User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2024-01

Question from TheAnegma on Operation Blessing International (13:41, 1 January 2024)
Hello what is wrong with this page --TheAnegma (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi TheAnegma! Welcome to Wikipedia! Well, I do see a notice at the top of the article listing multiple issues that the article has with an encouragement for any editors to resolve or improve the article in those areas. Other than that, is there something that you see might be wrong? I need more information about your question in order to answer it. Outside of that notice at the top of the article, can you elaborate and provide me with what you saw or made you believe that there are issues with the article?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Oshwah!


Happy New Year! Oshwah, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Abishe! Happy New Year! Here's to a great 2024 on Wikipedia! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Mohammad Umar Ali (18:25, 1 January 2024)
I have made my first draft. Can you see it once and tell me if there's any mistake or change required? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mewar-Delhi_Sultanate_Wars I will be grateful for any suggestions if required. Regards. --Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Mohammad Umar Ali! I did a quick look-through with your draft, and it appears to look pretty good on the surface. Remember that you don't need to worry about every single rule or guideline on Wikipedia if you're doing something that unambiguously will improve it. Unless there are major problems with the article that you drafted, I'm sure you'll be fine - there's nothing to fear. I'll let someone from the AFC team evaluate your draft fully, since you've submitted it for review. Again, if anything major is found, they will explain it to you in detail so that you have time and space to resolve it. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

RfA
Please let the crats do their one job. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * AntiCompositeNumber - Daaamn, that was a heavy trout you used to do it, too. My cheek is red... :-P  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably was a lake trout. Noah, AATalk 04:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Noah - It sure looked (and felt) like one! XD  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Promotion...
￼hi, how can I change it so that it wouldn't look like a promotion?

Maybe deleting a link will be fine?

I want to leave an article about myself. Can't I do it? 😶 Kseniia Aslan VDD (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Kseniia Aslan VDD, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions. I reviewed the list of edits you made to pages that are now deleted, and I wanted to guide you as you requested on your user talk page. First, I highly recommend that you review and understand Wikipedia's policy page on user pages. This page will provide you with the rules, guidelines, policies, and best practices when it comes to the creation or addition of content to pages within your user space. The important sections to make sure you understand completely are what's allowed on user pages and what's not allowed on user pages. In general, user pages that have information on the user themselves and is formatted in an "article-like" fashion (infobox, introduction, sections, speaking about themselves in the third person, etc) will be nominated for speedy deletion under [[WP:G11|criterion G11 (advertising or promotion).


 * Remember this: The reason why we typically do not accept autobiographies as valid pages is due to the fact that it's nearly impossible for the user to add content that reflects a neutral point of view. Let's say I create an article about myself. Other than the fact that the article about myself would meet A7 of the speedy deletion criterion (I'm no one of credible significance), if I was arrested in 2009 for an embarrassing crime where reliable sources exist that I can reference, do you think I would be less likely to add it to the article about myself? Of course I would. Would someone be more likely to talk positively about themselves in that article? Absolutely, since it happens more often than it doesn't. The best thing to do is focus on participating in projects and on articles that personally interest you. Go to this page for help with finding a project you like. There are thousands of them! You'll definitely find one that interests you.


 * Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help. Good luck, and welcome again! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please Help Me!
Dear Oshwah, Hello, Nice to meet you again, I editing on Wikipedia since 2 year by android phone and sometimes I edit from Laptop on Wikipedia. I moved a page on request please see Talk:SC de Goa and User talk:Aviram7 but I moved wrong page by fault,but I've fixed I really sad about that, my Intention was not misuse to misuse of this right, apologize for about that. What should I do now?😔 αvírαm  | (tαlk) 10:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Aviram7! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions and concerns. The most significant and most important thing you need to do is forgive yourself, understand that making mistakes is completely normal, and move on. You did the right thing by fixing the accidental move by undoing your changes as soon as you noticed what happened. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for 17 years now, and there are many users who know me on here and who will absolutely vouch for me when I say that I've made more than my fair share of silly, stupid, even major mistakes over the years - it happens. Let's say for example that there are two users standing side-by-side for me to review. Each user has around 100,000 total edits. User number one has absolutely no mistakes at all with their edits and logs, while user number two has a handful of them on record, but handled and remedied each mistake quickly and fully and was honest when asked about it. I would see and respect user one more positively than user two. In fact, I'd question user two's overall experience on Wikipedia. It's not normal to have 100,000 edits and no mistakes to speak of.


