User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2022-05

User:Wikiazeus
Hallo Ohswah, sorry to trouble you. Would you be so kind as to take a look at the conversation I am having right now with E.Imanof? If there is a misunderstanding somewhere down the road, I think there should be a possibility for this blocked user to explain. Since the username is referring to Wikia, it would not surprise me if there indeed is a confusion. As is blocked here, there is little he can do to solve this, hence my question to remedy if at all possible. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Lotje! I hope you're doing well! :-) Thanks for leaving me a message here regarding your request. Did you mean to link me to this editor's user talk page on az-wiki, or did you mean to link me to somewhere else? Are you perhaps talking about this discussion, or maybe this discussion between you and the user on az-wiki? I don't see that you've made any recent edits to E.Imanoff's user talk page here on en-wiki... I just need to get clarification as to exactly what conversation or discussion you'd like me to take a look at, and get some context from you about the discussion, what's going on, and your thoughts regarding the user "to explain". If you could provide me with a bit more information, that would help me a lot, and I'd be happy to take a look and provide you with my input and thoughts. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine, thank you, hope you are doing well too. The talk is on E.Imanoff page about . Lotje (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lotje - I think we're looking at the small picture here compared to this user's overall conduct that spans over multiple projects across the WMF. The user is indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia for numerous instances of creating sock puppet accounts over the last 1-2 years. The list of accounts that we've confirmed to have been created by and belong to this user is here. Their SPI archive page is also another place you should look through. They're also indefinitely blocked on the Russian Wikipedia (ru-wiki) for the exact same thing. Also, check out some discussions on this user's talk page on az-wiki that don't add up, such as this one, this one, as well as their unblock request on this project here. If an explanation down the road becomes necessary, there's an appropriate avenue that can be used, but I don't see it as likely. The reason that this article was deleted was because it was created by this user while in violation of Wikipedia's sock puppetry and block evasion policies. It almost exclusively has been edited by sock puppet accounts (I looked through the deleted article's history). I understand that you want to help other users, and perhaps help this user, but their SPI reports and similar pages speak clearly and strongly. This user is in this particular situation due to repeated policy violations spanning over a year. It's a situation that this user caused themselves and put themselves into, and not just here. If the article subject were truly notable, an article certainly would exist by now, and written by editors who aren't indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. This is my honest advice to you: I know that you mean well by trying to respond to and help this user, but you're wasting your time. If they want to legitimately and properly appeal their blocks and provide an explanation for the behavior or prove why the blocks are a mistake, they can refer to the relative block notices left on the user's talk pages on how to do this. I'd steer the user down those paths and move on. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions or assist you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to help you! :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Oshwah, for taking the time to go deeper into this. I sincerely hope and all their sockpuppets realize that Wikipedia is not the right place to achieve their goal. I would recommand them to do their thing at Wikia. As for the article related to Nijat Rahimov (the actor): since there is wikidata  that might very well do for the time being. Once again, thank you very much. Have a nice day (or night)  Lotje (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lotje - No problem! Please don't be a stranger if I can help you with anything else. I'll be more than happy to lend you my input, thoughts, assistance, whatever you need! :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

need to known and need help
hello bro,I am did not known about (I T)and I am not are vip person.i m working privately I just to known maybe someone ask you to changed my device or data?because almost my device and data always stolen by someone persecute my self.what I see in my cellphone almost in my content setting they given blok it mean if I touching it didnt respon. my chrome cannot updated.i dont known how to given it normal back.when format my phone all together having word said cannot format.but they arbitrarily deleted the contents of my mobile phone and kept their former hacking put in my mobile phone store.what I am angry when I write email they cut and back to screen menu.i need find someone can help me and I want teach from that person who can help me recovery my privacy.it happen from 2016 untill today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.33.94 (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I think I understand what you're asking, but I won't be 100% sure due to our language barrier and word translation quality. If you're having device, data, privacy, content, and other issues - I'd either reset your phone back to its original factory settings (as if you are powering it on for the very first time), or purchase and replace your mobile device with a new one. From what you stated in your message, the problem started in 2016. Assuming that this is a device-specific issue, it sounds like your device is at least 6+ years old. Without knowing any specific information about your device, network, carrier, local laws and customs, and any personal/legal issues that apply to you, these are the only two solutions that I can suggest, unfortunately. I wish you well, and I hope that this response is helpful to you. Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Philip Field (musician)
Hi, I'm just looking for someone to look over my draft and maybe give suggestions on improving my chances for acceptance. It was declined at first and is now in revew. I've made a lot of edits and I'm still researching and editing. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks!

Link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Philip_Field_(musician)

MizButlah (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi MizButlah, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your request for input and assistance with the draft page that you created. I took some time and made some improvements to the draft's content, citations, formatting, and sentence and word use. You can see all of the changes I made by clicking here. However, despite these changes and improvements, the main issue that's causing your draft page to be declined doesn't involve what is or isn't currently on the draft page at all... Keep reading, I'll explain shortly. :-)


 * I think that you have a good start with the draft subject's overall content, career, and discography - you've definitely established that Philip Field has a credible claim of significance (making it ineligible for A7 of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion if it were to be published now). However, the issue that we're lacking here is notability - mainly Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.


 * To explain: Editors must show that the subject or topic of a given article (in this case, it would be Philip Field) is notable. How do you do that? By demonstrating that the article subject or topic has received in  that are  and . To overcome this obstacle that is keeping you from having your draft approved and published as an article, you'll want to review and understand Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. In short, this requirement isn't taking into account the quality of the article itself, but the availability of secondary reliable sources that can be researched and found (either on the internet, in print media, etc) and that provide primary coverage (not just passing mention in one-or-two sentences) of the article subject, which would be Philip Field.


 * Basically, what you should be doing is searching through Google or other good search engines, and locate reliable sources that provide primary coverage about Philip Field - not album lists that mention his name once or twice, not pages taken from his official website (or his affiliates), pages that primarily talk about Philip Field. The availability of these kinds of references will be exactly what will determine the notability of Philip Field, and whether or not this subject should have their own article.


 * Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Good luck, and keep me updated with what you find and what ends up happening! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to review my draft and for your invaluable (and extensive) input and advice. Your clarification is very helpful, since I plan to propose other musical artists for Wikipedia articles. As for Philip Field, it is unfortunate that much of his stellar earlier work was overshadowed in the media. I can only hope that his lengthy career (40+ years and counting!) and numerous noteworthy achievements and collaborations will be sufficient to merit his inclusion here. At any rate, I will continue to edit the draft and search for more notable mentions.  I'll let you know how it turns out. Thanks again!  MizButlah (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have an awesome and invaluable attitude and mindset regarding your draft, as well as your plans to create other drafts in order to help expand Wikipedia. Yes, definitely keep me up-to-date, and please don't be a stranger if I can be of any assistance to you. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand! :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Failed login attempts
Hey Oshwah! So just now, someone has been attempting to log into my account unsuccessfully (i'm not necessarily concerned about someone getting into my account as I'm fairly sure my password is strong enough it would take many many many years to guess, however seeing the notifications gives me some anxiety because my mind always just goes to "What if they get lucky by just entering a random string of text?"). I'm wondering if it would be possible for a CU to possible see who's trying to do this and do something to stop them. I'm not asking for you to tell me who it is (because really, I don't care). I'm simply wondering if someone who is a CU could possibly stop them, which is why I'm asking you since you are a CU. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Blaze Wolf - Not to worry. I get these emails and notifications all the time and quite frequently. As long as you have a strong password, that will absolutely help with account safety. Another security option I recommend users turn on is the option that requires a user to enter both your username and your account's confirmed primary email address before the MediaWiki will allow for a password reset email to be sent. You can change this in your preferences under email options. If you're not in a user group that grants you the ability to enable and use 2FA/MFA, I would go here and click on the link that takes you to where you can request access to it. When you're granted access to MFA, enable it and turn it on. If you do those two additional things, I will give you a 99.99% guarantee that your account will not get hacked or compromised by someone in the wild. :-)


