User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2022-07

User talk:Walkerglo
Any objection to my indeffing the user and without tpa? Calling other editors facists? Saying "But go ahead I have multiple vpns, we will take our culture and countries back from you clowns 🤡 keep power tripping on Wikipedia lmao 🤣" on their Talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 - Oh jeez... Yes, go for it! No objections from me at all. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ✅.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 - Any time! Have a great weekend! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Interaction
You saw my page. Do you share any of my interests and/or want to discuss them? -Oversized Lego spoon 64 Oversized Lego spoon 64 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Oversized Lego spoon 64, and welcome to Wikipedia! I of course share the same interest with my passion for reading Wikipedia, as well as contributing to the project, and performing the duties and tasks that I perform in order to protect the project from abuse and harm, and provide a positive editing environment for the community. :-)
 * Since you're brand new to Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you go through Wikipedia's getting started page and that you complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial before you make any edits or take on any major tasks around here. Those tutorial pages will provide you with many important walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will familiarize you with our policies and guidelines, how Wikipedia works, how to navigate around the site, and how to find important locations and pages. Most users who take this advice, read through those pages, and complete the new user tutorial usually tell me later that they were significantly helpful to them, and saved them hours of time and frustration they would've experienced otherwise.
 * Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can assist you with any editing or contributions that you make to Wikipedia. I'll be more than happy to help! Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope that you stay with us, become a regular editor and contributor to the project, and that you learn and grow with us! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oshwah thanks for the tip! I was wondering how you got that fancy home page.
 * P.S. Sorry it's so late, but you're probably in a different time zone. \__(' '_)__/ Oversized Lego spoon 64 (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oversized Lego spoon 64 - No worries! Great question - I actually designed and created it myself! :-) Early 2023 will be my 16th year of being an active editor to Wikipedia; you tend to pick up some editing skill here and there after all of that time... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oshwah sorry to bother you, but I didn't see anything about putting pictures on your home page. (I mean that in the nicest way possible) Could you show me how? Oversized Lego spoon 64 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Oversized Lego spoon 64! You're not bothering me at all! Helping new editors on Wikipedia is part of the regular duties that I perform here, and I'm more than happy to lend you a hand. ;-) Wikipedia's help page on pictures provide tutorials on how to add them to articles and pages. You can click here to visit that help page. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oshwah Thanks! 🙂 Oversized Lego spoon 64 (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oversized Lego spoon 64 - You bet! I'll see you around the wiki; until we meet again... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably not enough recent activity for RfPP
Something to keep an eye on anyway. Lots of misinformation about Ectopic pregnancy and abortion are flying around now so we should be vigilant about misinformation creeping into the article. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Skywatcher68! Thanks for the message and for letting me know about the ongoing issues with unreferenced content being added to the ectopic pregnancy article. The dusruption isn't super high in frequency, but I can see from the edit history that nearly all edits made by anonymous users lately either added unreferenced content to the article, or added content that was subsequently reverted due to issues. Hence, I've gone ahead and added pending changes protection to the article for the next month. This should keep any unreferenced content and other disruption at-bay, while allowing anonymous users to add legitimate good faith content without being restricted from doing so. :-) Thanks again for the heads up, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Happy editing! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologize and Request
Hi Oshwah, I’m contacting you after checking the profiles of more that 200 admins. But, I think only you can solve my problem. Let me start by apologizing for my mistakes. I edited 3 definitions and added a link to a website providing comprehensive explanations of these definitions. You can check by yourself those definition were wrong and unclear. Still, the definitions are incorrect since my edits have been reverted because admins consider that link a wrong act. Furthermore, the link I provided is purely relevant. I am a insurance expert and i never thought of adding wrong information on wikipedia. Personally, I am a writer. But sir unfortunately, linking to specific websites on Wikipedia is not allowed, no matter how relevant they are. With blocking my IPs and accounts, Wikipedia put the website on its spam list this time. When you put a website in your Spamlist, it adversely affects its ranking and reputation. For you, it's just a website, but someone has put years of work into making that website successful. As an admin, its your right to block any ip, any account but please don’t put that website in a spamlist. I’m requesting you to please remove the site from your spamlist. I truely apologize to all the admins for all my mistakes and i promise that i will never make any edit on wikipedia. But please remove that site from your spamlist. Looking forward to your reply and will answer any questions you may have! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.96.208 (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message here, and I apologize for the delay responding to you. From your description of this website you mention, it's apparent that the website is yours, or that you have a personal connection to it somehow. Unfortunately, when external URLs are repeatedly used either for advertising or promotion, spamming, or the addition of original research to Wikipedia, and after repeated reasonable attempts have been made asking the user to stop, adding the external URL to the MediaWiki spam blacklist is the logical next step in order to stop the issue from allowing to continue. In the future, please make sure to include references to reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the article subject, as well as yourself (an editor of the article). Please review Wikipedia's verifiability policy and make sure that you understand it. If you have any questions after reading through this policy page, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

