Do you actually notice I have 2 accounts have clone some of my 1 accounts is joined 20 days ago you can go to the title Article page named is Soviet Invasion of Manchuria so press on Talk Page and Press on The title page talk named is : Best idea for this Article so you can press the first one please not the second one. Because Second account that here I was used talk to and suggestions. First one is joined 20 days. I have 2 clone. But second one is joined today is me used to talk. Could you please delete the account of the first one because I have forget my password. The name is THE NEWS SERVICE IOES UPDATES So I hope you can understand more. Thanks. 2402:800:63A6:8609:F069:496A:7AD8:18D (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm not sure what you're talking about... Can you elaborate for me? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah! A few days ago I created an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Loriann_Oberlin, an article I'd stumbled across that seemed promotional/non-notable. Now it seems a bit fishy that three recently created accounts all participated in this AfD while making few other contributions. Edit summaries are of a similar style, though one has an idiosyncracy that the others do not. No obvious red flags with these users, other than appearing to have some prior experience (could just be that they learned the ropes as IPs, then decided to create an account). Then a fourth user, who's been around for several months, chooses this AfD as their first one to participate in. Evidence seems borderline flimsy for an SPI, but perplexing nonetheless. Your opinion? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @OhNoitsJamie: Not an admin much less Oshwah Himself, but looking at the recent history of that article, I think I may have an explanation: going by the tags on a lot of recent edits, the article has been drawing a lot of fresh accounts through the Newcomer Tasks part of that Growth thing, and I guess some of them clicked on the link to the deletion discussion page. (It is an eye-catching big banner right on top of the page...) One of the fresh accounts has actually made such an edit confirming a tie to Growth's Newcomer Tasks; I suspect the others came there the same way but clicked on the discussion instead of editing.

(Now, whether it's wanted behaviour for Growth to draw flocks of fresh editors to an article currently listed at AFD is an entirely different subject...) AddWittyNameHere 16:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh no, it's Ohnoitsjamie! (lol sorry, I couldn't help myself)... It's been awhile; long time no chat! I hope you're doing well and that life is treating you nicely. :-) I took a look at the history of that AFD you linked me to, and I initially wanted to draw suspicion, but after some digging, I might have a possible answer as to what may be going on. After looking through the timeline of the edits by these users to the AFD, I looked at their edit summary use. One of them kept pretty consistent and brief, while the others were quite in-depth with the use of each one - something I don't often see.

When I ran the users through the editor interaction tool, which is where the possible explanation to all of this started to present itself. If you look at the table, two of the users edited the Loriann Oberlin article within 21 hours of one another - an interesting coincidence if you ask me, right? (LOL) Well, if you take a look at the recent edit history of that article, you'll quickly notice that it's being edited over the last four days by a huge number of brand new user accounts. The handful accounts that I spot-checked were all maybe 2 days old at the latest. My first thought is that there's a class, organized event (possibly Wikipedia- or WMF-organized), or a large collaboration or group effort going on here (which may include meatpuppetry). Unfortunately, this probably leaves more questions than answers here, but when it comes to addressing your concerns directly, I'd speculate that there might be meatpuppetry going on at the worst case scenario. Please let me know if you have any more questions or additional concerns regarding what you're seeing at the AFD (or other places), and I'll be happy to provide my assistance and lend a hand. :-) Don't be a stranger; I hope you keep in touch! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think AWNH's explanation makes sense here; I was not aware of the newcomer tasks thing as a potential channel for new editors. The more you know! Thanks to both of you for the input. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie - I thought that might be the case (hence the reason I stated "possibly Wikipedia- or WMF-organized" above). I also think it makes sense as well. You bet; always happy to lend a hand! Don't be a stranger if you need input or assistance with anything else. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah! I’m quite new to editing Wikipedia, and I found you on the List of Administrators because I wanted to ask a more experienced Wikipedian a question. Mostly, I have been trying to clean articles that look like they were written as advertisements. Such as removing sections that are just lists of product names with no citations from media, and replacing buzzwords with more neutral words, etc.

However, the reason I am here is because I want to contribute to Wikipedia as best as I can. So I’m wondering if my contributions are constructive or not, because currently, on average I remove more text than I add to articles.