 * Unfortunately, while I could pull checkuser logs for attempts to log into accounts, there wouldn't be anything I could do to stop it - even if I know the network or range that's doing it. Blocks do not prevent the ability for one to log into an account, and even locks applied by a Steward only apply to an account, which only prevents users from logging into that account. It doesn't stop someone from logging into someone else's account. Uh huh... See how much that sucks? Now you're probably starting to see how and why this whole LTA and sock puppetry nonsense can become a nice sore pain in the you-know-where... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Oshwah! Thanks for getting back to me. That's kinda unfortunate that while you technically can see who's trying to log into my account, there's nothing that can be done about it. As much as I Don't like 2FA (I only use it for 2 accounts, Discord and Epic Games), that might be a wise option. I don't think I've received any password reset emails (and if I do I might just send those to my spam folder) but I will certain change that preference. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Blaze Wolf - You bet! Yeah, it really is unfortunate... There should be a block option for IP addresses or ranges (maybe open only to checkusers) that would disable their ability to log into any account for the duration of their block. I guess autoblocks kind of do this, but it only works when an autoblocked IP edits from an account during the next 24 hours - it doesn't stop any kind of login attempts. The autoblock only assumes that the blocked IP user already had an account, and is trying to evade it. There's no setting that blocks all login attempts and makes the assumption that the IP address or range potentially has access to compromised accounts - maybe start a proposal? ;-) Anyways, I would take note of the attempts, but I wouldn't worry too much about them.


 * I know that 2FA/MFA can be quite annoying to have to implement and use, but I will tell you this: Absolutely use it! I stand by it 100%! When you get used to using it, it's really not that bad and it only takes a few extra seconds to log in. :-) My career is computer-related, and I can tell you from both professional and personal experience that implementing 2FA/MFA is extremely important. I've helped both clients and personal friends who have had their accounts stolen, and they all regretted not implementing 2FA/MFA because of what happened. All of the clients that I've helped implement 2FA/MFA company-wide have had zero account compromises since doing so. I have a close friend that had an ex-boyfriend of hers log into her account with her password, and he did absolutely horrible things out of revenge for breaking up with him. He stole her other passwords, her account information, her online contacts, a lot of things. It made her absolutely miserable, and she had to spend countless hours fixing and recovering from it all. Don't learn the hard way! Implement 2FA/MFA on all of your accounts! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   13:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is any technical way to prevent a user from an IP address from logging into an account if they're blocked. I wouldn't know since I haven't been IP banned on any platform that uses an account (besides Fandom, and even then I could still log into my accounts, but not create a new one). If there is then maybe it should be implemented. Maybe if someone is so persistent they have to do a captcha, and if they fail to get the right password, they'll be unable to enter a password for a set period of time (similar to how mobile devices do it with passcodes, which can end up with you getting locked out for millions of years because a 3 year old tried getting into your iPad I know I heard that story somewhere before ). I don't exactly know what would be technically possible to do. Many things can be theoretically possible, but might be technically impossible to implement. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * my record is 17 notifications for failed logins in one day. I didn't think I was that popular. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already had much worse. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lee Vilenski - 17 notifications in one day isn't bad at all... ;-) I'll usually get about 30 notifications when someone tries to break into my account. ;-) No, I'm not bragging... I actually find it annoying when all of those emails blow up my phone in the middle of the night... I guess it's better than having no notifications at all, though...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not the snooker articles, definitely the reality TV people. Bracing for the inevitable co-ordinated attack when I finally fix up all of the tables in the Survivor articles. I have no idea why they like this so much!
 * 30 seems a lot more like someone worth breaking into! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jokes on me - someone thought it would be funny to try 360 times after writing this. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I once got a notification that someone tried over 2000 times. Usually after I click "Mark as read" it changes to "Multiple attempts". ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Blaze Wolf—Fastily has a great browser tool here that can demonstrate the strength of a given password. Keep in mind that the site tells you not to enter your own password, and I don't recommend you doing that either, but if you do, I'd recommend for the "10B attempts/second aggressive attacker" row to be at least one day, so that you can change your password accordingly.
 * Also, @Lee Vilenski—WP:BEANS strikes again! — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, ——, some wise-guy thought it would be smart to try and do it 165 times. Next time, myself, don't go into threads like these… — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 19:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to hide edit filter logs?
See []. I think this is self-explanatory. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnnyconnorabc! Happy Friday, and thanks for leaving me a message with your question! While the WMF has been working on improving and expanding the ability for edit filter logs to be managed in regards to visibility, as of the time of this writing, administrators do not have the ability to rev del individual edit filter logs - simply because this would require major modification and reworking of the RevisionDeletion code, and they just haven't done so yet. As of the time of this writing, only an oversighter can hide edit filter logs from public view, and the... tool... that we have to hide these logs do not give us any wiggle room as far as what we can set or do. As of right now, there is only one button that I have access to in order to hide an edit filter log. If I turn it 'ON', the entire edit filter log is suppressed and hidden from administrator and public view. If I turn it back 'OFF', the edit filter log, in its entirety, is completely public again. No joke, that's all we get right now.


 * Only recently did the WMF deploy an update to the ability for oversighters to manage visibility options on edit filter logs. The interface allows you to select individual logs and then apply changes to those selected filters (it's just like how we can manage revisions and other logs). This was only recently deployed, and thank goodness, too! Before then, we had to open each and every abuse filter log and turn the button on to suppress that filter, and do so one-at-a-time. So, if an LTA caused 80+ edit filter logs to be generated that needed to be suppressed, I eventually got it down to where I'd be able to have them all suppressed in about 25-30 minutes. ;-)


 * In short, my answer to you is: Yes, kind of, but the system is absolutely bare and gives us no leeway or options at all. This edit obviously doesn't require suppression, though I could likely get away with suppressing it under oversight policy #5, "Removal of vandalism. Suppression may be occasionally used to remove vandalism for which removal by normal administrative measures is insufficient." I'm not in the mood to push my luck today, though... The tools are supposedly in development; the WMF hasn't (to my knowledge, at least) published any kind of timeline in regards to when this will be reformed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh. Thanks. The WMF sure could use their mountains of donations received for developing of these tools though. Especially considering their similarly mountain-sized expenses. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnnyconnorabc - No problem; always happy to help! Fear not... the WMF has a dedicated team (the anti-harassment team), who focuses all of their time toward building better tools so that we can combat this kind of abuse. I know some of them, and they actually do work hard to build, expand, and improve the project in this very area and with the resources that they have. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you take a look again at the previous revert?
An IP user said on User_talk:194.146.158.194, User:Bradley 789 is a sock of an LTA, could you take a look on their edits? PAVLOV (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi PAVLOV, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your request. When you refer to "their edits", I assume that you're asking me to take a look at the edits by and see if they are a sock of ? This SPI report archive on Shingling334 (here) extends many years and across many user accounts. If there's legitimate evidence of sock puppetry, they need to file a report at SPI and with actual evidence. What you're seeing on this IP user's talk page is a span of disruptive edits that I've seen recently occur and across many ranges over the last few hours about the exact same thing. For example, see this range's contributions. Please have the user file an SPI report, and please let me know if I can be of further assistance. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   13:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I filed an SPI against that IP user. Is it correct? PAVLOV (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, the IP user is blocked currently, so they seemed couldn't file any SPI report. PAVLOV (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PAVLOV - Wait, woah, woah, hold on for a moment... You filed an SPI report? Against who? What evidence do you have? You shouldn't just file an SPI report because an IP user is making an accusation on their user talk page without any kind of evidence ;-)... If you've already filed it, let me know. Do you have much experience with sock puppetry and SPI? Let me know; I'll be happy to help you if you need it. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I filed an SPI against that IP user. Because his self-confession of being a sock. But it was deleted as misfiled.
 * I don't have much experience with WP:SPI， I have filed some reports against duck socks but some SPI requests of mine seemed poor. Where should I go to get more knowledge about SPI? PAVLOV (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PAVLOV - I don't see anywhere on the IP's user talk page where they confessed to being a sock puppet. Can you point me to exactly where they stated this? Did they say this and then modify or remove that statement later? From what I read, the IP user stated that "Bradley 789 is a sock puppet of shingling334 spreading ethno [sic] nationalist POV stuff all over eikiepdia [sic]". That isn't a confession... This is likely why your SPI report was deleted as being "misfiled". ;-)