History merge mistake?
The history merge you just performed of Arvoreen to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities appears to have been erroneous; they are separate articles which were merged into each other through several intermediate steps and you resulted in several parallel history segments like Special:Diff/724261582. Ditto for Baervan Wildwanderer into Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons)

That said, I know it's a common thing on Wikipedia to only complain and never give thanks, so thank you for tackling this often-forgotten backlog, even if you make mistakes while doing it * Pppery * it has begun...  04:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - ARGH! I literally just noticed this a few moments ago while reviewing those histories... It looked like the section was moved but then later incorporated into that article instead of having separate ones. Okay, I'll check this out deeper and remedy what I can. Thanks for letting me know about this. :-) Best -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - Update: I was able to locate the parallel history segments on List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, and I've moved them back to Arvoreen. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - Update: I've also located the parallel history segments on Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons), and I've moved them back to Baervan Wildwanderer. Thanks again for your diligence and for letting me know. One question. I'm curious to know, how did you catch this so quickly? What did you do in order to figure out that that I screwed up? :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was looking through the deletion log out of curiosity (not intending to take any specific action), noticed your history merge, and thought "Huh, those don't look like two names for the same thing". * Pppery * it has begun... 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - Ah okay, fair enough. ;-) Thanks again!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had noticed all this activity going on, and was like "what's going on here?" :) BOZ (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you seem to have missed a few revisions; the following were erroneously merged from Aroveen:


 * Special:PermaLink/575926769
 * Special:PermaLink/503690767
 * Special:PermaLink/463326297
 * Special:PermaLink/426117000
 * Special:PermaLink/423701052
 * Special:PermaLink/423697082
 * Special:PermaLink/423696376
 * Special:PermaLink/423696212
 * Special:PermaLink/423696012
 * Special:PermaLink/423695827
 * Special:PermaLink/249505870
 * (all older history originally at that title was merged to List of Dungeons & Dragons halfling deities in 2020 by a different admin, which is why the above starts with a redirect that looks like it must have been preceded by an article).


 * And the following from Baervan Wildwanderer:


 * The following revisions were moved back but shouldn't have been:
 * Special:PermaLink/243234301
 * Special:PermaLink/237403503
 * Special:PermaLink/105400964
 * The following revisions should have been moved back and weren't:
 * Special:PermaLink/929070489
 * Special:PermaLink/855160285
 * Special:PermaLink/719140166
 * Special:PermaLink/698985957
 * Special:PermaLink/689490943
 * Special:PermaLink/688221150
 * Special:PermaLink/640672884
 * Special:PermaLink/640407963
 * Special:PermaLink/640337098
 * Special:PermaLink/639427423
 * Special:PermaLink/639427232
 * Special:PermaLink/639427023
 * Special:PermaLink/577904933
 * Special:PermaLink/576497504
 * Special:PermaLink/544290372
 * Special:PermaLink/503691832
 * Special:PermaLink/463366380
 * Special:PermaLink/433951269
 * Special:PermaLink/426117812
 * Special:PermaLink/424068269
 * Special:PermaLink/424064937
 * Special:PermaLink/424063422
 * Special:PermaLink/424063051
 * Special:PermaLink/424062544
 * Special:PermaLink/424062318
 * Special:PermaLink/249447038
 * Special:PermaLink/208578343
 * Special:PermaLink/178174680
 * Special:PermaLink/175866401
 * Special:PermaLink/107992586


