User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2021-09

Closure of AfD - Concern of premature closure
Hi, could you check this AfD for me, Articles for deletion/Sethward, and determine if this was closed too early by the non-admin? I'm not sure if that should have been closed so early. If there is nothing wrong, then can I challenge the end result in RfD, and if so, what grounds would be feasible for discussion? GUtt01 (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oshwah- if you do get into this at all, then Talk:America's Got Talent (season 16) should also be given a look at too. Magitroopa (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you do, another question - should an Anchor template be used in the manner to help with a redirect, even if the information is purely brief? GUtt01 (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Gonna wait out the matter on the talkpage for a while, thanks to suggestion given to answer some doubts I had. GUtt01 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi GUtt01, Magitroopa! I apologize for such a delay responding to your questions and your requests here. I'm just getting back onto Wikipedia after being away for a month, and I have LOTS of messages, requests, notifications, pings, and emails that I have to catch up with. :-) Typically, AFD discussions should be left open for seven days, though exceptions have often been made - usually when it's an obvious Speedy Delete, such as A7, G5, G12, or other obvious reasons. However, if the article doesn't fall within that obvious range, it should be open for input for seven days before it is officially closed. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions, and I'll be happy to do so. Again, I apologize for the delayed response. I needed a break from some things, and it feels good to be back! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oswah!
Thank you for your contributions and help on Wikipedia. I already believed that you are trying to respond to users' requests as best you can. By the way, your crazy hair got full marks from me :-) Tutsens Woman (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Tutsens Woman! Thank you for the message and the kind words. :-) Yeah, the hair was ridiculous, but what you're seeing is my natural hair style - other than being brushed and washed in the shower, that's what my hair naturally does when it gets long. I have no idea where this ridiculous trait come from in my family, and honestly, I don't wanna ask. :-P I hope you're doing well, and I hope you keep in touch. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

431x9719x2099863 and 2351x4513x13264529
Why she blocked User:431x9719x2099863 and User:2351x4513x13264529? 2405:9800:BA31:F6:FD7E:6343:96DA:9CBD (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A simple answer: Evading an existing block which is known as block evasion. Some users use CheckUser to check if these accounts were registered under the same network of IP addresses before blocking. In addition, the edits made are not good for Wikipedia usage either.
 * I hope Oshwah returns soon for him to answer as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I apologize for the delay responding to your question here. I owe Iggy the Swan a big "thank you" for responding and helping to answer your question while I was away from Wikipedia. Iggy the Swan is correct - these accounts were blocked because checkuser evidence confirmed them to be sock puppet accounts that were created in order to evade their block and cause disruption. If you have any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Marcel the Shell Director Dean Fleischer Camp Wikipedia Page
Hi Oshwah! I hope you're doing well! Thank you so much for looking into this page. Kathryn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dean_Fleischer_Camp_(director)

TheDirectorTab (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi TheDirectorTab! I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. You're very welcome! If you need my assistance with anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me and let me know. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi,Oshwah! No worries at all! I've actually been dealing with some family issues so today is the first time I've logged on to wiki in a while. I did get a response from. aneditor who said my original article wouldn't be able to be approved. Would you be able to help me undestand how to try to pursue publication for this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dean_Fleischer_Camp