Have a great day! Arxion (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Arxion - The quick answer to your question is YES! Presenting content that is presented and worded to reflect a neutral point of view is not only paramount when it comes to providing high quality content and information to the public, it is one of our founding principles that we cherish as a key policy when writing articles and content. If you see content within an article that isn't encyclopedic (especially if it's content that Wikipedia is not the place for), then it doesn't belong here - remove it. If you see content that isn't written to reflect a neutral point of view, and if you feel that it reads like advertising, then that's a problem and it needs to be modified and improved. Of course, as you obviously already know and show awareness of with your message above, it's always preferable to try and fix content rather than remove it if that option is achievable and possible. However, that simply isn't an option in every situation and the content has to go.

So long as you ask yourself, "is this content valuable in some way?" and, if the answer is yes, "can this be improved instead of removed?", you'll never find yourself "under the microscope" or "under scrutiny" by the community when it comes to concerns over bad faith or nonconstructive editing. Other users may revert or dispute your changes, but that's a normal part of the Wikipedia editing "circle of life"; it isn't an indicator that you've done something wrong. Just work with the editor or group, express your concerns, and come to a good consensus. Once you manage to do all of these things proficiently, you'll not only discover that you had absolutely nothing to worry about when you asked about your contributions here, you'll also find yourself to be much more seasoned and experienced with Wikipedia and making contributions, and you'll grow as a member of the community and start building experience and trust among the others.

I'm not here and where I am today on Wikipedia because I kept my head down and blended in with the crowd; I built my Wikipedia experience, policy knowledge, leadership, community respect and trust, and wisdom by being bold, standing out from the others when it comes to working out issues and disputes, and leading by example with civil and positive communication that encouraged friendship and teamwork rather than hostility and opposition. If you're looking to grow and become an experienced editor on Wikipedia, I will absolutely encourage you to do so and I will be happy to help you with anything that you need. It's an absolute honor and a great privilege to hold the level of leadership, administrative, functional, and collaborative duties and roles that I've been trusted to be given, and I hope that you'll work to get there too. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want to say that I really appreciate the time you took to reply to me, and I thank you greatly for your words of encouragement and advice! :) Arxion (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Arxion - You bet; always happy to lend a hand! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What is your favourite colour? MrBoopsy (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrBoopsy! Ooooohhh... Good question! It depends... what exactly will I be choosing the color for? A house? A car? A plain-colored shirt? A cat? If you describe to me exactly what you want me to pick the best color for, I'll tell you what I think is my favorite and what I think looks the best to me. Don't just name something general such as "a car"... you gotta be specific. If you instead ask me what my favorite color for "a 2018 Ford Mustang GT 5.0" is, I'd go with electric blue). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m an new user! You don’t have the right to delete my userpage! I ask you to please restore this page! It’s an userpage, not an Wikipedia article! Lobby And TheoTheoDerich (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lobby And TheoTheoDerich! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to create an account an join us! I understand that you're new here, but you need to understand that we have policies and guidelines that I must not only follow (being an admin doesn't exempt me from being required to follow all of the rules as well), but enforce as well. The reason I deleted your user page was because it consisted of advertising and promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or promotion, and Wikipedia's user page guidelines here state that advertising and promotion is not allowed on your user page. Your user page was deleted because it met the criteria in policy allowing me to do so.

I don't want the deletion to result in you feeling disheartened or upset, but on the other aspect - you need to understand that this website is about building an encyclopedia; it's not about advertising the game you want people to download. If the deletion makes you that upset, you should ask yourself if you are here for the right reasons. Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia and make Wikipedia a better place for anyone to read and enjoy? You stated that you are brand new here, but then go on to say that I don't have the right to delete your user page. Your last sentence also (incorrectly) implies that you believe that I'm only allowed to delete articles, and not user pages. For someone who understands that they're brand new to Wikipedia (you stated this above), you're making (very incorrect) assumptions despite acknowledging that you're new and that you're not familiar with all of our policies.

