User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2022-03

User:Señor pimientas and User:Senorda patata
Greetings, should these pages be tagged as sock pages in some fashion? I did accept G5 deletion requests but perhaps a sockpuppet tag would work as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus - Oh yeah, definitely bag and tag. If they're blocked as suspected or confirmed sockpuppets, (except in the cases of some highly prolific insanity) G5 is fine and tagging is fine. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hrm. I see that Sockpuppet investigations/Rgalo10 appears to be somewhat inconsistent on whether to tag the socks or not. Eh, I'll punt this one, not quite experienced enough to make a call. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus - No worries; that's the best thing to do if you're unsure about anything. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   10:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"Future event list" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Future event list and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 01:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rosguill - I appreciate the information. I'll take a look...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Chicago Fire Department and others
Mr.Oshwah, the persistent disruptive editing that you put an end to several months ago is back and using a new ip address of 172.58.188.129. Can you please check it out. It is the same person. Thank you,  Doriden (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2022‎ (UTC)
 * Hi Doriden! Thanks for the message and for letting me know about this continued disruption. It looks like Drmies has blocked the IP range 172.58.188.128/25, so this should definitely take care of the disruption from this person. If the disruption does continue while this range is blocked, please let me know so that I can look into it. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Error
Mr.Oshwah, so sorry that I got 1 digit mixed up in my previous correspondence with you about the persistent disruptive editing guy who is back again using this ip address. 172.58.188.128  sorry for the mix up. He is blocked for a year on the other ip he was using last. You and Wugapodes were of great assistance, but he has returned doing the same nonsense. Please check it out. Thank you very much, Doriden (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Doriden - No apologies are needed, and no worries - it happens; we all make typos and little mistakes like that. ;-) In the future, if you catch something like that in your message, reply, or discussion (like the one you created above), it's totally fine to just go back and edit your discussion and fix the typo. No need to create another discussion detailing your mistake on your previous one... lol. Just fix the typo and be done with it. ;-) Anyways, take a look at my response above. The IP range has been blocked. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Atwiki106 (12:22, 3 March 2022)
Hi! How do I add to a page the table that most athletes have on their wikipedia page which includes personal information, club career, etc.? Also, how can I check on the status of a page I created to be published? --Atwiki106 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Atwiki106! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your question. Wikipedia has a help page that will show you how to create these kinds of tables within articles. It provides a lot of good information and examples that you can use. Go here to check it out. If you run into any questions after reading through that help page, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from Editing
Hey My account 2409:4062:97:F57B:D706:5076:1B55:1175 has been blocked for editing. Could I get some reasons as to why that has been done?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4062:97:F57B:D706:5076:1B55:1175 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP address has not been blocked from editing.  If it had been, you would not have been able to post the message above.  General Ization  Talk  00:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See the response above by General Ization, who is correct. I also went to try and see if you were possibly part of a range block that has since expired, but I didn't find anything. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia prefer secondary sources over primary?
Pretty self-explanatory section name. 207.81.187.41 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is some confusion as to why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary. It's not black and white.
 * "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable" (WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD). Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher.  Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published.
 * "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.
 * So a good source can potentially be primary or secondary. What matters most is the quality of the source, and whether it meets the WP:GOLDENRULE. –– FormalDude  talk  01:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We prefer secondary sources for two reasons, both interconnected. First, we're limited to anything sources explicitly state and as such any lies or omissions by the source will be reflected in the text - and subjects themselves/their surrogates have every reason to lie and omit to make themselves look good, especially in media and websites they control. Second, nine times out of ten a primary source isn't vetted; it's just the subject/their surrogates talking at length about what comes to mind without a filter or it's a government document open to interpretation and fairly meaningless in and of itself. That being said, FormalDude is correct that we do accept primary sources for certain claims - usually claims from a known topic expert in their field, or biographical claims that, by their nature, cannot realistically be challenged in good faith (such as religious alignment, nationality, etc.) - they just don't help too much for notability. —Jéské Couriano  v^_^v  a little blue Bori 22:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)i ag
 * Hi there! Both FormalDude and Jéské Couriano made good responses above regarding the use of primary and secondary sources, and I agree with them both. If you run into any more questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Sorry for the late response here; work has been keeping me busy lately. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hi Meltdown reverter! Thank you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar! It means a lot to me, and I appreciate it very much. :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Court Square–23rd Street station
Can you take a look at the IP editing Court Square–23rd Street station? They've already gotten their four warnings for adding unsourced information.  Cards   84664   15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cards84664 - Done and blocked. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!
— 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 3PPYB6 - Received and replied! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Chicago Fire Department and others
Yes, thank you Mr.Oshwah for your assistance and correct drmies has banned that same persistent disruptive editing with this person. He or she has been doing it since 2019 or 2018 under various ip addresses, they are all geolocated in the same state, and it's always the same subject matter and same style of editing. I am not a physician or mental health professional but some people have OCD. I am not implying anything or judging anyone, this is not intended to accuse anyone. Anyway thanks again. Doriden (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Doriden - No problem; always happy to lend a hand! ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Your user page
Hi, you did well, even in my opinion my user page needed protection, and for this I thank you... :-) Hi, LukeWiller (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC).
 * LukeWiller - No problem! Always happy to be of assistance! ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