 * Sometimes, it's the battle scars that one can show off that show the mark of a good and experienced Wikipedia editor. Will people will naturally demerit someone over having made mistakes, what's more important is what the user does after they realize the mistake - how they handled it, how they made things right, how they communicated with those that were affected, and whether or not the user made the mistake again after making the mistake the first time. Mistakes don't make you inadequate. It's how you behave and act about them that can. :-) Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

YGM
Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 1 week has passed; pinging just in case this was missed. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Darling! Sorry for the delay with looking at and responding to your email. Once I get through processing and responding to everyone else who left messages here, I'll go through my Wikipedia emails and get back to those. Stand by... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Hi The Herald! Thanks for the message and the kind words! Can you believe it?!! 17 years!! That's enough time for someone to be born, grow up, go through school, have a driver's license, a job, and be a senior in High school! Now I feel old... LOL. Thanks again for thinking about me, and I wish you a great day. See you 'round! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Chris troutman, it looks like you pulled your invitation and that you don't want me to join! :-P No worries; you probably found out afterwards that I'm already a member. I do appreciate that you were thinking about me, and that you took the time to leave me this message and let me know about joining. It means a lot and I thank you. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi CAPTAIN RAJU! Thanks for the message and the well wishes! Aww... haven't I grown up just soooo fast? ;-) 17 years is quite a commitment. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this account and what I've done here as an editor is something that I've dedicated the longest amount of time towards. I guess there's school, but much of that was because I had to... :-P Thanks again for thinking about me, and I wish you a great day!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of H:PH