 * * Pppery * it has begun... 14:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Bayside Trail to Bay Trail appears to be also erroneous; you merged an article on a trail with a disambiguation page. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (The correct target for that history merge was Bay Trail (Australia)) * Pppery * it has begun... 14:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Pppery! Weird... I was using WikiBlame to go through the revisions on both the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons) articles, and it came back without finding anything. I'm wondering if the binary search algorithm I chose has too wide of a threshold of cutting revisions into half before it stops, or if it allows the script to make assumptions based off of too wide of a threshold. Either way, I appreciate the second pair of eyes! I'll also look into the Bayside Trail and Bay Trail merge that you mentioned as well. These articles both had pretty small numbers of revisions if I recall correctly; that appeared to be a pretty straight-forward merge, but I (of course) could be wrong. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Some more notes on your history merge project if you ever get back to it:
 * Be careful not to restore unneeded redirects that are parallel with the merged history. For example, on Object Query Language, you should not have restored Special:PermaLink/47570019 (the redirect that was overwritten by the cut-and-paste move you repaired). It's probably not worth deleting and undeleting the page again to rebury the edit (and running into the second problem), but a note for the future.
 * For reasons I can't understand, articles are getting added to the new pages feed as a result of your history merge process. Normally I would say bringing attention to old stagnant articles (as most of the articles you reviewed are) is a good thing, but given NPP's large backlog, would you mind marking pages as reviewed after history merging them?

Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - Yeahhhh, I learned about the redirect move revisions both the easy and hard ways - especially knowing that an issue exists that can cause permanent co-mingling of the two page move edits that are automatically added to both pages if a redirect is left. I'm surprised that the MediaWiki references deleted revisions by their timestamps as unique identifiers - almost any novice software engineer would see that as very terrible practice. Oh well, hopefully they'll fix that one of these days... ;-) Also, I... don't understand at all why my resulting moves, deletes, and deletes would cause any part of the page to show up in the new page feed. I have the autopatrolled flag - are they showing up as "needing review"? If so, they shouldn't be...  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   03:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to be T311347//Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, which deliberately ignores autopatrolled on the grounds that, for example, the autopatrolled status of an admin actioning a REFUND request for a contested PROD should be irrelevant since they are just acting mechanically. But, regardless of why, the fact is that it did definitely happen, and I marked ~50 articles you history merged as patrolled earlier today (Sticky Bun through Bay Trail in my patrol log). Feel free to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - Wow, that proposal was merged just very recently! I don't agree, though... If an admin has the autopatrolled user right, they should be given the same level of trust with the content they undelete or restore - in addition to create, in that the content is presumed suitable and doesn't need human review. ...Admins are purposefully using this loophole as a way to get unsuitable content past the community-established radar? I'm... appalled... Any admins who have purposefully and willingly engaged in the use of this loophole basically spit in the direction of the community by doing that. Absolutely unacceptable... :-P  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood the motivation for this feature - it's not trying to combat willful admin abuse, as the discussion I linked to earlier explains. Anyway, there's no point in arguing with me over whether this feature is a good idea, because I'm just a new page reviewer and have no control over what the software does, so I won't discuss the merits of this issue any further. If you want to discuss the way the new page review software works, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers * Pppery * it has begun... 04:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - Ohh, haha, I wasn't arguing at all! In fact, I forgot to add the ":-P" to the end of my last response. I was joking about the malicious admin part, though I don't see why having autopatrolled admins needing their undeletes reviewed as being necessary. But, hey, oh well.... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - Sorry again for the delay; the fixes are ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Special:PermaLink/424062318 still needs to be moved to Baervan Wildwanderer. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pppery - ✅. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
Your edit of Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions includes a line with misnested tags:



which should be changed to



Cheers, —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Anomalocaris - ✅; the diff is here. Thanks for letting me know! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Thank you for taking care of it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Anomalocaris - You bet! Thanks for leaving me a heads up about this! :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Busy?
I have filed an SPI. Something odd is going on at the Battle of Marj Ayyun article. Kansas Bear (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Kansas Bear! Thanks - I'll take a look. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from SenatorNato22 (21:46, 12 July 2022)
Hi, I noticed something that is factually incorrect on a page. It is semi-protected, so I cannot edit it. However, I would be happy to provide the edit and source if it can be changed by someone else. --SenatorNato22 (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi SenatorNato22! Welcome to Wikipedia! Just make an edit request and put it on the article's talk page, and you'll be all set! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