 * Sure, I'll be happy to link you to some important pages regarding SPI and how to become proficient in this area! :-) If you want to learn more about SPI, there are a few pages that I can point you to that you should absolutely read through and understand. The first one is Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry. You obviously should know what is and is not illegitimate sock puppetry before you file any SPI reports. :-) From there, I'd read through this page on "the duck test", and from there I'd read through Wikipedia's guide to filing SPI reports. Once you've read through and completely understand these policies and guidelines, I'd finish by familiarizing yourself with this essay, a very in-depth and detailed explanation as to how you should look for and compile evidence to prove that sock puppetry is occurring. Becoming proficient and demonstrating your knowledge with all of these pages I linked you to is absolutely paramount if you wish to become a master with sock puppetry-related matters. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Let me know how you're doing after reading through some of those pages! I'm happy to help explain things if you find any concepts or policies hard to understand. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Page creation
Do you create pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simeon Chukwudi Oleh (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Simeon Chukwudi Oleh! Were you trying to ask if I create pages? Or were you trying to ask for help with how to create a page? If you meant the latter, I'd check out this help and tutorial page. It will provide you with tools, guidance, and resources to set you up for success so that you can create a great article on Wikipedia if it is missing. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

IP 191.102.107.234
You may wish to go through their contributions. While all of their edits have been reverted, some of their edits included mentions of killing, in the summary, the edit itself, or both. Obviously just trolling, but still. Just to let you know. Amaury • 04:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Amaury - ✅. Also, thanks for reverting all of that nonsense... Much appreciated! ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Glad I caught it. The only reason I caught it is because they edited 's talk page, which is on my watchlist. Amaury • 04:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Amaury - Hey, at least you caught it! I was casually looking at logs, and I happened to see this IP flooding the abuse live feed that I have up. By then, I figured that this user was long blocked and that I was late to the party. As it turned out, I was wrong... And I immediately proceeded to press the "big nuclear button" and put a kibosh to the trolling. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, the super top secret administrator surveillance system. I mean, uh, what secret surveillance system? ;) Amaury • 04:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Amaury - Exactly! Shhhhhh.... It's super secret! I'm bound by a pinky-swear and a double-doggie promise not to talk about it! As you obviously know, there's a pretty serious level of consequences if you're found to have broken both a pinky-swear and a double-doggy promise. What would happen to me if I did that... unfathomable. I don't think anyone would find the body. :-P  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

What to do in this situation...
Hi Oshwah! I was going to add this to my thread above, but I wanted to know what to do in a situation where I leave a message on someone's talk page, and they leave this response. Seems a little inappropriate, but I've never gotten a comment quite like that lol. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 15:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, what I normally do is just ignore them, don't feed the trolls. If they start harassing you, just report and move on. Take it as a complement, that's what I do! Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (Talk) (Contributions) 16:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , haha that's a good way to look at it! I appreciate the response/feedback! I'll keep that in mind, and I'll report if it goes further. Thanks again!! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 16:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , Glad I could help! Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (Talk) (Contributions) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Spf121188 - The answer above is correct. Completely ignore it as if it didn't happen, and move on. The more you try and react to it, warn the user, or draw attention to it, the more you are just feeding the trolls more and more of that delicious food and giving them exactly what they want. Do the opposite behavior... do whatever possible to assure that their actions don't get any kind of attention, acknowledgement, or reaction at all. If you keep doing this, and don't react directly in response to their abuse, they'll eventually get bored of doing it and move on, since we're not giving them exactly what makes what they're doing fun to them. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you again to both of you! Oshwah, I can't thank you enough for the help and guidance you've provided me. I enjoy being active in WP more and more every day (it helps me fill time during slow recruiting days, but still!) I appreciate you being responsive and helpful! Thank you again and I won't be a stranger! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 23:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Spf121188 - You're awesome, your attitude is awesome, we love to have you here, and I hope you take off your jacket and stick around with us for awhile! ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, I'm not going anywhere! Thank you again and I'm sure you'll hear from me again soon! (I'll stop cluttering your talk page now lolz :)) SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 01:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm damn happy to hear that, Spf121188! Damn happy! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Question
I wonder if I could run something by you. At Quincy, Massachusetts, an editor made 70+ edits in a row, each time changing a comma. This is their editing style. Their edits improve the article, but because most of my edits are to US city articles, my watchlist is clogged with these bot-like edits. I suggested to the editor that they copy the text to their sandbox and make corrections there, but no luck. At what point does this become disruptive? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677 - Oh dear! What the?... ugh... sorry, I totally missed answering your question. This message is more than a month old, and I failed to respond to you in a reasonable amount of time. I take full responsibility and I'm very sorry! The answer? Just let the user do their thing. Try and coach them on reading through the article and making changes in one edit. Is it disruptive? I would say no. If each edit is constructive and improves the article, then forget the "rules". Let the user go about their business. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all good. They are actually making very constructive improvements now, in a bot-like way.  Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Regex improvements
Thank you for the improvements to 1094. Most of that is great, but one of the phrases you converted to a regex started throwing a bunch of false positives, so I removed that clause for now; that particular vandal has been dormant for awhile, so it's probably fine. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Ohnoitsjamie! No problem! Sigh... I was afraid that was going to happen... But, it does make sense. Given the conditions, anyone who adds that word would trigger the filter. I agree - I haven't seen that LTA for quite some time - I might just remove it from mine. :-) Let me know if you have any questions or need anything, and you can consider it done! ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The Sock Barnster

 * Hi Iggy the Swan - Thank you for the very large and shiny trophy! I will cherish it and put it on the shelf. :-) I hope you're doing well and that you keep in touch! :-D Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

793/794
Hey, whatever you did to 793 and 794 broke the filters. My user script now shows the filter matching only about 20 of last 100 hits for 793, and only 2 for 794. Maybe  isn't such a good idea there? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Suffusion of Yellow - Weird. I'll take a look...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Suffusion of Yellow - Interesting... The changes I made shouldn't have had a significant impact. I've reverted my changes to both of those filters for now. I'll look into things more in-depth and figure out what's going on. Thanks for the message and for the heads up about this. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Another question :)
Here I am again, crowding your talk page! Lol but I have a question about UAA. I reported (what I thought,) was a profane username here, but I got a message back that said don't report until the user edits. This particular username seemed obviously profane, so I went ahead and reported it. Is there something I missed? I want to make sure I report them when needed and don't want to waste administrators time. Thanks again for your help and input!! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 21:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And as I check again, it looks like that user was blocked, so all is good! Lol it seemed pretty cut and dry to me 😊 I’m sure I’ll talk to you soon! Have a good night!! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Spf121188! That's a great question regarding UAA. Typically, if it's a non-serious violation of Wikipedia's username policy (such as a shared username, or one that represents a business, etc) - you typically will want to warn the user about their username and ask that they change it. Don't report them to UAA unless they edit despite your message. Usernames that are a serious violation of Wikipedia's username policy (such as threatening, violence, grossly insulting or inappropriate), I don't care whether the user has edited or not. Those kinds of usernames have no place here, and they should be reported to UAA. What the line is regarding whether or not the username is a "serious violations" will obviously vary between different administrators; the point is that you should warn users and request that they change their username if the violation isn't serious, and report users if the violation is. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-D Have a great Easter weekend, and I wish you a great day! Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That helps big time! Thank you again for your help, I can't express how much I appreciate your willingness to help and answer questions! I'm enjoying my time on WP more and more each day, fighting vandalism and patrolling recent changes has especially been rewarding, so I'm here to stay! Thanks again and you have a great Easter weekend as well!! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 18:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Spf121188 - You bet. You have an awesome attitude, and it's contagious! Keep doing what you're doing! We're happy to have you here! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * And so it begins.... lol.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Teyora - Development first look!
Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.