An SEP field for you!

 * Hi Suffusion of Yellow! I hope you're doing well and that your upcoming weekend will be just as well. :-) Thanks for the award! Those edit filter requests were actually pretty easy. The two edit filters that I created and maintain are already set up to log and flag the kinds of changes they were looking for (it just doesn't disallow them). If anything, this will be a good start for them; at least they now have a place where the changes will get flagged (assuming they have access to the logs, since the filters are private... lol). Anyways, thanks again! If I don't see you around this weekend (I probably will), I wish you a good weekend! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Qqqmedia (06:38, 13 March 2022)
Hello, I would like to ask why my Wikipedia is different from others. Thank you --Qqqmedia (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Qqqmedia! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your question. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Can you elaborate a bit more so that I can understand, answer your question, and help you? :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was looking for something familiar with all of the Wikipedia. Mine is a bit different like the citation, templates and heading Qqqmedia (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Qqqmedia - There might be default settings turned on or set in your preferences that might make things look somewhat different than for users who aren't logged in. I'd go there and see if you can't modify things to be to your liking. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * QQQ Media is a Qatari public relations firm and this account has been editing to promote a Qatari social media influencer. I have blocked the account accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cullen328 - Good call, and thanks for letting me know! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editor to rail templates
Can you take a look at the /45 range of these edits? They never use an edit summary and edits especially to the Erie template are repeatedly unverifiable or false, per known timetables.  Cards   84664   15:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Cards84664! I took a look at Template:Erie Main Line stations, and I actually see two ranges causing issues. One is 2600:1700:b971:1930::/64, and the other is 2600:1008:b140::/42. Both are mobile networks that are assigned CIDR ranges that are much wider, but I'm just focusing on the smallest ranges possible that are relevant. I've blocked the 2600:1700:b971:1930::/64 range for two weeks for the persistent addition of unreferenced content. I'm holding off for now on the other range, as the range mostly edited the template back in January. There were recent edits, but not enough for me to block at this time. If that changes, or if disruption continues, let me know and I'll be happy to put a kibosh to it. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Mail Notice
Celestina007 (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Celestina007 - Received and replied. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Oversight request
Hi Oshwah. I see that you are an oversighter and I've been told to request oversight. The relevant edits are: [REDACTED - Oshwah].

I'm not quite sure under which heading this comes, since the information is published on a website and is clearly not: I hope you can find a suitable reason so that I can comply with 's and 's requests. I asked 331 dot if I stop editing now and if I am likely to be banned for this transgression. Can you advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin of Sheffield (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Removal of non-public personal information - since it is public information
 * 2) Potentially libelous information
 * 3) Copyright, unless there is a copyright in the web page where the email is listed
 * 4) A blatant attack.
 * 5) Vandalism.
 * Hi Martin of Sheffield! I've taken care of the matters in question. Next time, please do not request oversight of any revisions, data, or logs via public channels (such as here, or anywhere on Wikipedia). Instead, use one of these contact methods so that the request is communicated privately. This is so that users who are watching or following my (or other users') user talk page won't be able to quickly navigate to the links you provide and be able to review the data before it becomes unavailable for them to see. If you're familiar with the Streisand effect, this is effectively what we're trying to avoid as much as possible by having users contact the Oversight Team privately.