A tag has been placed on H:PH requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Random weird thingy that has been knocking about since 2016 but doesn't belong in en.wiki. It’s a genealogical list of sayid Ghazanfer Shah, whoever that is."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The page was created as a shortcut for Help:Page history. I agree that redirects are costly but you could have restored the redirect and then requested an increase in page protection so it wasn't hijacked. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ok I couldn’t really see what the point of it was. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Clicking "View History" above would have shown you this. I don't recommend nominating pages for deletion if you don't understand the history tab. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point thanks. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from ThaboC (16:50, 13 January 2024)
Hello, I'm an artist how do I create my article --ThaboC (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ThaboC! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you were to dedicate time and actually try creating an article about yourself, you're going to find out very quickly that it's not going to happen, and you'll have wasted hours if not days' worth of time, and all for nothing.
 * Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia; it is not a social network nor is it a place for means of advertising and promotion. All users are required to comply with Wikipedia's core policies that include adding article content that's worded to reflect a neutral point of view, refraining from adding original research, and not editing or creating any articles about topics or subjects where a personal conflict of interest exists between you. Obviously, writing an article about yourself violates nearly all of these policies and guidelines. ;-)
 * Here's an example: If I am writing a Wikipedia article about myself, I probably wouldn't talk about that car crash I caused 9 years ago while I was driving drunk and that killed two people (Before you ask... No, I didn't actually do that... but I think you see what I'm getting at). If you're notable enough to meet the guidelines for having your own article, another editor or group of editors will undoubtedly create an article about you. My advice: Let them do the writing. Focus on article subjects and topics that interest you, and you'll enjoy being apart of this community. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to help. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Prudence Glorious (05:31, 16 January 2024)
Hi OShwan --Prudence Glorious (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Prudence Glorious! Welcome to Wikipedia! If you run into any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to me and I'll be happy to help! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aureliabrownsalt. &#x0020;Greetings, there is a question about a sockblock you did - specifically, whether it's about these two accounts or is there a third master? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus - If the SPI is still active, I'll check it out today and I'll happy to assist where ever I can. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from -sxk-xk (00:03, 20 January 2024)
Hi, hope you're well...I recently edited this page (I'm unfamiliar with the markdown here; that might not have displayed properly) in order to link two pages that I thought were relevant. I've seen the Style Manual page on links and linking and reviewed the guidance regarding over/underlinking, but I'm still not sure whether my edit was superfluous. I wonder if you would 1) consider that particular edit useful (be honest!), and 2) could suggest some other guidelines for how to determine whether to link or not. Thanks! ---sxk-xk (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi -sxk-xk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Linking to other pages is a good way to get yourself started and on the right path to becoming proficient with wikitext (AKA wiki markup). I bring 17 years of service and experience on Wikipedia when I say that learning wikitext will result in making faster and more precise edits than using the VisualEditor. By the way, if you're not familiar with or haven't used the VisualEditor, you might find it to be exactly what you're looking for. There's no "better" or "right" choice to make between the two; they both accomplish the same tasks at the end of the day. I only use wiki markup to make edits to pages, simply because that was the only thing that was available back in the day. When the VisualEditor first hit production and was available to the public, it was... very clunky, very limited, and I remember using it for maybe 30 minutes before I kindly said, "no thank you". ;-) That was 15 years ago; since then, the tool has gone through numerous revisions, each with their own fixes, feature additions, improvements, and increased optimization. I'll definitely say that it's become a very key tool for new users to be able to easily make edits without having to take on having to learn wiki markup first. :-)