 * Also, I'm sorry for all. ofmy questions. I'm in my 20s but when it comes to computers i have the knowledge of a dinosaur TheDirectorTab (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi TheDirectorTab! I'm sorry to hear that you're going through family issues, and I hope that they manage to be resolved and with as little negative impact as possible. Keep your head up - everything will be okay in the end. :-) I took a look at the draft, and I don't see any issues that stand out at me. The only thing that I would have you do (if you haven't done so already) is make sure that you've read and that you understand Wikipedia's guidelines on notability - especially the notability of living people. This is the exact guideline that a reviewer will refer to when they go to review your draft and its suitability on Wikipedia as an article. I think that it's also important to note that I am not an AFC reviewer - I don't actively participate in the AFC review process, nor do I actively make decisions and either accept or decline any draft submissions. If you have any specific questions or concerns regarding your draft, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer them and help you. Other than that, make sure that you read through the notability guidelines, and definitely let me know if you have any questions regarding those guidelines. I can definitely help you out when it comes to understanding them. :-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow Oshwah!! Thank you so much for your kind words and encouragement. Who knew Wikipedia could be such a nice space! TheDirectorTab (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of changes to Tunguska event page
Hello, I added a new section to the Tunguska event page because it was missing a section on references to it in film. I added a reference to the film "Greenland" and included a link to the scene in which it is mentioned on YouTube but it was reverted for lack of reference sourcing. Is a YouTube video of the film scene not count as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortega (talk • contribs) 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mortega - Linking to a YouTube video that shows a scene in a movie is not considered a reliable source. This is why your edit was reverted. Please take some time to review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources that are secondary, and please let me know if you have any questions. I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi @Oshwah! I just wanted to let someone on here know that after some careful consideration, I have decided to semi-retire from Wikipedia for the time being. Thank you for being so kind and welcoming, which is why I'm leaving you this message. Editing and contributing on Wikipedia has been a thrilling experience! I hope my contributions and article additions have helped the project. It's just getting too stressful for me to navigate all the various policies that are in place for the (unfortunately) niche topics I wish to write about for my city here in India. I am just a second year university student working off of topics I came across when doing a college assignment, so I don't want to argue/contest with the decisions of the proficient researchers and editors who make this project so great.

I was given some great guidance on the individuals and families I was writing about by several experienced editors (you can see my now archived talk page discussions), and I have done as they have asked diligently. I still have 3 pending drafts, along with a few articles already in main space which haven't yet been reviewed. If in case I find online/accessible/rich sources in the coming few weeks/months for the drafts, I'll work on them slowly and move them to main space when I am confident about them. If not, I'll db-g7 them. I had a few biographies I was researching to add here, but I won't be adding those article because for some reason I feel my entries have been unwelcome.