 * I wouldn't worry too much about "stopping editing" or "getting into trouble". Accidents happen, and we understand that completely. Just remember that you absolutely cannot disclose any kind of personal identifiable information about other users or editors on Wikipedia unless they have willingly made this disclosure on Wikipedia themselves (such as on their user page or within their user space). Thanks for the message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hope you have a lucky day!

 * Hi FormalDude! Thanks for the St. Patrick's Day wishes! I didn't wear green today, but fortunately I was not pinched! ;-) I hope your day went well, and I'll see you out on the battlefield! Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/32190784
Can you do the edit for me? 2603:800C:1140:F300:841B:E937:A897:57B1 (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, 2603:800C:1140:F300:841B:E937:A897:57B1! Consider filing a report at WP:EFFP, where the people there should take care of that matter. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK  — C ONTRIBS  — 19:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! See 3PPYB6's comment above. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A Cookie for you

 * Hey, thanks for the cookie! I appreciate it! YUM! Chocolate chip! My favorite (it really actually is). ;-) ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)

Can a resistor have two colour scheme?
I am In trouble because a brown (number) Orange (multiplier) and gold (tolerence) refers 1000(ohm) plus minus 5%. But brown (number) black (number), red(multiplier) and gold(tolerance) also refers to 1000(ohm) plus min 5%.

Which one is right and why please explain and reply? Thanks very much18:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)18:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)18:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)18:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:499:9F26:0:0:857:10A5 (talk)
 * Hi there! So, the 3-band resistor comes out at 2.7 Ohms, not 1000 - and the 4-band resistor you describe comes out at 1000 Ohms, just like what you stated above. If you're choosing between two resistors, choose the 4-band resistor. The one you state that's 3-band is very non-standard and sounds a bit fishy, and the math doesn't work out. The 4-band resistor does. :-) I don't have the bands memorized; I use sources from Google, Wikipedia, and other places to jog my memory, but 3-band resistors are rare these days. They're usually 4-band or 5-band; go with your gut. Pick the one that has reliable mathematics behind it. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

NEED HELP bullying by User:Nicholas_Michael_Halim
On the page : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kangana_Ranaut&action=history

You might want to look at Personal attack and WP:BULLYing by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nicholas_Michael_Halim

'''Undid revision 1078375881 by Nenetarun (talk) Are you really this dumb or just trying to be funny? Go to a circus.'''

Nenetarun (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've left a reminder about civility towards new editors on Nicholas's talk page. –– FormalDude  talk  07:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nenetarun - FormalDude left an appropriate warning above. Has this continued since FormalDude talked to the user?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