 * So, with what I recall, the guidelines basically states that linking to other articles is fine, but with nouns, words, and terms that users would likely click on if they read the word. You generally want to link to the article about the particular subject once, and not again afterwards. Examples: I wouldn't link insignificant or small words such as "cup", "grass", "hello", "left", etc. Add a wikilink where it makes sense, and then only add it once. When you see a paragraph that's clearly overlinking to too many articles. I mean... think about it. All.... of those... blue links for every other word in each sentence in the paragraph ... it starts to become distracting when overdone to a certain point. Also, don't add links to non-existent articles unless it's unique or significant enough (a rare situation), and don't add wikilinks to the lead summary text in articles (the section at the top before the table of contents). You generally want to review and add links (when necessary) to the content body of the article. In fact, many reviewers who assess articles and grade them by quality will take this into account. If an article's summary paragraph has many wikilinks to other articles, it's a sign that the article is lacking content, needs expansion, and that important things are missing (otherwise, the links would be within the body of the article instead of the summary). ;-)
 * Anyways, I'm carrying on and on again... To answer your question: Your edit was fine. Someone may choose to move, revert, or modify what you changed, but that doesn't mean that the wikilinks you added were bad. Worst case scenario, I can revert numerous edits and restore an article to what it was 5+ years ago, and only with a few clicks of the mouse. My point is that undoing changes (or adding to them) is very easy. Don't sweat it; I was just like you when I first started - everyone here was. If you regularly dedicate time, effort, and care into Wikipedia on a regular basis, and if you have fun doing it, then you are in the right place. As years go by (hopefully you'll still be here regularly), you'll find that things go both ways. You give to this project, and it starts to give back. This project has taught me many lessons, viewpoints, and new things. When I started here, I was a junior in High School, and I used this account to vandalize one of the rival high schools in my town. I was of course warned by an editor... but then I was intrigued. That user.... wait, he's not an admin! I soon learned that anyone can get into doing many different "administrative tasks" on here, and without having to even be an administrator!
 * Let's just say this: I never once imagined... didn't cross my mind, not even for a single second, that the account I created while goofing around in High School would become one of my most proud accomplishments that impact so many people each day... or that I would be where I am today, 17 years later, with (getting close to) 500,000 edits, a very high level of trust and respect from the community earned, and with pretty much all of the user rights, privileges, and access that can be given (minus a few). I think I'm still the 52th most active editor of all time here, but I could be wrong. I haven't looked there for quite some time... :-) I'm glad I decided to go with my curiosity, and start contributing here. I hope you do too. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! It was very useful and informative. -sxk-xk (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -sxk-xk - Always happy to lend a hand. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrollers
Dear Oshwah,Nice to meet you again, Sorry for I asking you to for about autopatrollers rights, I know my autopatrolled request are declined 2 times, I've created 50 article but I don't know why I'm not an autopatrolled user? I've more try to improve Politics area coverage on Wikipedia, but I'm was fail to improve coverage releated to politics area, They are all BLP article, sometimes after creating an article I've wait another NPP reviewer review my article but they don't come early, I was always try to creating a good article but I'm fail to create good article, If I saying something wrong, then I apology to you for about that. 😔 αvírαm  | (tαlk) 16:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When was the last time you requested the permissions? What was the reason given to you when your latest request was declined? I'm curious to know: Is there a specific reason as to why being given the autopatrolled user right is important to you? Why you're seeking this user right? I'm sure I've mentioned this to you on previous messages between us, but I'll do so again in case I haven't: the autopatrolled user right does not provide you with any kind of benefit, additional access, privileges, nor does it change anything at all with your UI experience or editing abilities. If your account were granted the user right but without notifying you of the change or showing that your account now currently has this permission, you would never notice that the permissions were granted. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Der Oshwah, this was my last request for autopatrollers rights,If nothing is achieved by acquiring this right, then why do 4,754 users have this right? I admit that I don't know much English, but I definitely know enough to be able to convey my message to people in English, and anyway, after creating articles in draft for some time, I have transferred your articles to the mainspace (article)., I am not saying that it is necessary to give rights, but when rights do not have important importance in the eyes of bureaucrat to administrator, then why is it necessary to give them to other users?   αvírαm  | (tαlk) 23:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aviram7 - When an account creates a new page on Wikipedia, the MediaWiki software automatically adds that page to the list of new pages so that patrollers and admins can review them for any issues. If the patroller finds that the new page isn't problematic and doesn't violate policy, they will mark that page as "patrolled" and move on to the next one. The only thing that the autopatrolled user right does is tell the MediaWiki software to assume that any and all new pages you create are legitimate and don't need human review. Any new page you create will still be automatically added to the list of new pages, but they'll instead be automatically marked as "patrolled" as if the page had manually reviewed by a patroller.