My advice to you is that that you withhold any assumptions that you might find yourself wanting to make, and that you take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. We have an extensive getting started page, as well as an interactive new user tutorial; both will be very beneficial for you, and I highly recommend reading through and completing them. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any assistance - I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You… Stay away! You’re trying to harm me! You deleted my userpage as an new user, you musted man! Stay away from me! Lobby And TheoTheoDerich (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lobby And TheoTheoDerich: Meh. Oshwah is a great guy and like ten times nicer than I. I think you are being unduly harsh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Stay away, I said. I am issuing my final warning, stay away. —Lobby And TheoTheoDerich (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be making a threat, to another editor. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lobby And TheoTheoDerich - Given your response above, it's becoming clear to me that you just aren't willing to learn and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines no matter how clear and easy I make doing so for you. I hope that I'm reading you incorrectly and that you prove me wrong, and that you become a constructive editor and that you contribute positively to the project. All I'll say to you is that the mindset and attitude that you demonstrated above will just lead you to being shown the exit door (not by me, but by another administrator) should you continue editing with that mindset. Regardless, I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

My chicken livers I made were magnificent, but I blame Skdbfkf for my burnt onion rings.😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra - Onion rings are amazing! Burnt onion rings? Not so much... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you on Discord now? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra - I'm always on Discord. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Should this be blanked per DENY? OK by me. I suspect Iry-Hor and PohranicniStraze would agree to it given recent history. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Adakiko - Nah, I'd just leave it alone. Even if the IP user is a troll, the discussion is important because the user responded and explained that the words used came straight from the source. Without looking into the IP user or the accounts and their history (or, really, anything further at all..), I do question why such words are necessary for an article and if they violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view or not. Regardless, the user is making an appropriate argument in an attempt to explain the reason behind their edits. I'd just stay back and leave well enough alone. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, the content of the Wepwawetemsaf article is irrelevant to me. I'm vastly more annoyed at the abuse and the time I wasted on this article. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said to the user, I am not against editing the article to make it clearer that the words employed ("crude" and "poor") to describe a stela are precisely those employed by the source. I actually edited the article during the edit war to that end, amending the sentence to say that "[SOURCE] says that..." or something similar. I think that neutral on wikipedia is not the same thing as bland/blank, rather neutral to me means presenting the opinions of all relevant expert sources with published material with equal weight. Here the two experts (D. Baker and K. Ryholt) are undoubtedly experts in the field and no one is putting that into question. Rather the question is: does neutral imply silencing the sources opinions ? I don't think so because Wikipedia gives facts and it is a fact that these sources said that.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Iry-Hor - Wikipedia's policy on wording articles to present a neutral point of view has many sections and in-depth examples when it comes to this situation. Writing a neutral article and complying with the neutrality policy doesn't mean that opinions must be included in the article at all, or completely excluded if they're present. It really depends on the article, subject, topic, and circumstances as to if and when adding the significant viewpoints and opinions is necessary. All in all, we have to make sure that due and undue weight are properly and proportionally considered and discussed when adding content regarding the major opinions from reliable sources are determined by consensus to be necessary. Please review Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy page, as well as the section on due and undue weight, and please let me know if any of you run into any questions about them. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. :-) Thanks for the response, Iry-Hor, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your wish is my command! I don't suppose you have the power to make this happen in my RL. :-) One more wish: although it's a somewhat messy block log based on the conversation you've been having with yourself, perhaps you should clarify the log by CU-blocking Ijumdiya wadzani...it would make it easier for anyone looking at the log later. Thanks for your hard work.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23! God, if only I could grant wishes in real life... :-) And yes, good call - I have no problem putting that block back onto the account. Sigh... yeah, I didn't exactly leave that account's block log in clean and perfect order... :-/

I blocked this user on accident while using the SPI script to block the other sock users I found (I simply forgot to untick the "block" checkbox next to that account in the list). After catching the mistake, I unblocked the account and stated my reason in that summary. Sigh..... Then, a few moments later, I realized that I forgot that the account was previously indefinitely blocked, and that I had just stupidly unblocked them to fix the first mistake instead of changing it back. Hence, my other other block change. Yeah, good times... *Oshwah rolls his eyes at himself*

Anyways,  Done. I've restored the CU block back due to both the technical and behavioral evidence, and the discussion at the SPI. Thanks for pointing that out and for letting me know. If you need anything else from me, please don't be a stranger. You know where to find me! ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone needs a vacation. EEng 00:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