content deleted
Good Morning my boss. am new to wikipedia. trying to create my biography but my content has just been deleted and am here wondering why. Dj Redcardz (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dj Redcardz and welcome to Wikipedia! Your user page was deleted because it consisted of content that was not allowed. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or promote yourself or your discography, and it's clear that this is what you did. Hence, your user page was deleted for violating that policy. Please review Wikipedia's policies on what it is not designed to be; this is an encyclopedia - not a place for people to advertise themselves. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from HFA85016 (21:01, 15 July 2022)
Hi Oshwah. I've published content on my sandbox page. I'm attempting to get an article published but have already had it kicked back for copyrighted materials. Are you able to provide any direct feedback on the page, as opposed to the vague wikipedia instructions? I greatly appreciate your help! --HFA85016 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi HFA85016! The best thing to do is to read and understand Wikipedia's policies on copyrights and what constitutes copyright violations. This will help you to understand the issue and how to improve the article that you're trying to create. If you have any questions after reading through these policy pages, let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to join us! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Oshwah. Thank you for the quick reply. I read the copyrights page before reaching out for help and my article doesn’t seem to violate any of the policies stated on the page. Nothing I've written belongs to anyone else. Similar content may appear on another website, but there are only so many ways to state the simple facts of when an organization was created. For example, "The school was founded in 2018." That information is not copyrighted information that is owned by anyone. I've provided multiple references and citations as well. However the content was still deleted for copyright violations, with no further explanation. That’s why I was hoping you would be able to provide specific feedback as to what specific content exactly is a copyright violation, so that it may be corrected. Any help you can provide, that is not in the form of another link to a wikipedia policy, would be helpful and greatly appreciated, as I have scoured dozens of wikipedia policy articles, as well as third party articles to try and resolve this issue. HFA85016 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Oshwah - I was just checking on this. Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFA85016 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * HFA85016 - Sorry for the delay with responding to you. Life has not been very nice to me lately, but I'm killing it with kindness. :-) Let me take another look. Stand by...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * HFA85016 - The only deleted edits that I can see in your contributions was the deletion of Holy Family Academy (Phoenix, Arizona), which you simply added an edit to. I see that you have a copy on your sandbox here, and I ran this analysis on the page. I think that some text is a violation, while others were not. I'm going to ping Rosguill, who can provide you with more information. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The non-copyvio text in the page is excessively promotional, so my view is that whatever doesn't qualify for G12 would qualify for G11. I believe I tolld HFA as much when they asked me directly. They also have a pretty clear COI based on their username that they haven't bothered to disclose. signed,Rosguill talk 13:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rosguill - I appreciate your feedback. Though, I am still a bit lost as this is all completely new to me and I'm hoping to learn. I think it may be a bit more efficient if, as opposed to telling me that there is text on the page that is "excessively promotional" that qualifies for a G11 violation, if someone could tell me specifically what text is to which you're referring. Otherwise, it's a guessing game for those of us who haven't been doing this for a long time like yourselves. The confusion for me lies in the fact that I used several published Wikipedia articles for similar schools in the area and tried to only include information that they included on their pages. Here's one - Brophy College Prep and here another Ville de Marie Academy. I'm just not sure what information I've provided on my page that these pages haven't on their successfully published pages, that qualifies for either G12 or G11. Again, any specific pieces of text from my page would be extremely helpful, so that I may correct them. Again, I appreciate your help in any capacity. Apologies if I missed your response outside of this page. If you answered this question elsewhere, I did not see that. As for the COI based on username, if I'm able to change the username, I will. Again, being a novice user, I just used a name I would be able to quickly reference for this article. No COI. I've never even been to the school. HFA85016 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your username in that case? I'm afraid I don't find a simple disavowal persuasive given the circumstances. signed,Rosguill talk 22:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the G11 rationale, the two articles you've listed are quite different: Brophy College Preparatory looks reasonably well-written at a glance; Ville de Marie Academy is severely lacking. If it were in the new pages queue today I would strongly consider G11'ing it. The HFA article was more similar to the latter: phrases like Holy Family Academy was founded in February 2018 by a group of local Phoenix, AZ fathers motivated to provide their children with both strong academic training and spiritual formation are egregiously non-neutral. The detail with which the principal's qualifications are rendered is promotional as well, as is the article structure that repeatedly highlights "New" developments and framing like Still growing, on August 20, 2021, Holy Family Academy’s 170-peron chapel was constructed in the heart of the school’s campus... This isn't encyclopedic prose, it's ad copy. Writing like this in an encyclopedia is only justified when high-quality secondary sources use such framing themselves, which was not the case in the article I deleted. signed,Rosguill talk 23:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your response. Regarding the username - it's simply easier to track that the article being written for Holy Family Academy has a username of HFA. The zip code is 85016. That's it. If I were writing an article for Ville de Marie Academy, I'd have used VMA. Perhaps that's incorrect. But it's what I did. I did not want to use the same username for scalability purposes if this is something I want to continue doing, as writing about school history is not the exciting to me. HFA85016 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rosguill - Sorry I hit enter too soon. I will take out the "ad copy" you've mentioned. If I changed the sentences you referred to something more along the lines "Holy Family Academy was founded in February 2018." and "On August 20, 2021, the school opened its 170-person chapel." - would that better meet the encyclopedic prose?
 * Just for clarification again, you're saying that I should NOT refer to the Ville de Marie Academy article as a reference? HFA85016 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @OshwahNo worries. Life has not been very nice to many of us lately. Keep killing it with kindness! You got this! <3! HFA85016 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Problems
Hi, I sent the article Deepa Shankar to draft a coupe of times now and it user keeps replacing it. An IP (2409:4072:E93:4ACB:0:0:AA88:8F0C) has been removing the tags and I'm becoming suspicious that the IP is a sock of the original author (MeGowtham). You had partially blocked the IP address a week or so ago. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hughesdarren - Oh really now?... ;-) Okay, I'll check it out.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * That email contains some important information about recent misbehaviour by someone. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Iggy the Swan - Sorry for the delay. Life has not been kind to me lately, but I'm killing it with kindness! :-) I'll check it out this weekend. I just wanted to respond and let you know.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Seeking Mentors help
Hello,