 * This permission makes the jobs of new page patrollers much easier by automatically marking new pages by trusted users as "patrolled" so they don't have to manually do it, and can instead focus on reviewing pages that need human review. That's it... That's literally the only thing that the permission does. It serves absolutely no other purpose. This is why I'm asking why having this permission is so important to you. Typically, this user right isn't assigned following a request. I was granted the right when an administrator eventually grew tired of repeatedly marking all of the new pages I would create as "patrolled". The admin just granted my account the user right and then left a quick message on my talk page letting me know. That was it... being granted the user right wasn't momentous, a major event, or even something that was logged as a request approval. If your goal is to grow your experience, knowledge, and wisdom on Wikipedia, focusing on creating pages for the purpose of being an "autopatrolled user", you're allocating effort and energy toward something that doesn't benefit you directly. Instead, take some time to reflect... think about exactly what things you enjoy doing on Wikipedia the most, and hence what things you have the most experienced with. From there, decide on what goal you want to set and achieve next.


 * Please let me know if you have any questions, or need help with figuring out a pathway to begin learning on Wikipedia that would interest you. I'm here to help you, and I'm here to support you; I'll be happy to provide you with anything that you need so that your contributions continue to be successful and are providing you with adequate learning opportunities and experience. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Oshwah,I see what you're saying, although I have privileges that allow me to do certain things, but I only not have the right to autopatrollers to automatically mark articles I created and new page reviewers or administrators should not need to check or review my articles, although the expiration of my new page reviewer rights and I asked for this right on @HJ Mitchell 's talkpage to grant this right indefinitely. was, and they asked me to wait for a while because they wanted to see if I could identify copyright infringement and blatant promotional articles, but I did a great job, I don't know what would happen because both  It was he who gave me the authority of patrollers.  My aim is only to increase the coverage of this area on Wikipedia by creating articles related to Indian politics or Indian politicians.
 * If I need anything, I will definitely ask you.😊 αvírαm  | (tαlk) 02:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aviram7 - Please do. I'll be happy to look at your last request as well; I'll try and take a look at it this weekend. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Oshwah, Okay, I'll we wait for about that.😊 αvírαm  | (tαlk) 07:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

A little food for thought
Would it be easier for edit filter 54 and any other username filters to be backed up by a bot that will be machine learning and would be able to be able to adapt to the certain patterns and memes  And report  them? •C y b erw o l f• talk? 19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cyberwolf - I'm not an expert at AI implementation (at least not yet), but if the primary goal here is to implement AI learning to adapt new words and usernames and use them to stop abuse, I don't think it would be very difficult (on the surface) to implement. You'd have to run a bot that actively collects the metadata for each username policy violation block that is applied to an account. From there, the interface could take the data gathered from the latest block log that it received and compare it against previous UPOL blocks that were made in the recent past. As more similarities and block events are received and logged, I'm certain that useful data could be compiled over time. If 50 UPOL blocks have the same words, phrase, pattern etc in the username, add it to the list of conditions that the filter will now begin flagging. Rinse and repeat. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * May try making a 🤖 •C y b erw o l f• talk? 01:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I may have a slight issue(s) possibly. performance and/or parsing info without having any way to know what it would be parsing. I have asked a administrator if they specified what part of the user name infringes the policy  •C y b erw o l f• talk? 19:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from 808brigade (00:15, 23 January 2024)
Hello! My name is [REDACTED - Oshwah], I’m wanting to know if my page is public and how to get it to show up first in google? --808brigade (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi 808brigade! Welcome to Wikipedia! If you're referring to the content that's currently on your user page, the answer to your questions are, "yes and no"...


 * Is your content there public? While the term public is defined very differently from person-to-person, the Wikipedia Community has long established how how pages, content, and information public, and exactly what that means, so I'll answer your question with what definition. As of the time of this writing, yes - your content is public. Anyone on the internet can enter the URL to your user page in their browser, and they'll be able to view it just like you can. Unless the page's content or the page itself is deleted by a Wikipedia administrator, anyone can view the page and all page content (including every saved revision made in the past), as well as its edit history, logs, and other items.


 * Is your content indexed by google? The answer to that question is no. Pages that are created within your user space, as well as pages located in other areas of Wikipedia, do not get indexed by google's crawler bots. This also applies to nearly all major search engines online, and is done so that people who use those search engines won't get flooded with results that point to unimportant pages on Wikipedia that don't provide what they're looking for. This concept of excluding certain areas of Wikipedia from indexing is extremely important - both for Google and Wikipedia. I think your next step here is to review Wikipedia's articles for creation process page. It will provide you with instructions on creating a draft page, moving your content there, and then submitting it for review in order for it to become an article. Please review the page, and please let me know if you have any questions. :-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:ABDIAS HEALTHCARE
You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cahk - ✅. Thanks for the heads up. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please Check your Mailbox!
. 😊 αvírαm  | (tαlk) 11:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aviram7 - Received and replied. Sorry for the delay with doing that, btw...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Heyayhaqyyaha (19:42, 23 January 2024)
Hello and thank you. I’ve used GettyImages for the photo in the “Infobox” however Wikipedia says the it is copyrighted when their website says it is available to use freely ? --Heyayhaqyyaha (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to chime in here to make Oshwah aware of the situation and provide some context. Two photos have been uploaded by this user so far: this, supposedly showing James, Earl of Wessex in the center (now nominated for deletion), and this showing Eliza Lopes at Elizabeth II's funeral. Both of them lack information on the sources, so I do wonder: are these the photos you found on Getty? If so, why haven't you provided a link for the licenses to be evaluated? And why did you upload them as your "own work"? Keivan.f  Talk 20:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keivan.f - Thanks for providing the additional context. This user has been indefinitely blocked for repeated copyright violations, so I guess that answers the question... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Abimanyu2000 (05:12, 24 January 2024)
I'm new how to edit --Abimanyu2000 (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Abimanyu2000! Welcome to Wikipedia! Since you're brand new to this project, 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. If you need any other assistance, please don't hesitate to message me here and ask. I'll be more than happy to lend a hand! :-) Again, I welcome you to the project, and I hope you take off your jacket and stay with us for awhile. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Quick note on Wikipedia:Vandalism/VANDRightPlace
Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:Vandalism/VANDRightPlace.