EEng - HA! HAHAHA! Ha... haha..... *starts sobbing*.... :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Oshwah,

on 4 June 2022 I made an edit request for the Unmanned aerial vehicle article. Such an edit is a clear case of COI (I am the author of a cited paper) and I tried to explain why, despite the COI, I think my edit could be beneficial to the readers of the article. I am wondering why you have classified my request as belonging to a case of 'sock puppetry'. I am using a single account on Wikipedia (this one) and I am not trying to hide my case of COI. I have tried to follow the rules of Wikipedia as best I can (the case of COI is highlighted in my profile) and am waiting for other editors' judgment on my request as it should be. In what way am I cheating? I will be glad to help you understand any irregularities you have encountered. Thank you very much for your attention. Bnontn89 (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bnontn89, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your concerns and your request for help. Per Wikipedia's policy that prohibits original research, you are not allowed to "cite yourself" as any kind of supporting reference or source on any Wikipedia articles. This means that you cannot use your own experience, personal relationships, knowledge, or even written or published works (such as the reference you added here to the Unmanned aerial vehicle where you state that you authored) as a source or supporting reference. This is all prohibited by that policy I liked you to in this response. This is why MrOllie removed the reference you added and left a message on your user talk page here regarding conflict of interest. Based on what you said above, MrOllie's removal of your reference was the correct action to take.