You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.

There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature

*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.

All the best, ✨ <span style="font-family:'Roboto',sans-serif;font-weight:300;text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px black;color:black;">Ed  talk!  ✨ 22:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed6767 - That's awesome! Thank you for the message and for letting me know about this. I'm checking it out now and I'll definitely give it a test and let you know of any issues I find! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Oshwah! I'll let you know when it's ready to test :) ✨ <span style="font-family:'Roboto',sans-serif;font-weight:300;text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px black;color:black;">Ed  talk!  ✨ 23:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ed6767 - Yes, please do! I'll be first in line at the door (if you'll have me, of course...)! ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hello Oshwah, I started a discussion at WP:RSN regarding some sources became less reliable over time. I do recognize that all sources are biased. The editors there stated that a source can still be reliable even if it's on the far-left or far-right. For example, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News are considered to a degree to be reliable even though they are badly biased. I was once told that these sources used to be reliable and all they do is publish stories that cater to what their audience is looking for (ex. Anti-Trump and Pro-Trump articles). I've also been told that The New York Times used to be one of the most reliable sources of information, but they are on the far-left and intentionally publish misinformation. I also mentioned that I think The Wall Street Journal is pretty much the only reliable source out there since they state the truth no matter how hard it is. I also mentioned NPR since I have been told they have gone to be far-left in their articles and talks, but the editors just asked what evidence is there to support this. They also did mention that there are sources that used to be reliable, but not anymore (ex. Daily Mail and Newsmax). What's going on here? I appreciate your help. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Interstellarity! Sorry for the delay getting back to you! I only had time to answer your other question, then I had to get back to work. :-)


 * They're asking for evidence (such as links to articles and reports by these sources) that show this bias. My usual recommendation for sources is to use Reuters, and see if you can't find sources from news sites that are not in the United States. Usually, sources from the UK and Europe that cover topics with the United States don't get mixed into politics and bias the way that we do; they usually just state the information and how it might affect them, which is okay. Just keep your eyes peeled and find sites like those. ;-) If you must use a source like Fox News, CNN, etc - my advice for everyone who have asked me about this is to try your best to include sources from more than one of these sites. Fox News (as you probably know) is known for being very "right-wing"; others are very "left-wing". If you include sources to both sites and just state the facts, you'll be okay and you'll do just fine.


 * What they're asking you to do is to provide examples of news articles and journals from these websites to show them exactly what you're talking about. They're reliable, but they are biased - you just have to work through that. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Oshwah and thanks for getting back to me. It looks like based on what you're saying, I should look at sources from outside the US such as Reuters. Based on lists of most unbiased and reliable sources, Reuters is usually listed at the top or near the top. Do you think that US sites can be trusted with basic facts despite their biases? I have been told by some people in my life that these news sites have an agenda like how CNN favors Democrats while Fox News favors Republicans and don't care about reporting factual information. Can these news sources still be trusted with basic facts and do they intentionally deceive their readers? I am not talking about opinions since that is different. I am asking this because I want to make sure that I put in sources that are accurate. For example, I feel like the Wall Street Journal doesn't take sides on a news article or opinion. They just state the truth. Another reason why I am asking this is when I am reading the news, I want to make sure that I'm reading accurate information rather than news sources that intentionally deceive its users. Please let me know your thoughts on this post. Interstellarity (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please let me know when you anticipate writing a followup response to both of my questions. Interstellarity (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interstellarity! I apologize for the delay getting back to you here. I have things going on today, I will get back to you - hopefully this afternoon. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interstellarity - I apologize for such a long delay answering your question here. Life was keeping me very busy. ;-) US media, news, and sources can generally be trusted with stating factual information that is genuine and true, but that's as far as I'd go. I would say to use your judgment in cases where you need sources to support basic information and (for whatever reason) you need to look to CNN, Fox News, NBC News, etc for it. Look at multiple sources in this instance - do each of the sources state the same basic information without bias? Do they match up? If so, then I'd cite each reference stating that same basic information. This assures that you took neutrality into account by retrieving the same information across different sources that tend to bias their information toward opposing political sides. In the end, it all depends on exactly what content you're trying to add and to what article. It's always best to use more than one secondary trustworthy source to support the content that you add, and preferably that your second (or subsequent) reference is diversified from the first. This adds redundancy, assures that the information is both neutral and true, and (if anything) demonstrates and shows that you didn't just run to one news source and are referencing whatever it was that they stated. Does this help answer your question?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it does for the most part, but what if there are multiple sources that do not say the same thing such as whether the 2020 US presidential election was rigged or not? What about those cases? Interstellarity (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your example, to me, wouldn't be considered to be "basic information" or "facts". If different sources are telling you different things, then that's opinion and likely bias. I would certainly consider the statement, "the 2020 US presidential election was rigged" as an opinion. Examples of actual facts or basic information include the number of people injured or killed in a major tragedy or event, the approximate time that a volcano erupted, the magnitude of an earthquake, the quoted statement of an individual or provided on behalf of a company, etc. Do you see what I mean? :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, that’s clear to me. Thank you for answering my question. Interstellarity (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interstellarity - You bet! Sorry it took so long to get back to you... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Linux distributions
Hello again Oshwah, I hope you don't mind me asking a question that is not related to Wikipedia. I currently run Windows and looking into switching to Linux. I am currently taking a Linux class and have learned a lot about the Linux command line. I was wondering if you are familiar with Linux enough to give me a recommendation. If you are, that's great, but if not, don't worry. I would like a distribution that is easy to use and don't have to use the command line all the time although I would use it sometimes (ex. troubleshooting). Interstellarity (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Interstellarity! Indeed I am familiar with Linux and the command line / shell! Ubuntu to me used to be good, but they switched off of the gnome desktop in favor of this UbuntuOne, and I was super disappointed. The last one I played with was Mint, and it worked well for me. Ideally, it's really up to your preference and what you're looking to get out of the interface, features, and what's important to you. I just found that there's a project for a distro called Ubuntu Gnome. I'm intrigued and enough that I might give it a try this weekend. If it's exactly what I'm hoping for, I'd say go for that as your first Linux OS and see if it suits you! You have the flexibility and support of one of the most popular Linux distros, and without the UbuntuOne garbage that turned me away from it. Let me know what you ultimately decide on! I'd be interested to see which one you pick! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interstellarity - Update: Umm, nevermind with the Ubuntu GENOME project. Apparently Ubuntu took back the gnome environment according to the best source in the entire world - this Wiki article! Give Ubuntu a try. I know it's very "user and grandmother friendly", but I'm open to giving it another shot if they dropped (what apparently is now called) the Unity shell. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again,
 * I think Ubuntu still uses the Gnome desktop and according to the wiki article on Ubuntu One, they shut it down back in 2014. In my view, I would continue to use Ubuntu, but I also think Linux Mint is good as well. I've been looking at this article and it's hard to decide since there are hundreds of Linux distributions to choose from. I don't really care what the interface looks like, but I want similar features to what you get with a Windows or a Mac. I would like a distribution that is stable (less likely to crash) and getting the latest and greatest software is not important to me (except the web browser). These are what I'm looking for when it comes to picking a Linux distribution. What distributions come the closest to what I'm looking for in this case? Interstellarity (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interstellarity - Linux Mint Cinnamon is great for this, and I've used Ubuntu, Fedora, and Debian as well. If you're looking for a Linux experience that is stable and "Windows-like" with the interface and options, start with Linux Mint Cinnamon. If you don't like it, try Ubuntu. If you don't like Ubuntu, try Fedora next, and then try Debian (obviously in that order). I think all of them are good as far as stability and app usage experience. When it comes to these areas, I think Mint Cinnamon is the best. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I might go with Ubuntu because one feature that is important to me is the night light. I've used Linux Mint before and their night light is called Redshift. I tried to set it so that at whatever location I'm at, it automatically adjusts the sunrise/sunset location no matter where I travel like in Windows. I asked for help on the forums and they said it is not possible. Ubuntu uses the GNOME night light feature. I would like to know if I'll have the same problem in Ubuntu which does not use Redshift by default. Other than that, I have no other issues with Mint. Interstellarity (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interstellarity - I use f.lux on my Mac workstations for that. Has never failed me. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think your comment above helps too much since it is for a Mac rather than a Linux system. I’m unsure whether Flux is still maintained for Linux. I might give Linux Mint a try again to see if I get the same issue with Redshift. If I do get the issue, I could try the Linux forums or ask you for assistance. Hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interstellarity - I wasn't trying to give a recommendation; I was just telling you that I use a similar program, too. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Shoplooksky (15:00, 19 April 2022)
Hello, I don't know how to start. --Shoplooksky (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Question from Tree link Network (07:40, 22 April 2022)
how to Add me on wikipedia --Tree link Network (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Tree link Network! Welcome to Wikipedia! I don't quite understand your question - can you elaborate? You have an account, which is similar to being "added to Wikipedia", but we don't use a "friend" system here like you would see on social media - remember that Wikipedia is not a social network. If this doesn't answer your question, let me know and I'll be happy to help! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like they would like to create a page on themself or their business on wikipedia, in which case: best not to do so. An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and besides it would be hard to create one due to conflict of interest. happy editing! &#128156; melecie   talk  - 01:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Melecie. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Question from Athiselva (10:52, 23 April 2022)
hi oshwah, myself selva. kindly say about the Wikipedia page approval time period. because this information is more enthetic for me. --Athiselva (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Athiselva! Welcome to Wikipedia! Are you talking about the article for creation process with publishing draft articles? It can take some time before your page is reviewed. Last time I checked, the backlog was quite high and it took at minimum a few weeks before someone will review what you've written. Does this answer your question? Let me know if it doesn't, and I'll be happy to help you further! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sock?
See User:Wizzito Mako001. I suspect sockpuppetry based on the username, though I'm not sure whose sock this is. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnnyconnorabc - Yeah... that account name does ring a bell. Okay, I'll check it out. Thank you for letting me know about this. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Question from Chaudhary Muhammad Waqas Haroon khan on Meo (ethnic group) (08:46, 27 April 2022)
Hello I want to talk with historians of India. You don't know about Meo caste,they were lived Thier millinium of years, they are kashtriya Rajputs from Jaduan Clan. If you don't know so please search the real world history of Hindustan --Chaudhary Muhammad Waqas Haroon khan (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