Yeah I can see the formatting needs more work. Do you want to maybe work on the styling at Template:Right place/styles.css? Awesome Aasim 13:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome Aasim - Sure! Happy to help! I'll take a look at it this weekend and add some TLC to it. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 Chris Wx  🌀 ( talk -  contribs ) 21:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ChrisWx - Received and responded! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Mary Esther Ring (00:10, 29 January 2024)
Hello, I was looking up ancestors and somehow this editing popped up, so this is unusual. --Mary Esther Ring (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! When you say "this editing popped up", what exactly do you mean? Do you need assistance? Can you elaborate a bit more on what's going on? Thanks -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:ホテルメトロポリタンさいたま新都心
Ha, OK--so I checked the very first one, but there were no others yet; I just checked again, and saw what you did. A bit of info (I'm sure others know more): this is not promotional; it's an LTA, someone who seems obsessed with creating a multitude of accounts with similar names and then posting BS chatty info on their talk page (and often deleting it again)--nonsense about the weather and baseball stadiums. They usually come in packs of a half dozen. They don't communicate, they don't do anything in article space (typically)--they're kind of like the garden slug of socks. Very boring. I don't know a master name; I may have, but I forgot: they're not exciting enough. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Drmies - Thank you for letting me know; you confirmed my underlying suspicion and I appreciate that. I know for 100% certain that I've seen these kinds of accounts before in the past (actually quite a few times). I just didn't state that they were LTAs in the logs and summaries, because... well... I technically didn't have the level of evidence (in my mind) that would meet the "threshold" to where I could safely make that accusation, so I just went with "promotional, creating a bunch of these in a short span of time" instead just to be safe. Now that I think about it, well... what else would this be? Of course it's bad faith! :-) Creating that many accounts, with similar usernames, and in that very small spam of time isn't something I've ever seen anyone offer a rational explanation with that everyone accepted saying, "Oh yeah! Okay, that's fine! Sorry, we didn't consider that!" :-D Thanks again for the message. I hope you're doing well, and (as always), it's a pleasure to say hello to you once again. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure thing Oshway, and thank you for all the good work you're doing. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I've seen this type of nonsense on their talk pages, but I decided not to interfere. Do they need global locking since they are sockpuppets of that LTA? – 64andtim  ( talk ) 16:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