Your edit request will likely be rejected due to these issue as well. In fact, the request should have this self-disclosure added to it so that readers and reviewers know about it and avoid the possibility that it is accidentally added back. I don't know why you believe that I classified your edit request as "belonging to a case of sock puppetry" (to quote what you stated in your message above). I don't see anywhere where this happened, and I don't see anywhere on the article's talk page where anyone has made that accusation toward you at all. Please review and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on no original research and conflict of interest, and please let me know if you have any questions about them. I'll be more than happy to answer your questions and help you. I hope that I was able to answer your questions and point you in the right direction. I'm sure it's not the response you wanted; after all, nobody likes to ask for help just to find out that they were in the wrong. However, this will help you to learn and understand the different policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and your experience and knowledge with Wikipedia will grow as a result. Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great rest of your day. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Blanchey (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Blanchey - I saw that it arrived a few days ago. I'll give it a read today and get back to you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Blanchey - I just replied to your email. I need a few things so that I can search for what you're looking for... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah, I think I’ve found what you needed and sent it to your email. Thanks! ;-) Blanchey (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Blanchey - Perfect! I'll check it out tonight or tomorrow and get back to you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Blanchey (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah: How can I became a checkuser? Jjohhnnyy (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jjohhnnyy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Since you're brand new here, I would not focus on obtaining highly-trusted user rights such as checkuser. This can be seen by the community negatively if this is your only focus. Instead, I'd focus on how to get started on Wikipedia, and I recommend that you go through and complete the new user tutorial as well. Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to do so. Again, welcome! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Can you check am I anybody's sockpuppet? Jjohhnnyy (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Jjohhnnyy - Running the checkuser tool against a user account or IP address that stems from a self-request by that user is not allowed on the English Wikipedia, and hence are not granted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok. To check only I just asked. Anyway thanks Jjohhnnyy (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Oshwah, I see you are active. I don't want to go to the dramah boards with this but [[1]] looks like BKFIP. Maybe I'm wrong but it sets off the spidey-sense. If I'm reaching please feel free to delete. Thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For going the extra mile to welcome student editors! I started welcoming them for retention purposes, and I love to see an admin such as yourself taking that extra step! You were helpful to me several times when I was just getting started and wanted you to know I appreciate your efforts, whatever that's worth to ya. :) I look forward to seeing you around! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 15:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Spf121188! Thank you for taking the time to leave me this barnstar, and for your very kind words. You yourself also deserve one for the extra time that you put into helping student feel welcome here, and that they have someone they can reach out to if they need any help. I'm going to quote something that I stated in one my responses above: "Assisting our new and novice editors (especially those who are students, and hence (IMO) are people who have a higher likelihood of becoming dedicated members of the community after their class ends) is something I believe that all of us as editors, administrators, leaders, and teachers share. If we want to be the driving force for positive impact on this project, and those who make real, significant, actual change for the better around here when it comes to culture, civility, retention, and just plain having fun - helping those who need assistance is one of the best places to start. It's where we can really lead by example; with courtesy, respect, and kindness behind the positive, fun, collaborative, helping hand that we offer to new users each and every time." Again, I thank you very much for the kind words - they mean a lot to me, and they help me to know that the time and effort that I put into this project is making a difference around here, even if that difference is small. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You absolutely deserve the kind words! If you weren't around to help me when I was getting started I may not still be here, and it's fulfilling work, so I greatly appreciate it! Thank you as well for your kind words and I'm sure we'll run across each other again soon! :) SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 18:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Spf121188 - Well, thank goodness that I was around and able to help you. Else, it sounds like we would've lost you as an editor... I'm extremely happy to hear that this didn't happen. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	A big thank you for all the help you have given me recently, and for being an extremely kind and friendly administrator! Fantastic contributors like yourself need to be recognised more! Blanchey (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blanchey! Thank you very much for the barnstar and for the very kind words. It means a lot to me, and I appreciate it very much. It's a pleasure to be where I am on Wikipedia, and to have the opportunity, community trust, privilege, the tools, and the ability to serve you (as well as anybody else that needs assistance). Don't be a stranger if you need anything else; I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, I filed a report for this at RPP, but I saw you were online, so I wanted to ask directly. Could you please look into semi-protectimg Louise Bennett-Coverley? Her article has ben vandalized several times today. I've watched the article for several years, and I couldn't figure out why IPs from all over the world were suddenly vandalizing her article. Well, she was the subject of a Google doodle on September 7! It would be nice if Google would give us prior warning. :) Thanks BilCat (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi BilCat! Long time no chat! I hope you're doing well and that life is treating you nicely. Sure,  Done - I've put a silver lock on the gate for three days. If issues continue after it expires, let me know and I'll extend it. I hope you a great rest of your day, and (as always) I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - You bet; happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've been well, and you? BilCat (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - Ugh, quite busy lately with work and all that fun stuff... It's been hot outside where I live, which my body doesn't tolerate nearly as well as it used to when I was younger. I just can't wait until Fall hits and things start to cool down... What about yourself? How is life treating you? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I totally understand about one's body and temperature toleration. Mine doesn't tolerate heat or cold very well. I'm doing well overall, though my health issues haven't improved any. (Can't be more specific on an open forum.) Where I love is still quite warm, though not as bad as June through August. Our A/C went out completely before the Fourth of July, so I was miserable for a week before we could it fixed. (HVAC people are always busy in the summer!) BilCat (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - Ugh, I just got my AC unit up and running a few weeks ago. It was absolutely miserable up until that point. I don't know what I'd do without it... it's a big quality of life improvement to me, since I can now relax and sleep comfortably without being sticky from constant sweat. I really can't wait until things cool down... I'm sorry things seem to be in a standstill health-wise; It's good to hear that things aren't getting worse though. I wish you the best of luck and you'll be in my thoughts regarding that. Despite that, it's good that your overall mental, psychological, and emotional health seem to be in good standing. Mental and psychological health, if anything (and depending on the person and any mental illnesses they may be going through), can be the hardest to control. It's... not fun when you're not healthy in that aspect. There was a period of time in my life where I wasn't taking my mental fitness and medication seriously, and I really suffered as a result. It's great to be past that and have those things straightened out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, it's definitely important to stay one's medication, or else get it adjusted by a medical professional. BilCat (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - Exactly! I take my medication seriously, take it on time each day, and life is great again. I don't know why I let myself be so careless to myself when it came to just taking them on time... But hey, lesson learned. It's important; always treat it that way. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I take meds for my health issues also, so I definitely understand. Mental health is more difficult since can it affect one's judgment, and so people can fool themselves into thinking they no longer need it. It's good that you've accepted that you need it, and worked towards keeping on a schedule. My pill counter is helpful, but sometimes I still skip doses inadvertently, even with alarms set. BilCat (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah! Thanks for the cleanup, I know it was much needed. I'm aware that ccnorm should've made some of that unnecessary, but for some reason it was missing some hits which is why I "rolled my own." I think there are other measures in place that will hopefully reduce the need for that aspect of the filter anyway. Thanks again! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I just disabled it; something in your re-factoring started triggering a lot of false positives. Looking at that now... OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie - No worries; I'm always happy to help. :-) I noticed this too, and I believe that I fixed the problem earlier this morning. See the latest notes that I added to the edit filter - it will explain what happened. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey again Oshwah, this question is unrelated to the one above. See User talk:Ponyo#Protection for more details concerning this case.