External links you added to Regulbium
Hi Oshwah

Sorry I have only just seen this. I added the link to http://www.roman-britain.co.uk/places/regulbium/ on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulbium page. The link seemed appropriate and it seems to be there now - is that ok?

Andrew Ashton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.ashtons (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew.ashtons! Let me take a look, and I'll get back to you... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

has an unblock request on. I am totally baffled here. Is there any advice I can offer him? -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Deepfriedokra! I hope you're doing well! Long time no chat! Let me take a look at the UTRS report and I'll give you my recommendation... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see no way of unblocking this person. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Stocks
🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 07:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * EpicPupper - NooOOOooOooooooOOOOOOOooo... What have I done?!! I'm packing my stuff now. Sigh... I need to fake my own death... *again*... because of the mistakes I've made on Wikipedia. I've taped my mop to a mannequin, and I'm going to push her off a bridge into a car. The coroner and the Police are going to match the DNA to the mop to me, so they'll know that it's me. LOL... Do you have any recommendations as to what country I should fly to?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And here I am thinking that a thread titled "Stocks" followed by an edit summary of NooOOOoooOooooooOOOOOooo meant you had just opened your latest brokerage or 401K statement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem - BOTH! I mean... YES, THAT TOO!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel your pain. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A free country, but also a secluded one. I'd recommend Tuvalu, Micronesia, or São Tomé and Príncipe. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 15:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3PPYB6 - Great recommendations; I'll start heading there now. :-P  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well... sh*t happens. But don't despair. All humans make mistakes. However, as you know: It's not the mistake that matters! --CiaPan (talk)
 * CiaPan - Oh yeah, no worries - it's all in good positive spirit and fun. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fresh Trout for you!
See above :) Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (Talk) (Contributions) 14:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The4lines - Looks like a delicious trout! Well, I know what I'm having for dinner tonight... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Indian IPv6 range editing issue
Hi Oshwah, could you take a look at the ANI thread I created? I forgot to put ANI notices and the thread hasn't gotten much attention, but it lists a serious issue about talk page vandalism from multiple Indian IPv6 ranges, in which you were a blocking admin for one of them. Thanks! — <b style="color:#29F">B.</b> <b style="color:red">L.</b> <b style="color:#080">I.</b> <b style="color:#808">R.</b> 01:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi BeywheelzLetItRip! I apologize for the delay responding to your request. It looks like an administrator has added the talk namespace to the IP range's partial block. If this doesn't resolve the issue, let myself (and them!) know so that we can take a look and get the matter handled. If you need anything else, let me know and I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I have thoroughly messed up something important
First I didn't make an RfC where I should have made one, and then I made an RfC in the wrong place, and I don't know how to fix the mess I have made. Here are two of the places where mess exists now:
 * At RSN, where I should have made one but didn't: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * On the article talk page, where I made one that I should have made instead at RSN: Talk:New_Eastern_Outlook

This is important because: in 2019 there was an RfC to deprecate fake news websites. But in 2019, it wasn't yet clear that New Eastern Outlook (NEO) is a disinformation site run by Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, and in fact it still presents itself as a publication by Russia's Academy of Sciences. So it is still cited in articles.

Apparently I should have made the RfC at the RSN page, in some special way with a double loop and extra sauce as a proposal to deprecate NEO. But it's all tangled up now, and if the wonderful Oshwah and crew can fix my mess, I will be very grateful and Wikipedia will benefit. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi HouseOfChange! Thanks for leaving me a message here about this, and I apologize for the delay responding to you. I took a look at the talk page discussion you started, and it looks like Redrose64 has already resolved the issue. Is everything resolved now, or do you still need assistance with this? Let me know. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Oshwah. Taking Redrose64's advice, I created a new RfC at RSN. Can you please check if that one works? That would be a big help, if you have time. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * HouseOfChange - Looks okay to me... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Emails
Hi Oshwah, let me know if you haven't received the most recent email I sent you. I think the first time I did it, I sent it the wrong way and it might've gotten lost. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doc Strange - Just received it! I'll take a look at it tonight when I get home from the office. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation :) Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 19:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Doc Strange - Sorry for the delay responding to you. This week was busy with a lot of work, and I have things going on yesterday and through part of today that I need to complete. You'll see a response from me today, most likely this evening. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Keane80 on Zonovan Knight (00:53, 7 May 2022)
Hi, how do I change the sections like Born, or Career Highlights to different colors? I’m trying to make it a certain green. --Keane80 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Keane80, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you're looking to edit the information inside an infobox, you can simply edit the page, locate the information you'd like to edit, and modify it. If you're using the VisualEditor, it should be as easy as clicking on "Edit", and just changing the information. :-) The colors and style of an infobox are generally determined by community discussion and consensus, and they shouldn't be modified without a discussion and a good reason to do so. If you refer to this section of Wikipedia's manual of style, it will provide you with more information and context.