I know you are very busy, so I won't expect you to reply to this, but thank you for everything! I just wanted someone friendly to know. Hope you have a good day wherever you are. AngryMushroom (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi AngryMushroom! I apologize for such a delay responding to your message here. I needed to take a break from some things in my life in order to get some important affairs sorted out and in-line, which is why I've been away from Wikipedia since August. I'm sorry to hear that you've decided to move into semi-retirement status with us as a member of the community. Yes, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be quite daunting to become familiar and proficient with, and they can perhaps even be intimidating when looking at them from a perspective of just how many there are. It's something that I hear about somewhat-commonly when users come to me with questions, or when they tell me that they've decided to leave Wikipedia. The feeling of being unwelcome or that your contributions aren't welcome to the community is also something I hear about commonly with users that decide to leave Wikipedia, which I completely understand... Having your hard work that you've spent hours - if not days - of time putting together for the encyclopedia criticized and leaving you feeling that it wasn't welcome, needed, or wanted - well, that can be devastatingly discouraging and disheartening. That feeling will knock the wind out of you in regards to your enthusiasm with the project and your desire to contribute to it. Your contributions, no matter how small they are or how often you make them, are welcome here and help to build and maintain an encyclopedia. Even though you've decided to semi-retire, please know and remember that you're very much still a member of this community. Should you decide to move out of semi-retirement and return, we'll be here and waiting for you, and so will the project. :-) I wish you well, and I hope that you find the community, place, or activity that you're looking for when searching for something to be a part of, volunteer your time to, and contribute to. If you need anything, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Thanks for the message - it'll be sad to see you go. Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Your message to me
Quick question for you, Oshwah. Since you profess to be so dedicated to keeping Wikipedia up to date, instead of removing my update that Rep. Kind had announced he wouldn't run for re-election, why not do a quick search on your own, confirm my reporting, and add the cite yourself? I would hate to think that you simply enjoy wielding power to quash the contributions of others more than helping to provide updated and accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.91.133 (talk) 23:34, 09 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, and thank you for the message. When it comes to providing reliable sources and references with changes made to an article, an important policy to keep in mind is the onus, or burden of proof, that someone must provide when making a change to the article. If you read this section of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, it states that "[t]he onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Another very specific policy that you should understand is this section of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which states (in bold lettering) that "[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This means that, when modifying an article's content, the burden for locating and citing reliable sources that support the content rests with the editor who is trying to add it. You can't go to the editor who questioned the content's validity and verifiability and removed it and then tell them that they need to go and find a reference for the content that you added. That's on you. As the person who is adding the content to an article, it's your responsibility to provide and cite reliable sources that support the information you're trying to add. Unreferenced or poorly referenced content that is added to an article (especially if the article is a biography of a living person) can be challenged and removed. Please let me know if you have any questions about these policies and their meaning, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I hope that you understand. Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Croatian Air force
Hi Oshwash, Listen. Can you please Make a Protection Page for Croatian Air Force. One of users IP starting to Revent many times about Rafale's Order for Croatia. Because it's not been Finalize the Contract. So will you make a 1 month or something ?. PTS 188 (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Some sudden thoughts
Having comments in User talk:Jimbo Wales read, I suddenly think of what you had once told me (I mean those about "civility"). However, how should I introduce and explain it to a particular person who does not have any (correct) concept on it? (I mean, if it really happened) I also want to ask what the true concept of "consensus" is, because I have found that some have totally different opinions on the definition of "consensus", which makes a tie in the community. (Actually something related to an Office action which mainly affects Chinese Wikipedia, and being reported by various news agencies.) Sanmosa Outdia 12:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sanmosa! I apologize for the delay responding to your questions here. I hope you're doing well and that life is treating you kindly. :-) The best way to approach someone on Wikipedia in regards to civility and their recent behavior (assuming that they've been responding and commenting uncivilly) is to do so in a peaceful and encouraging manner, and with words that the editor will interpret as being an attempt to provide them a friendly and informal warning about their behavior, and an offer to help them out if they need it.


 * There are a few very important things that you need to know and understand before you decide to approach anyone about their recent incivility or personal attacks made toward others. First and foremost, you need to understand that this editor will likely either be very upset, extremely frustrated, and in a very confrontational and in-your-face kind of mood. Because of that, they will likely mis-interpret any words that you use toward them - and that have even a tiny remote possibility of being negative, threatening, or confrontational - as being such, and they will very likely respond to you with the same level of unpleasantness that they believe that you made toward them. That's why it's important to pay very close attention and be very selective with the words that you use in your message to them. Be clear with your reason for reaching out to them, how you feel, what you're trying to do, your desired outcome from approaching them, and your expectations.


 * Another very important thing to understand, expect to have happen, and be prepared for is the fact that the user that you're approaching is very likely going to respond to your discussion negatively, uncivilly, and in a confrontational and battleground-like manner toward you in return. If this happens, don't take it personally - they're just upset with the situation, and they're upset that someone is now talking to them about their behavior. Consider this to be the typical and expected outcome of your discussion with them, and be prepared for this emotionally and psychologically. When this happens, don't make any further responses or replies to the discussion. Just walk away and consider the matter closed; you've told them about their behavior, pointed them toward relevant policies and guidelines, and were civil and offered to help them. The most important objective with approaching someone about their behavior is that you've informed them and that you've warned them; if anything, they now understand that they're violating one of Wikipedia's founding principles, and they can't come back to us later and use the "I didn't know" or the "I wasn't told" or "I wasn't warned" excuse if their repeated behavior results in sanctions or editing restrictions. Your ultimate goal and the desired outcome that you're aiming for is to receive a response from the editor that isn't unpleasant and full of uncivil personal attacks toward you. If that happens, consider it a bonus and a huge win towards you and how you handled things with them. My ultimate point with this paragraph is to tell you that a negative and uncivil response to your message to them about their incivility should be expected. Just don't let it get to you emotionally, and walk away when that happens. You did your job.