Since admins can now protect specific articles from specific IP addresses, is it possible or permissible to block a very large range from specific articles, or even specific ISPs? It certainly would be useful in this case, which generally, though not exclusively, comes from a specific ISP on a specific continent. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi BilCat! Welcome back! The short answer to your question is "yes" - with some asterisks next to it (*). ;-) When partial-blocking was implemented and deployed project-wide, it expanded our ability to apply more-specific and more-focused blocks to users and from certain pages or namespaces, instead of only having the option to either block the user site-wide or not to apply a block at all.

If, for example, you were an administrator, and I was demonstrating repeated disruptive behaviors on pages relating to... the letters of the alphabet, you could partially-block me from being able to edit specific pages that you add to a list. This also applies to namespaces; if I were being a troll but only on Wikipedia talk pages, you could instead partially-block me from that namespace (or more). The list of pages to partially-block a user from is a separate list from the list of namespaces you can partially-block a user from. You can fill both of them out with entries, and the block will apply to both. However, the number of pages you can list in order to partially-block a user from is limited to only ten. After that, a namespace or site-wide block should be applied if a block is determined to be necessary. There is no limit to the number of namespaces you can list (but... let's be honest: if a user is abusing more than one namespace, they should just be blocked site-wide). This is the limitation that is imposed when it comes to applying partial-blocks. If you take a look here, this is a test block that I just applied to my test account. You'll see that I was able to list every namespace in the list, but I could only list ten pages - which were the first ten letters of the alphabet. :-)

When it comes to applying any kind of block (partial or site-wide), the MediaWiki software does not allow blocks to be applied to IP address ranges if they are wider than a /16 CIDR range (in the case of an IPv4 range), or a /32 CIDR range (in the case of IPv6 ranges). This can be worked around if necessary; you'll just have to apply more than one block to a number of /16 or /32 or lower ranges in order to cover that of a higher one. These are the limitations that the MediaWiki software imposes with IP range blocks. If you're adding a partial-block to that mix, the limit of ten specific pages also applies.

I hope this helped to answer your questions regarding partial-blocks and IP range blocks. If you have any more questions, need any clarity with the information I provided to you here, or if you need me to explain anything more in-depth so that you better understand a concept or what something is specifically, please let me know! I'll be happy to answer them, help you, and provide you with any in-depth knowledge that you're looking for. :-) Keep in tough, my friend! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how many ranges, or even ISP, this user(s) sock farm occupies, so I don't think it would be feasible in the end. But for smaller jobs, it's definitely a great feature. (I just couldn't recall the name "partial block"! My brain is getting older!) BilCat (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - Yup, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that exact situation. Partial blocks are a bad solution if you're trying to keep a bunch (or essentially an unknown number) of different IP addresses or ranges away from certain pages because they're being abused by LTA users or sock puppets. In those situations, just semi-project the page; don't put yourself in a position where you're sitting there with binoculars and playing "Whack-a-mole". That's an ineffective and bad use of partial-blocking that will only just waste your time and do nothing to stop the abuse. It's akin to stopping a leaky roof from dripping water on your carpet by using a bucket with a huge hole in the bottom. Good luck with that... LOL :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The affected pages have been protected, but the farm goes on to other articles once the blocks expires, then returns to some of them. Whac-a-Mole is the only real solution left, and to hope they eventually get bored. BilCat (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - Yeah, I mean it really depends on the IP range, the collateral damage that's at risk, the seriousness, severity, and frequency of the abuse, the affected pages and who edits them and how often -- all of that comes into consideration when admins are left to decide which "flavor" of a sanction or restriction should be imposed. A very important thing that I always tell other admins when I'm helping to teach them how to decide what the appropriate action is in tough situations like this: There is no perfect solution, so stop trying to look for one. Your range block will affect innocent users, even if it's only a few. Your page protection will restrict innocent users from editing it, even if that number is small. Achieve a good balance between preventing further disruption and abuse, and keeping the collateral damage or the number of innocently-affected users small. Don't go for perfection; you will not find it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. So I revert until it occurs a few time a day, then report to Ponyo but they are sometimes offline. Other admins have blocked also, so that helps. I think the reverts are more annoying to the IPs than making them are to me, at least to jugde by their infrequent abusive outburts about American English. They seem to be a person(s) who doesn't understand that other Englishes don't perfectly follow the grammar they were taught, and doesn't want to accept American English as a legitimate variant. Which is quite odd as they are apparently Australian, whose local variants are even more peculiar than standard American English! We get all kinds here! BilCat (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - Well, so long as the user is following consistency throughout the article, it shouldn't be a problem (so long as the exceptions don't apply). If they're going through the article and correcting everything to be in-line with that variance of spelling, it's no problem. However, if they're adding content that isn't in-line with that consistency, it should be fixed so that it does (assuming the content is within compliance of Wikipedia's policies). Otherwise, if it isn't - remove it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that they usually aren't consistent with the article. Occasionally they get one right, and I don't revert those. But thanks for listening, and ImI'm applying the overall advice where needed. BilCat (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - You bet! Always happy to be of assistance! If you run into any more questions, or if you need my input with anything else, don't be a stranger - you know where to find me. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Oshwah, am trying to adopt the wikipedia to write and contribute little bit which i can. so, i started editing and writing small content like companies and other. last time one of my draft has been deleted without reasons. now i am learning new things and writing againg. kindly help me Draft:SwiftSafe this is my present draft Rapelly11akhil (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Oshwah! Thank you for the comprehensive answer you gave me. However, I would like to clarify with you some important aspects