He is back at it
That persistent disruptive editing person is back again with another ip 172.58.172.5 he is blocked on the other one he was using last month. This guy is too much. Please help. Thank you Doriden (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The range has now been blocked for a month. --Bsadowski1 17:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know, Doriden! And thank you, Bsadowski1, for doing the who-he-ha-he-hackka-smang-smang-wiki-wonka on the IP address. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Concealing IP Address: Oversight Request
Hi, I made an edit a short while ago but did not have an account at the time. I did not realise that this would make my IP address public. I would like my IP address removed, and either the edit reverted or my username in place of the IP address. The edit is on the page [REDACTED - Oshwah]. Zesstra (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Zesstra - Yes, I'll take care of it for you. I'll oversight the details here, too, for your protection. Also, next time email me instead of asking here, where it's public. This will further protect you. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Zesstra - ✅. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will bear that in mind if I edit in future! Zesstra (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Zesstra - You bet! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:192.24.90.6 needs another block
Hi. Since you previously blocked this individual back in March 2018, I thought I'd alert you to the fact that their activities have continued since then, with their talk page filled with plenty of warnings following your block, the most recent violation being this one two days ago. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Nightscream! Thanks for letting me know. It looks like Dirkbb warned the user for the edits, which was exactly the right thing to do. If the disruption continues, let me know and I'll be happy to put an "Oshwah-smash" to it. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Question!
Hello again Oshwah! Here I am again, cluttering your talk page lol but, I had a random question. I've recently been kind of keeping an eye on possible Sockpuppet accounts, and have submitted reports such as this one, and I'd be very interested in working toward becoming an SPI clerk in the future. I know full well that I don't have enough of an edit history or longevity yet, but I'd love to work my way towards it. Is there any advice you'd be able to offer in regards to that? I appreciate your help, as always! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Spf121188 - Yes, absolutely. You could simply start by looking through reports at SPI, investigating the user histories and anything that you're able to view, and add your findings and information to the comments in the report. Keep them short, provide evidence with diffs, and stick to the facts. Don't give an opinion unless it's blatantly obvious (see the duck test policy below), or you're absolutely sure. Becoming visible and doing what you can do to offer sound and solid information to the report would certainly not hurt at all. Just get involved and leave comments. Also, get familiar and proficient, and become a master with Sockpuppetry, Signs of sockpuppetry, and The duck test. Mastering those three policies and demonstrating your knowledge with in-depth and concise comments with solid evidence in diffs will absolutely make you shine. Let me know if you run into any questions about these policies, if you need some help and guidance with a certain SPI case, anything... I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again Oshwah! Thank you for your help! I'll work on that over time and hopefully can help make a difference there. I did have one other question; Would it be possible for myself to have a trial run at getting Rollback privileges? I do use Twinkle to help fight vandalism, which is rewarding to help with, but I saw your name on the page to request a rollback trial, so I figured I'd ask. I obviously won't be offended if you don't think I'm ready for that yet, but I thought I'd ask! I appreciate your time and help as always!! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Spf121188! After taking a quick look through your contributions, participation in recent changes patrolling, the reversion of vandalism and disruption, and the reports you've filed at AIV - I don't see any reason not to at least consider a trial run. Have you applied for and requested the user permissions over on the requests page?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I have not, but I will right now! I saw on the rollback page that it recommended asking an admin on that was listed, and you happened to be one of them! I will do that right now though, and I really appreciate your advice/help! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 00:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And now I have! 😊 SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 00:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Spf121188 - It looks like congratulations are in order! :-D I'm happy to see that your request was granted. Remember that it's very important that you take care to demonstrate that you can use the tool appropriately, within policy, and that you do so consistently. Using rollback in a fast pace, across many articles and pages quickly, or at a high rate of speed is absolutely not important at all (if anything, it would likely be viewed unfavorably by others, who would argue that this demonstrates carelessness). Demonstrate consistent proper use of the tool and for edits that fall within the policies allowing its use. If you run into any questions regarding rollback, its appropriate and inappropriate use, or if you're not sure whether or not using rollback is appropriate in a certain situation, don't be a stranger! I'll be more than happy to answer your questions, provide you with input and guidance, and help you with anything that you need. ;-) Again, congratulations! Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you again! I really appreciate your help and guidance! If I need help or have any questions, I will certainly reach out! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 12:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Spf121188 - No problem! Just don't go abusing your new toy, okay? At least wait until all the mods are asleep first. :-P Well, you know where I am if you need anything... ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Rocknrollmancer - Okay, I'll check it out in the morning and get back to you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rocknrollmancer - Received and replied. Sorry for the delay.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

User:207.157.204.108 definitely needs a long block
Hi. Since you previously blocked user 207.157.204.108, I'm asking you to impose a longer block. That IP's talk page is filled with repeated block warnings and blocks for persistent disruptive editing, which continued after your block, the violation being this edit. Can you impose a longer block? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One year enough? Last school block was in 2019 for year. Indef seems too much. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * BusterD - Never indefinitely block an IP address. Ever. If the IP or range needs a very long block (in rare cases), set the block to expire in 10 years. Eventually, even if static, the IP will change over a long time. Use your judgment to determine how long that may be so that it can be reviewed, but never block indefinitely. We do have IP addresses that are indefinitely blocked. Many are mistakes and I actually go through logs, find them, and fix that. Only in extremely rare and specific cases have we indefinitely blocked an IP or range - I'm talking like maybe 5 or 6 times in the history that I've been here. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * BusterD - Oh, and thanks for responding and taking care of this! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Back when I was an admin, I imposed blocks on IPs for up to two or three years, after single-year blocks expired and resulted in resumed vandalism. I did this after observing that other admins imposed such blocks ad needed. Thanks for your help, guys! Nightscream (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nightscream - Good times... ;-) You're welcome; always happy to help!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Hi GraminGardy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope that you're doing well, and I appreciate the baklava! I actually don't believe that I've ever tried baklava before... I wonder what it tastes like... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)