 * Since you're new here, I'd focus on learning the basics of Wikipedia, its operation, how it works, basic policies and guidelines, etc. Become proficient and familiar in those basic areas before moving onto more advanced topics and content. Have you seen Wikipedia's getting started page? Have you gone through and completed Wikipedia's new user tutorial? By making sure that you're proficient in basic areas before moving on, it prevents you from accidentally skipping or missing any basic policies that are very important to understand and while you're new. Wikipedia has a lot of policies, guidelines, and cultural courtesies and norms. When you start jumping into more advanced topics, you'll find that there's even more relevant policies, guidelines, etc... If you jump too quickly, you'll be guaranteed to miss important concepts and you'll eventually find yourself overwhelmed, frustrated, in hot water, discouraged, or a combination of those things. I've seen users do this many times, and it's a very rough pit to climb yourself out of once you've fallen in. ;-)


 * Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! We're glad to have you here! I hope that you take off your jacket and stay with us for awhile! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Link visit
You may want to look at this page. Can you check if these edits are constructive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_in_California

Thanks, 2601:205:C002:D1E0:51A9:AB3F:2ECB:67D9 (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! The previous two edits made by you to this article, where you add the content "This is the best thing in exisistance [sic]", is not constructive. Please take the warnings on your talk page to heart, and please let me know if I can do anything to assist you. Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Question:
Can you accept this edit request?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_9_May_2022

Thank you, --2601:205:C002:D1E0:D11:AA22:BE7:46C1 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I responded to your edit request on the article's talk page. The information you added should be in the body of the article, not in the lead paragraph, since it would generally be expected that you provide references to reliable sources that support this information. Don't worry, though! It's not a big deal! If that information isn't in the body of the article, and if you have one or more references to reliable sources supporting that information, just file another edit request to have it added to the appropriate section within the body of the article, and someone (or myself) will be happy to take a look. ;-) Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Cheers!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Andy Orchard BLP vios continue
Please take a look. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Thanks for the heads up! I've blocked the user. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Question:
Can you check the talk page of California one more time? Someone added more suggestions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California

Thank you. --2601:205:C002:D1E0:7512:D672:921A:33F8 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Sure! I'll be busy until tonight, and I'll try and take a look at it then. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:N1ggab4lsdeluxx
See user talk page history. Talk page access may need to be revoked. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnnyconnorabc - It looks like the user said their words and then walked away. They haven't repeated this action since. For now, I'm just going to hold off. If the user resumes to causing disruption on their own talk page, please let me know and I'll be happy to take that avenue of disruption and close the gate. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to rejoin ACC
Hello Oshwah. About 4 years ago |you removed me from the Account Creation interface due to inactivity. At the time you said I can message you if I was ever interested in rejoining and you would restore my access. Well, I have become a bit more active again and would like to rejoin ACC.

At this time I do not want my account creator userright, only access to the ACC interface.

And if you are unable to restore my access, then I understand completely. Thank you. SkyWarrior 21:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi SkyWarrior! Thanks for reaching out to me! Sure, I'll be happy to get you hooked back up! Give me a little bit to cross some wires, push a few buttons, and twist some knobs, and I'll let you know when your account is reinstated. :-) Stand by...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! SkyWarrior  23:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * SkyWarrior - Can you verify that you are subscribed to the ACC mailing list and let me know what your subscription and mailing list account status is? You're also free to simply email me with the email address that you use for Wikipedia communication and registration, and I can just do all of that for you, or (if you'd rather) you can re-subscribe by clicking here, logging in, and by re-subscribing or re-registering. Thanks! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will email you shortly. SkyWarrior  00:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * SkyWarrior - Received and replied. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting, in case you haven't seen my email, that I have signed the new confidentiality agreement. SkyWarrior  01:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi SkyWarrior - I apologize for such a delayed response to you! I've been very busy; work has been hectic lately, but has finally calmed down a bit. :-) Were you able to get your access reinstated? Or do I still need to finish that process for you? Let me know! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: SkyWarrior, I went and checked, and it looks like you're still waiting on an ACC tool admin to get you re-instated. I'm doing this right now! Stand by... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: SkyWarrior - You should be all set. See the message I left on your user talk page, as well as the email I just sent you. Let me know if you need anything else. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Oshwah. Just confirming that I now have access to the tool. SkyWarrior  01:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry
My edit to the wikipedia page was a mistake; I accidentally clicked "edit" and couldn't find my way back to the regular wikipedia page. I may have unknowingly typed something as I did so. I'm glad you have fixed it, thank you. Sorry again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.157.78 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, but I appreciate your message and your kind words nonetheless. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"> 47.227.95.73 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}.

Thank you for blocking those abusive IP's, as well as for making many constructive and anti-vandal edits! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! It's good to see you again! Thank you for taking the time to get me this cute little kitten, and for your very kind words. I appreciate it greatly. If you run into anything that needs my attention, or if you need help with anything, please don't be a stranger! You know where my talk page is; feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to help! :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hello (again) Oshwah! I wanted to drop a quick note and say thank you for removing some obvious vandalism from my talk page, as well as the edit summaries (there was was some obvious sock accounts doing the same exact thing.) Either way, I greatly appreciate it and I look forward to seeing you around! Have an awesome rest of your day! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 15:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Spf121188! No problem; I'm always happy to have your back, and I'm always happy to lend a hand! ;-) I look forward to the same, I'll see you out on the battlefield, and I wish you the same! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While I'm here... I have one random question. I see here that you soft-blocked the said account because the username obviously gave the impression that it represents a business. In this particular instance, I only left a message on their talk page letting them know their username might be against policy, rather than reporting them to UAA. I only didn't do it in this case because I'd been told by other admins in the past that I need to wait for them to make their first edit before reporting them. Was this particular case one where I should have reported them? I just want to make sure I understand it correctly so I don't waste anyones time :) Thanks again as always for your help and for just being awesome! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 19:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Spf121188! No problem; always happy to help! :-) In this case, just leave a note on the user's talk page just like you did. If you've left a message on the user's talk page pointing out Wikipedia's username policy and asking them to change their username, don't also go and report the username to UAA. Admins there do not like to see users both adding a warning asking the user to change their username and reporting the user to UAA. For non-blatant violations of UPOL, leave a message. For blatant violations of Wikipedia's username policy that are obviously bad-faith and where the user needs to be blocked based on their username, definitely report them to UAA. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No subject
Hey Oshwah! I put in my password in on wikipedia and it said it was wrong. I copied and pasted it and it was right. I've been grinding for a while on looking at wikipedia pages and editing my sandbox. My user is TheRandomMan12345 and I believe someone hacked me and changed my password. Can you just change it again and give me the new pass here? Thanks. Sincerely,TheRandomMan12345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReapyReaps (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ReapyReaps! I triggered a password reset email to be sent to your mailbox. Check your mail and see if it arrived, and then follow the instructions there to get back into your account. Good luck, and have a great weekend! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, can you move this page?
I was looking at the new pages feed when I noticed that a user accidentally placed their sandbox into article space. Tried to move it to the proper spot, but the page is protected so that only interface admins can move it. I noticed you were one of those, so can you help? Thanks! Helen (💬📖) 16:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies; it has just been taken care of. :) Helen (💬📖) 17:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * HelenDegenerate - Don't be sorry! I'm glad that it's done! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