a) To this link Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests you can find the table of the edit requests waiting for a renspose. At the row related to my request, under the column "Last protection log entry" you can read <<Protected by Oshwah on 2021-03-26: "Persistent sock puppetry">>. Maybe this is a warning related to the UAV page itself and not to my specific request. I apologize for such a misunderstanding due to my lack of knowledge about the wikipedia reviewing system.

b) You wrote: <<Per Wikipedia's policy that prohibits original research, you are not allowed to "cite yourself">>. I have read the Wikipedia:No original research policy but I could not find the piece of text where "citing yourself" is prohibited. Can you share it with me please? For my understanding of the policy, this is not a case of original research since I am adding sources that have been considered valuable of publication by world-known editors after a peer-review process. I am not adding new knowledge for which no reliable, published sources exist.

c) In Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy there is a specific paragraph on self citation. I report it here for the sake of completeness: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." I am in line with this guideline in at least three aspects: 1) I am proposing the edit on the article's talk page; 2) My references are very relevant to the topic since infrastructure inspection (the topic of the three papers) is one of the main applications of UAVs and it is already mentioned in the UAV wikipedia article introduction 3) My article is not the only one I cite, and it is the only self citation I have ever requested on wikipedia, thus certainly avoiding any possible accusation of spamming. The ultimate and only goal is to give the wikipedia reader verifiable references on this application of UAVs, which will allow him or her to investigate the topic further.

Could you reply to this three points, please? Thank you very much for your time and consideration :)

p.s. I am going to add point c to the edit request I did on the talk page.

Bnontn89 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bnontn89! Thanks for the message and for your response here. I've gone and responded to your edit request discussion on the article's talk page (diff, permalink). I'll quote what I stated in my response to the edit request below:

"Hi Bnontn89, and thanks for responding here. :-) I hope that you understand that I'm not responding here to come after you or to accuse you of any bad-faith or malicious wrongdoing; in fact, I've re-worded the response I made above - I don't see this as a conflict of interest issue and I apologize for citing it. :-) I just want to make sure that anyone who reviews your edit request are aware of and take into account the fact that (at least part of) what you're attempting to add to the article may be original research.

One important part of the text that you quoted from the conflict of interest guideline is that your self-written sources must conform "to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB" (emphasis mine with the italicizing of the text). That Wikipedia link points to the section on self-published sources within Wikipedia's verifiability policy. In that section, it states that self-published material is "largely not acceptable as sources" and due to the fact that "[a]nyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert." However, this section also states that "[s]elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (emphasis not mine; this was emphasized in the policy page text). This is what the conflict of interest guideline text that you quoted refers to.

Is the content that I quoted from Wikipedia's verifiability applicable to you? Are you an an established subject-matter expert? Has your work (including the self-published references that you wrote and referenced in this article) previously been published by reliable, independent publications?"

The questions I ask at the end will be important for you to answer, as it will determine if adding this self-published reference may be allowed under Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Keep in mind that if any amount of your self-published source contains original research, it will not be allowed to be added as a reference. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great day! Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

hi i would like to make biography and history my grandfather he is one of legend civil engginner in Indonesia since 1941 and so many historical buildings he did in our country.