I wish to create a new page in Wikipedia (currently at my userpage draft). I have checked the eligibility requirements and found it to be notable, reliable sources. Since the previously submitted article was deleted by user, I have checked the specific reason of the deletion and have tried to add up the required information to the article. Before I could submit to the review, it's good to get suggestions or feedbacks from my mentor. Hence looking out for help from you! Thanks in advance for your time! Regards Drpp96 (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Drpp96! Sorry for the delay responding to your request for input and help. Your draft seems to be developing well so far. However, from my research on this article subject, I'm concerned that I am not seeing what I would constitute as significant coverage that would satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Not only do reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the article subject need to exist, but a significant amount of them need to exist where an article can be written that cover the article subject directly, in detail, and without the use of any poor or unreliable sources, or original research. One thing that you must remember is that all content written on Wikipedia's article space, per policy, must be attributable to a reliable source. Attribution is different than directly citing a source in-line. This is required if the user is creating a new article or adding content to an existing one. In the situation of article creation, the inability to do this conflicts directly with both Wikipedia's verifiability policy and notability requirements. This is why having significant coverage is needed when determining a subject's notability. I highly advise taking careful time to read through these policy and guideline pages and make sure that you fully understand them before you spend any more time with this draft. I don't want you to spend more time (on top of the countless hours you've already likely spent) toward it if the subject isn't notable in the first place. I did find a reference that you might find useful when you go to cite your sources; it's located here. Let me know what you find, and let me know if you run into any questions about any of those policies and guidelines. I know that they can be tricky to fully grasp when you're new to the project. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. As you have suggested, I have been trying to match the article with Wikipedia's guidelines. Made some changes accordingly, hoping for the positive reply for my first article from the reviewer! If you find time to help me out in finetuning further, I would highly appreciate it. Until then, I will be working on to improve some other articles. Thanks agian! Cheers - Drpp96 (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

MyrtaBeautyQueen
Hi, three more sockpuppets of MyrtaBeautyQueen to add to your pile:, ,. Storchy (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Storchy! Thanks for the message and for the heads up! I was able to find and block 10 additional sock accounts by this user! If you see any more similar activity, let me know and I'll be happy to take care of it. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

About Noah Nobh
I'd say this edit confirms my suspicion that socks with similar names being blocked at Miraheze and here is no coincidence. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Skywatcher68! Thanks for the message. It looks like this user is blocked and globally locked. If there's anything else I can do, let me know. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)