 * I typically approach others about civility with the role of a "concerned editor who just wants to help." That's given me the highest level of success when it comes to receiving civil replies in return (aside from having a highly respected standing and reputation with the community, but that's neither here nor there... lol). What exactly does that look like? "Hi [Username of editor]! I hope you're doing well and that your day has been pleasant. I just wanted to leave you a message in order to talk to you about some concerns that I have regarding some of your recent comments and responses toward other editors in some discussions. For example, the comment you made [here - provide a diff link pointing them toward their uncivil edits], and [here - list additional diffs as necessary]. These comments are [uncivil - provide a wiki link to WP:CIV], and they directly conflict with one of Wikipedia's [founding principles - provide a wiki link to WP:5P]. It's a real bummer to see a discussion turn into something like this, and I just don't want to see you get blocked or finding yourself in hot water with the community because of how you've recently behaved toward others here. I just want to quietly and informally give you a nudge on the shoulder about Wikipedia's [civility policy - provide a wiki link to WP:CIV] so that you can correct this behavior before it leads you into any trouble. If you need help with anything, have questions, or just need someone to talk to or to help you to calm any emotions down, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. I wish you well, and I hope that you'll take this as an opportunity to self-evaluate how you respond and communicate with others, and that you'll do what you need to do in order to keep calm, remain civil, and keep discussions positive and focused toward our primary goal of building an encyclopedia. Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Best - [signature]." Leave a message similar to this with someone who needs to be talked to about their recent lack of civility, and I think it'll have a good chance of turning out well.


 * Now, onto your other question: "What is the true concept of consensus?" That's an excellent question to ask; many editors have, at best, a partial and basic understanding of what consensus is and how to determine whether or not consensus has been achieved. But let's not start by asking what consensus truly is... Let's start by asking how that we can achieve consensus, and what the goal should be next when that level of consensus cannot happen. First, let's start with the very basic level of consensus. Let's say that you hypothetically make an edit to an article, add some content, and save it. If nobody objects to your edit, reverts it, or starts a discussion to discuss, challenge, dispute, or voice their opposition to it - you've attained the most basic level (but the most complete level) of consensus. You made an edit that nobody objects to - in retrospect, this is known as presumed consensus. Now, let's say that someone revises your edit a few months later. Unless someone objects to, disputes, or reverts that edit - it is now considered to have presumed consensus. And the cycle continues and continues... this is how Wikipedia and the encyclopedia can grow and expand over time.


 * However, this obviously isn't always the resulting outcome, and other editors will certainly raise concerns, object to, challenge, dispute, and revert edits that are made. When this happens, Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol outlines exactly how to work things out - from the very beginning of an objection or content dispute, we are expected to start a discussion with the focus and objective toward achieving consensus. What does that look like typically? To give you a very basic example: If two people are discussing a content dispute with one another, it's ideally reached by proposing a change, addressing the concerns raised by those who are opposed to it, proposing another change with these concerns addressed and incorporated, and continuing this cycle until a proposed change is presented that everyone involved with can agree on. Consensus is now reached, and that proposed change can move forward. The typical way that consensus is achieved in this example is that the two users work toward a compromise that everyone involved agrees with. In these situations, editors should work toward a compromise rather than an "all or nothing" approach; that kind of strategy and approach is almost never met with consensus, and typically results in frustrations and tensions between those on the other side of the dispute. Seek compromise where possible.


