crucial. Thanks, Field Marshal Aryan  ( talk ) 10:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki News and
I'd noticed that you and I have both received the same LTA message on Wiki News. I tried to revert one of the edits on a different user talk page and I was warned about that from blanking by a abuse filter. I then tried to explain to Wikinews: admin action alerts but when I clicked submit, the abuse filter took action and blocked me indefinitely on the site. Unfortunately that edit can't be proven from this Abuse filter log. And here's the block status the filter imposed.

By posting to the administrators notice board, hopefully someone can revert these edits made by the LTA without having trouble from the edit filters. I have never made a single edit on Wikinews so that would be my problem as a new user. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Iggy the Swan! Dang, that's quite a strict filter... They either have this problem at a level that's really bad, or someone is power-hungry (it's likely the former). Just appeal your block; a competent admin should be able to recognize that you aren't acting in bad faith but got caught into an unfortunate fishnet. Let me know what happens. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was already unblocked long before this reply. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Iggy the Swan - Yeah, that may have been in part due to my delayed response... my apologies for that. Nonetheless, I'm glad to hear that the situation was resolved. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Elockid Manufacturing Ltd
I believe this account is actually a LTA banned user with a blatantly trolling username, rather than just a bad username choice. This account was recently created, likely by the same person. Elockid and Callanecc are both admins here, so that fits into the pattern. Thanks. 73.125.226.214 (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Elockid is obviously a well-known user here (I know them quite extensively over the years I've been here). I should've caught that; this username given the new outlook on the context implies that this is a "manufacturer of Elockid usernames" AKA this user is making sock accounts. Extending block to disable account creation and autoblock the IP address used. I'm going to leave talk page access and email access available so that the user can appeal (just in case). Thanks for the message! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi rights change
Special:UserRights/Tulsi Bhagat

FYI as it revokes a right you granted. - Alexis Jazz 06:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexis Jazz - Thank you for letting me know about this. That's too bad; this user appeared to be on the up-and-up and could've excelled as an editor on this project. I obviously don't know the whole story, so I'm going to withhold judgment until I read up on everything. However, when concerns are expressed and enough evidence exists that someone actually revokes one or more of the accused user's access rights, the evidence presented is usually very strong. Thanks again for letting me know about this.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)