how to post
Hi i want to create a wikipedia page for my father, I want to know how to do that, on reading i found you have to pay the authors for writing a page. If i dont want to do that, cant i do it on my own. if yes how can i do it, is there any tutorial available for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poonam.ss (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Poonam.ss - If anyone, anywhere is asking you pay them to create an article for you, do not do so! You'll find yourself ripped off and scammed out of money and for no positive benefit at all. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are very clear when it comes to articles and what should or should not become one. The person must be notable and meet those guidelines. You also have a conflict of interest with the person that you wish to write about - that's not good. We heavily discourage users from writing or even contributing to articles where they have a personal conflict of interest with. It basically makes it impossible for them to write the article with a neutral point of view mindset, so don't do it! Also, remember that original research (where you cite yourself and your relationships, experience, or even your published works) do not qualify as reliable here. If your father is notable, then someone will have surely written an article about them and without your need of assistance. Please read through all of the links that I provided in this message, and if you still think that your father should have an article here, you can add that person to the list of requested articles. Please let me know if you have any questions about the policies and guidelines that I've listed in my response to you here, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

userpage deleted
Hi Oshwah,

I recently created a profile page for myself. I see this has been deleted. Can you share details why? Also how do I create a Wikipedia page for myself? Any guidelines? Appreciate your help and guidance

regards, anjali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjaliprakashrao (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, - just taking a look at the situation, and I see your user page was deleted under criterion U5. What this means is that your user page consisted of information or writings not closely linked to Wikipedia's goals; I can't see what you wrote myself, but chances are it was in the style of a social media/LinkedIn page? I'm afraid neither of these writing styles or formats are appropriate for a user page on Wikipedia. I hope this answers your question; feel free to create the page again, this time in accordance with our guidelines. Patient Zerotalk 05:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Anjaliprakashrao! I apologize for such a delay responding to your question here. Patient Zero pretty much hit the nail on the head; Wikipedia is not a social network, and it is not for hosting people's own social pages or data. If you are notable, someone will undoubtedly create an article about you. Otherwise, you definitely should not create your own page. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Welcome to Wikipedia!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding new section
Can you take a look at this draft? It got rejected for no reason whatsoever. But this draft is also funny.

--2601:205:C002:D1E0:984B:901A:3305:1EBE (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! The draft that you pointed me to here was deleted under G3 of Wikipedia's criterion for speedy deletion. I hope that you're not surprised that this page was deleted; it doesn't have any encyclopedia value at all. Regardless, please let me know if you have any further questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

He's Back
Hi Wugapodes, that persistent disruptive editing person is back again using 2603.6011.DF01  his latest was the Jersey City Fire Department page. Please assist. Thank you, Doriden (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I meant Oshwah Doriden (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Doriden! I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. This is actually the user talk page of Oshwah (me), not Wugapodes. If you'd rather reach out to this user directly instead of me, you can click here to navigate to the correct page. :-) I took a look at the IP user, and they've since been blocked for three months for continued disruption and the addition of unreferenced trivia to articles. Please let me know if the user returns and causes further disruption under a different IP address range, and I'll be happy to take care of it. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem Oshwah, he's been blocked.  Everything is going well.  No worries.   Thank you, Doriden (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Doriden - Awesome; that's good to hear. Should you see the user return, just let me know. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Reekrace (18:08, 21 May 2022)
Hallo! I'm reekrace, I want to help Wikipedia. I just have a question about formatting articles, I've never understood it. --Reekrace (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Reekrace, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to join us, and I'm happy that you're here! :-) Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay responding to your question and your request for help here. Work has been very busy, and I've been preoccupied with a lot of different life matters and obligations... Oh, the fun things that come with being an adult... ;-).


 * Regarding the formatting of articles and your request for help: Your question about the "formatting of articles" is... quite broad, and it could be referring to a lot of things regarding Wikipedia. In fact, the subject on "formatting" itself is so wide that it even has its own guidelines and sub-guidelines, so on and so forth... This is all detailed in Wikipedia's manual of style, by the way. ;-)


 * In order to answer your questions and help you with exactly what you're confused about, can you elaborate further regarding your understanding (or lack of) regarding the "formatting of articles"? Are there any specific questions that you have? What exactly about the formatting of articles do you not understand? Is it how articles are organized in general? How the sections within an article are organized? Or perhaps how paragraphs, text, and information should be formatted and written? Any additional information that you can provide regarding your exact confusion will be helpful. :-)


 * Thanks for taking the time to reach out to me. Again, I want to offer to you my most sincere welcome! I hope that you decide to pull up a chair, take off your jacket, and stay awhile! We'd love to have you as a member of our community! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

[//utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/58740 UTRS appeal #58740]
Can you help this poor, lost soul? Best, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 15:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Deepfriedokra! I apologize for the extreme delay responding to your request here. I've been... quite busy lately with work and... being an adult... You know, those... "fun" responsibilities that everyone's always talking about... ;-) I just checked the UTRS appeal, and it looks like it's since been denied. Again, I'm sorry for being so late to the party. However, if you run into any more UTRS appeals that you think could use my guidance in order to steer it toward a right and proper closure, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be more than happy to take the wheel and do what's needed in order to help. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * no porblem. we all have lies -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * LIVES. we have LIVES -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Deepfriedokra - LOL, I mean... you're not wrong either way... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * too tired. getting silly. cannot stop laughing. DMacks fault on chat. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Urplacetravelandtours
You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Cahk! Long time no chat! I hope you're doing well and that life is treating you nicely. :-) I apologize for the delay responding to your message here. There's been a lot of... "fun" in my life that's been keeping me preoccupied like crazy, and things are just now calming down a bit. :-) Oh yeah... Revoking TPA was definitely justified at the time you messaged me (and I'm sorry that I wasn't there to respond and handle it right away).


 * Since weeks have gone by since the user last edited, the justification has long become stale. This is when I'd usually respond to you and let you know that revoking TPA is no longer needed, and that we can simply move on. However, after looking at the date that the account was created and blocked (which both happened on May 12), as well as the timestamps of the user's edits where they started repeatedly adding advertising and promotion to their user talk page (May 25), it's clear that revoking TPA is still justified. The user began adding that content to their user talk page after two weeks have gone by since the account's creation and blocking. Now, had the user done this on the same day as their block, I'd think nothing of it and move on. However, since time is apparently not a factor to the user, revoking TPA will assure that they don't come back weeks later and try to do the same thing again. Hence I have done so. :-)


 * Thanks again for the message and for letting me know about this. If you run into any more users where revoking TPA is definitely needed, please don't hesitate to reach out to me here, and I'll be happy to take care of it. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Nana teenwolf (19:20, 27 May 2022)
Hi I want to ask do you get paid for doing this here on wikipedia --Nana teenwolf (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think anybody gets paid here. I could be wrong. But I don't believe so. Let me know what you find out. This would be a really cool job! I love writing. FanFaveCelebs (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Nana teenwolf! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your question! :-) To answer your question: I am not (nor have I ever been) paid or compensated in any way for the contributions that I've made to this project. All of the time and energy that I've spent (and currently spend) toward this project is completely voluntary and donated with no enumeration or expectation thereof whatsoever.


 * FanFaveCelebs is... mostly correct with their answer above. ;-) While nearly all editors and members of the community who contribute here are like me, who completely donate and volunteer the time that they allocate toward the project and without any compensation in return, there are a number of paid Wikimedia Foundation staff members who operate behind-the-scenes using accounts here. Their tasks range from community outreach to server maintenance, foundation ban enforcement, operations, and other matters. You likely won't run into any of these users - at least not for quite some time. However, you can identify these staff users by looking at their individual usernames. Any user who is officially operating as a Wikimedia Foundation staff member will do so under their "WMF account", which has a username that ends with "(WMF)". :-)


 * Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia, and I hope that you pull up a chair, take off your jacket, and stay awhile! ;-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You are super cool!