 * When it becomes more complicated and as more editors get involved, we turn to different strategies for presenting arguments for or against a proposition or discussion and determining if consensus has been reached in a discussion. Consensus decisions (that's when someone closes a discussion and decides if consensus is reached, and if so, what the outcome is) are properly made by taking the quality of the arguments made, their origin and history, and community policies and guidelines into account. A determination of whether or not a consensus exists is typically measured by examining each side of the discussion or dispute, examining the quality of the arguments and reasoning provided by the participants on that side, and whether or not their arguments properly incorporate, respond to, and address all of the legitimate concerns and objections raised by the opposing side. If this is found to have been achieved by one side of the proposal, it will typically be determined that consensus has been reached, and proceed with the actions necessary with implementing the decision that was reached by consensus.


 * Depending on the discussion, the number of editors involved, and the complexity or size of the discussion, proposition, or dispute - closing a discussion and making a consensus decision and a ruling is not an easy task that can be performed properly if done with haste, without properly reading through the entire discussion and each argument that is provided by its participants, or if done with the mindset that this has to be closed and with a "ruling" by a certain time or that it must be done quickly. Unless the closing administrator (or editor) has been actively following the discussion from the start and as it grows and as more editors add their arguments, reading through an entire discussion and making a proper determination can take days to complete. The key here is patience, knowledge of policy, diligence, and completeness.


 * As you can obviously see with my response to your question, as the proposition or discussion grows, and as more participants provide their arguments, and as complex or in-depth the discussion or proposition becomes or aims to implement, "true determination of consensus" (which is what happens when everyone involved agrees with a certain outcome) shrinks to a near-zero probability. We of course seek to incorporate all of the legitimate concerns raised in a proposition, and then seek consensus by making additional propositions that compromise and address those concerns until a proposal is provided that everyone can agree on, but there are often propositions and discussions where this can't happen and where this isn't possible. For example, you can't take an editor's request for adminship at RFA and come up with "compromises" and modified proposals until everyone is happy. Either you're in support for the proposal or you're in opposition to it (or you can be neutral of course and provide legitimate input as well), and in those cases, I've explained how determining whether or not consensus has been reached in this response a few paragraphs above.


 * Whew! This has got to be one of the lengthiest replies that I've ever provided on my user talk page! I apologize if you find my response to be overly large in length and detail, but I wanted to fully answer your questions and explain everything to you in a way that I believe that you'll understand completely and easily. I hope that my response here is helpful to you, and that it fully answers all of your questions. If you still have any questions, please don't hesitate to respond and ask them, and I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. I hope you have a great day, I wish you happy editing, and I apologize again for the delay with responding to you here. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your reply. I am feeling much better now. Hope you have a good day. Sanmosa Outdia 09:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sanmosa - Good! I'm happy to see that you feel much better after reading my response. It was quite lengthy, but I felt that it needed to be in order to fully explain everything, answer your questions, and provide you with good information. Good luck with everything, and keep in touch! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you run into any more questions, or if you need any input or advice, and I'll be more than happy to help you. I hope you have a great weekend, and I'll of course see you around the project. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hope you're well
I've noticed you haven't been active for a while, I hope you're doing well and I'll hopefully see you again here soon. All the best. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 09:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