About filter
I noticed it was recently marked public on the recent filter changes when I checked the filter noticeboard. One question I have is: why have you have decided to mark filter 51 as public, when it was private before? I do not see any indications of marking it public in the notes. Thank you. – 64andtim  ( talk ) 05:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 64andtim - Oh, shit.... Wow... If it was me that did that, it was absolutely unintentional. ; thank you for letting me know. WHEW! That could've gone quite badly.....  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: It was me! What the hell?!! How did I manage to do that? Sigh... Anyways, for the record: Never in a million years would I want that filter to be public. Fortunately, the filter's code is extremely complex and has a lot of non-capturing groups within capturing groups in nearly all of the conditions. It would take an average person or even someone with a somewhat-knowledgeable level of regex experience a very long time to pick it apart and decipher it. :-) I really do appreciate the heads up; It's just too bad that I didn't catch that much sooner...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't see details and notes anymore of filter 51, so it worked. Let's hope the sneaky vandals didn't see your now-private filter. – 64andtim  ( talk ) 19:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 64andtim - Me too, but it would've had to have been a complete fluke if any malicious users did manage to see or obtain a copy of the filter's code. Unless they're watching edit filter histories and happened to see that filter 51 was changed to be public, it very likely wouldn't have been prudent of anyone to just go try looking at it - especially knowing how long this filter has been in operation and the fact that it's always been private since its development. Wikipedia doesn't make a public announcement or anything like that when a filter's restriction settings are changed (thank the Lord), so I very highly doubt that the exposure was caught by any LTAs. Curious: How did you happened to run into that? Where did you see that this was changed?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oshwah: Last night I went to the edit filter noticeboard like nothing usual, and noticed that there was filter 51 marked public. Checked it and I couldn't believe it, but I won't go into further details of the filter, and instead I left you a message. But you were probably busy or asleep, and later you responded to me that you made it private again.
 * I've seen that only the first change (Enabled instead of Hidden, Enabled unlike the other changes), and there was no indication in the filter notes. – 64andtim  ( talk ) 19:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 64andtim - Ahhh, now I see where you saw it. :-) I'm not worried overall. Like I said, unless an LTA happened to stumble upon that noticeboard and read the recent changes at the top, or saw the edit history and that the restriction status was changed, or happened to view my user talk page and saw your message, there's no way they would've even known. Oh, and by the way... if this does happen again (regardless of what filter or who changed it to be public), you definitely want to email the user privately instead of announcing publicly on a user talk that a highly referenced and used edit filter is now public for anyone to read. ;-) Nonetheless, what's done is done, and it serves absolutely no purpose at all to worry and dwell upon it. Like I said, I'm very damn glad you let me know about it. I appreciate it a lot. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, I will definitely keep that in mind the next time if this happens again. –  64andtim  ( talk ) 20:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool deal. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Saying hi!
Hi, I am relatively new and just getting more into making edits, so i just wanted to say hello to my mentor. Jdrmax (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Jdrmax! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for the message! Please let me know if I can assist you with anything, and I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from WikiAAT (21:04, 31 January 2024)
Why are semi-protected articles only editable in source? As a new editor, I find it a lot harder and find it confusing how to add references and links to other articles. --WikiAAT (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi WikiAAT! Welcome to Wikipedia! When an article or page becomes the subject of repeated vandalism, disruption, or even edit wars between many editors, administrators will apply page protection in order to stop the disruptive editing (whatever kind it may be) from continuing. However, fear not! Once your account becomes four days old and once you have made at least 10 edits using your account, it will automatically become a confirmed account, which is required in order to be able to edit semi-protected pages. Once your account reaches this threshold, the number of article pages that you'll still be restricted from editing will reduce significantly. In my experience over the years on Wikipedia, I'll say that 90% of the time you run into a protected page, you'll find that it's just semi-protected. With a confirmed account, you need not worry at all, and you'll be able to edit it like you would if it wasn't protected at all. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Happy editing!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have met all requirements, my question is that why is the edit button on articles with semi-protection only letting me edit in the source version instead of the visual version? For me, the edit button says 'edit source' instead of 'edit' WikiAAT (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WikiAAT - Sorry, I should've looked at your account before responding. 99% of the time that users ask me this kind of question, it's because they're not autoconfirmed due to not yet meeting the requirements. :-) What page are you seeing this on? Can you link me to an example so I can take a look?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac, can't upload a screenshot WikiAAT (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WikiAAT - Okay, yeah that article is semi-protected. You should be able to edit it just fine. You might want to visit your preferences page and take a look at the settings that are enabled (and disabled) within the appearance and editing tabs. This might be what you're looking for in order to have other editing tabs displayed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)