 * Hi FanFaveCelebs! Thanks for taking the time to write me this message, and for the very kind words. :-) And thanks for the kitten! I've gotten enough of these where I might have to open up a pet store! I can't keep track of all of these kittens I've been given! ;-) I hope that you also have a great weekend, I wish you well, and I thank you again for the very nice message. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you need any help, input, guidance, or just need a fellow Wikipedian to talk to! :-) I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Revdel?
The Bathroom was recently edited to contain non-encyclopaedic material. Libellous? I think it should probably be redacted. Lithopsian (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Lithopsian! Thanks for leaving me a message here with the information and your concerns! :-) I took a look through the edit history of the redirect page, as well as all of the recent edits that were made to it. The edits certainly were vandalism and disruptive - there's no doubt about that. However, I don't see where any content that was libelous was added, hence any content that would need redaction or suppression. If I missed something, can you respond to me via email (see link below), send me the diff that I should look at, and point out what I'm not seeing? :-) Thanks!


 * Also, moving forward, please take note and please remember to always report any edits or content that might need redaction or suppression (such as your report here) using private channels and communication methods (such as by emailing me here, or sending me a private message on IRC or Discord). Never use open channels or publicly-visible communication methods (such as anywhere on Wikipedia directly, or on this page) to report these violations. One important reason why you need to remember to do this is so that we draw as little attention toward the content as possible while it's under administrative or functionary review. To try and put things into perspective for you: This page, which is my user talk page, is currently on the watchlist of 1192 user accounts, and hence are all notified every time an edit or change is made to it. When a report like this is made here, where it's publicly viewable to anyone, you will almost always trigger the Streisand effect and cause a significant wave of attention to be drawn toward the content, as users will try and quickly navigate to the reported page and search its edit history so that they can view the violating content before they lose the ability to see it. ;-) Thanks again!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking and letting me know the right way to go about these things. Lithopsian (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lithopsian - No problem! Always happy to help! ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Help with undeletion
Hello Oshwah,

It is great that I have a chance to contact you. I want you to see the deleted article "Utkirbek Kakhorov". They deleted me twice. Please review it and undelete if possible. I made it according to the Wikipedia rules. And cited with good references. Thank you Lostinniagarafalls (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and your request for help. I'll be more than happy to explain why the article was deleted, as well as how the articles for deletion (AFD) process works, and provide assistance in any way that I can. :-)


 * If you click here, you'll be navigated to the deletion log page, which I've already filled out and filtered for you so that you only see deletion logs for the Utkirbek Kakhorov article. As you can see, there are two deletion logs, which are ordered by date and from newest to oldest. The older deletion log (the first time that the article was deleted) states that the article was deleted, and the reason given is a link to this page. If you click on the link, you'll be taken to a page where a discussion between editors recently occurred regarding whether or not this article should be kept. This discussion is part of a process, which is Wikipedia's articles for deletion process, or "AFD".


 * If you go back to the deletion log page and look at the other deletion log (the reason why the article was deleted a second time), you'll see that it was deleted again and under G4 of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. To briefly explain: If you re-create an article shortly after it was determined by consensus in an articles for deletion discussion that it should be deleted, it will be deleted again and without another discussion. This log and the reason is outside the scope of the assistance you're asking for, so we'll focus back on that one later. What's important for you to learn and understand, and the answer that you're looking for as to why the article you created was deleted, involves Wikipedia's articles for deletion process. It's important that you review, learn, and understand this process before you create any more articles or pages. Otherwise, by not taking the time to understand this process and the policies and guidelines involved, you'll find yourself pouring significant hours of time into another article that will ultimately meet the same fate as this one - something you definitely want to avoid doing! :-) To learn a bit more about this process, read on...


 * First and foremost, the main thing that you absolutely must know and understand regarding AFD is this: Discussions there and regarding whether to keep or delete an article will not take the quality of the article itself (its content, style, formatting, standards, length, use of templates, images, infoboxes, category use, sources cited, etc) into account. Knowing and understanding this fact as early, clearly, and directly as possible will prevent you from giving yourself the false belief that you'll be able to save the article from being deleted as a result of the AFD process by simply editing it, expanding it, or improving it. This is not the case nor has it ever been, because the article's content or quality is not given any kind of consideration. So, in case I haven't made myself very clear: There are no edits or changes that you can make to the article that will influence the input or "votes" of the discussion's participants, nor cause them to decide differently as to whether or not the article should be kept.


 * You're very likely asking yourself right now, "Well, if the article's content and quality isn't taken into consideration, then... what is?" The short answer is simple to explain: These discussions will take the notability of the article's subject (who or what the article is supposed to be about) into account, and nothing else. In short, editors must show that the subject or topic of a given article is notable. How do you do that? By demonstrating that the article subject or topic has received in  that are  and . Basically, they're not looking at the quality of the article that's written here, but the availability of secondary reliable sources that can be researched and found (either on the internet, in print media, etc) and that provide primary coverage (not just passing mention in one-or-two sentences) of the article subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.


 * 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 a discussion at AFD. That's because, well, they're notable people... :-) It's quite easy to go onto Google and type those names in - you're going to find numerous sources that are reliable, provide primary coverage on these individuals, and show that they are indeed very notable in American History. Continuing with the example: We wouldn't delete these articles under the AFD process just because their quality is poor (or perhaps very poor), or because they are not long or because they lack content, or don't have any or enough sources cited. The articles just need to be expanded and improved is all...


 * Let's talk about why we determine the notability of a subject in this manner: Let's say that I create an extensively-written article about some random Joe person. The article itself is stellar - it's impressive in length, detail, and with the use of images, templates, and other data. Well, that's all really nice and dandy... but if absolutely no references, sources, information, media, or data can be found in libraries, online search engines, and/or in publication about this random Joe person that I wrote this awesome article about, then the article subject obviously can't be considered to be notable - hence, the article, regardless of its content and quality, would be deleted.


 * In short: There's really nothing you can do to the article itself that will change the outcome of the discussion. Don't ever go into an AFD discussion with the belief, hope, or expectation that improving the article's content to be "up to standard" will result in the article being kept. Either the article subject is notable or they aren't - that's what the discussion is created to determine. If anything, take the resulting outcome as a good learning experience for you. Before you write your next article, I'm sure that you'll be much more well-versed in Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and you'll create an article that will do well. I created a few articles when I was new on Wikipedia, and I was angry and disappointed when they were deleted - it can be really discouraging... All that time wasted. However, I kept with it, and I took the time to know and understand the policies and guidelines and why they're important. In the end, it helped improve my editing and my experience a lot.


 * Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Take some time and read through those guidelines. If you have any questions about them, let me know! I'll be happy to answer them and explain, or clarify anything that's confusing. You're doing well here! If anything, the article gets deleted, and this is just a minor setback. You'll be a better editor moving forward either way. I've been there myself; I'm not here today and with the experience and knowledge that I have because I got everything right and did perfectly. I've made more than my fair share of mistakes. Trust me... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Konstle (07:36, 30 May 2022)
Hello, thank you very much for offering your help! I discovered a typo in the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_(information_geomerty) but I dont know how to correct this. (It should be "geometry" instead of "geomerty".

What can I do? Thank you! --Konstle (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Konstle! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to create an account and join us! :-) Ah, good catch! That's definitely a misspelling that should be fixed! If you click here, you'll be taken to a list of logs regarding this page. As you'll be able to see, this has since been fixed by another editor. They fixed the issue by moving the page to a different title, which effectively "renames" it. The title of this page is now Divergence (statistics). :-)


 * Don't worry about the deletion log that's listed on that page - it's simply a normal part of the page moving process that can occur. When a page is moved to a different title, by default, the original location doesn't disappear. It instead becomes a redirect page that automatically forwards readers to the page's new location (where it was moved to) if they navigate to the old location by accident. If the redirect is likely not to be plausibly navigated to or used, an administrator will just delete it, which is why there is a deletion log on that page.


 * In a nutshell, the issue has been resolved. If you see an issue like this in the future, just remember that fixing an issue with an article or page's title is done by moving the page. The process, how it works, and directions for how to perform a page move is available by navigating to this how-to guide. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need any more assistance, and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Again, welcome to Wikipedia! We're glad to have you here! I hope that you pull up a chair, take off your jacket, and stay with us for awhile! :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)