+1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I came here to say the same. Hope to see you back soon. Pahunkat (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The latest action or edit made by this user was on August 31, 2021 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AriianaGrande_and_fans_are_d3ad_people (see page history). FWIW, it has been a month, and I hope that he will return for the best of his abilities on Wikipedia. Mabuhay ka at sana ay babalik ka sa Wikipedia (Long live and I hope that you will be back on Wikipedia),Rdp060707&#124;talk 07:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To the friends and fans of this user, do not place yourself in anger or emotion.Rdp060707&#124;talk 07:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi StarryNightSky11, Pahunkat, Rdp060707! I very much appreciate your messages and your comments. It means a lot to me to see that there are editors on this project who want me here, care about me, and care enough to leave me a message and ask how I'm doing if I've been away for awhile. Yes, this was quite a length of time to be away from Wikipedia. I haven't been on here since August - quite some time compared to my typical long-term editing patterns. When I observe my overall editing pattern, I see that I will usually participate, edit, and make contributions here for a few weeks, then break away for 1-2 weeks on average while things get busy, and then return again for a few weeks when things slow down. From there, the cycle repeats. This particular length of time of being away from Wikipedia was due to my typical reason - life and work becoming busy. However, this time, in addition to just becoming busy again, I had a few important affairs going on in September that I needed to take care of, address, and get in order. I needed to take a break from a few things in my typical routine - I just felt the need to step away for a bit, refresh, mix things up, do something different, and then return after I had my affairs in order and when I felt ready and had the desire to do so. It felt quite different when I did this, but not to worry! I wasn't injured or affected by Hurricane Ida (there were some editors who voiced concerns that I might have been), I haven't retired or quit Wikipedia, I'm still very much involved and plan on remaining involved as long as the community will have me, and I'm not dead. :-) I just needed to step away for awhile, and for a few reasons... It feels great to be back! A few things on Wikipedia that I'll be needing to spend my time towards right now and for the time being is to respond to all of the messages, pings, notifications, and emails that I received while I was away. I came back to Wikipedia with 146 notifications and 66 emails sent to my Wikipedia mailbox... so I'm going to be spending the next day or so focused towards getting all caught up with everything. :-) Don't worry, though... I'll be around and available if you need anything. Just leave a message on my user talk page or shoot me an email. You'll just need to bear with me as I get caught up with my messages and get responses out to those who are waiting for my input or my assistance. :-) Thanks again for the well-wishes, your concerns, and your messages. They mean a lot to me, and it's great to be back! :-D Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know you're safe! —2d37 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 2d37! Yup, I'm fine - just went inactive for longer than usual in order to just take a break, refresh, take care of some things, and come back when I was feeling ready to do so, and had the desire to get back to work here. :-) Nothing major, just needed a somewhat-unexpected extended time away from things. I'm glad to be back - I'm feeling good! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Glad to see you here again --CiaPan (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CiaPan! It feels great to be back! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Help with tables
Hi Oshwah! Sorry to bother; I wanted to see if there was any way I could get some help with editing a table on the Dogfish Head Brewery page. They have some new year round selections available and I wanted to make sure the table on that page is updated for anyone who wants to view. Also, as I'm continuing to learn and edit cautiously, I wanted to ask if there was a tutorial with creating and edit my own userpage. Thank you and I appreciate your help as always! Spf121188 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ! What help do you need with updating the table? I'd be happy to lend a hand. As for creating and editing your userpage, there is a fantastic guide at User page design center. –– FormalDude  talk  21:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Spf121188! Thanks for leaving me a message with your request for assistance with that table, and your question regarding user page creation. I apologize for the delay with responding to you, and I have to give FormalDude a big "thank you" for responding and offering to help you while I was away from Wikipedia. Did you receive the help that you were looking for with that table on the Dogfish Head Brewery article? If you still need help, let me know and I'll be happy to do so. I also recommend that you visit the user page design center page that FormalDude provided to you above. It'll provide you with a ton of information, ideas, tutorials, how-to's, and other good content. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * HI Oshwah! I'm happy to see that you're back and well! Yes, FormalDude really helped me out and I was able to get updates to the Dogfish Head Brewery page with my sources and he checked the table for me afterward. Thank you for responding and again, I'm glad to see you're back! Thanks for offering help as well, I'll reach out again if I need help if that's okay! Have an awesome day! Spf121188 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Spf121188! Thanks! It feels great to be back on Wikipedia and to be back for more work here. ;-) Great, I'm glad that FormalDude was able to help you and that the table managed to get updated within the article. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you run into any more questions or find that you need help with something down the line. I'll be more than happy to lend you a hand. ;-) Cheers, and thanks again!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)