Could you give me a directions what i should to do for the first time

thanks --Antariksa Merah Putih (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Antariksa Merah Putih, and welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Have you gone through Wikipedia's getting started page or completed Wikipedia's new user tutorial yet? I highly recommend that you do both of those things before you attempt to start allocating any time and effort toward putting together an article or any content about this person. 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.

After you have gone through those pages I listed above, you'll likely be ready to review Wikipedia's help page on writing your first article. Reviewing and understanding the information on that help page, as well as the relevant policies and guidelines that it references, is very important. Failing to do so will result in your attempt at creating the article being unsuccessful and (what I feel is even worse) many hours (if not days) of your time ultimately being spent toward trying to create this article and ultimately be spent for nothing. This will leave you feeling disheartened, disappointed, discouraged, and likely will lead you toward leaving the project and no longer volunteering and contributing here. This is absolutely not what I want to see happen! Please take my recommendations and review the pages that I've linked you to here - they will be very helpful. Please also let me know if you have any other questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. :-) I hope that you have a splendid rest of your day, and take care! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

cool hair on your user page, XD 104.235.75.1 (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

HA! Thank you! ;-) Believe it or not, but that is my real actual hair and in its natural state - no wigs, perms, alterations, or changes! LOL... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting phenomena at Clinical mental health counseling. Notice the enormous number of new editors? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677! Thanks for the message! :-) Interesting... Yes, I very much do. It looks like many new users have been editing this article since September 10. I definitely wonder what it might be about (of course while remembering that this very well might be legitimate, such as maybe a class, course, or a legitimate group... or simply coincidental). In my many years of experience both with on-wiki and off-wiki things, I've learned that coincidences are quite rare - even more so as you add more variables to the events (in this case, the more new users that start editing the article). I'll do a little digging and see if any red flags or other issues present themselves. If you find any obvious evidence that demonstrates that sock puppetry between two or more of any of the accounts is occurring, please file an SPI report so that we can look into this. Thanks again for the heads up, and I wish you happy editing! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually thought it was a school project. Then I figured it out. If you look at this previous version, the article had five cleanup tags. Because of that, it started appearing (I think) as a priority article at the newcomers tasks. Once the tags were removed, the new editors stopped coming. What was interesting was seeing what happens when a plethora of brand new editors all start working on the same article. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to direct newcomers to complicated articles such as that one. Apparently, they are just directed to articles with certain types of edit tags. BilCat (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - Those cleanup tags you see weren't originally designed to recruit brand new editors over like that; I'm sure that those tags were placed before this "automatic recruiting of new users to try and help" was implemented. However, I'm hesitant as to what I believe is best here. I don't want new users to be inadvertently overwhelmed with facing cleanup tasks with articles that need a more experienced editor to resolve, but I also don't think that we should automatically assume that just because an editor is brand new to Wikipedia means that they're incapable of cleaning up or improving certain articles or topics because of their perceived "complexity". I'm not sure when this changed, but it might be worth starting a discussion to see if this "automatic recruiting" (if that this is even true or the case at all) with those cleanup tags is a good strategy or not; if anything (again, assuming that this is actually true - I haven't verified that this is what's happening), we should either discuss or vet exactly which cleanup tags should be considered "easy enough" for newcomers to try and resolve, or we should just create a parameter on these tags (or create separate tags altogether) that can be used instead. For example: I absolutely do not think that those tags should be recruiting any brand new users to help clean up any articles that are within any topic areas that are currently subject to discretionary sanctions - that's just begging for both trouble, and for new users to quickly be shown the door or be left feeling overwhelmed or that learning to contribute here is impossible - and leave. I'm sure that with good in-depth discussion and vetting, that the community could come up with a solution that would pave the way for improving this new user process. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It was great to see so much enthusiasm to improve an article, but many edits were cosmetic, and not all were an improvement. This editor removed the cleaup tags with the edit summary, "I am so sick of this showing up in my suggested edits I'm removing the problem templates so this doesn't show up in my suggested edits". A discussion would be good. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677 - Yeah, I agree. That's definitely no good... There definitely has to be a way where we can make this "suggested edits" process with new users better... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, definitely. Since your talk page is quite popular, hopefully someone knows where to address this issue. BilCat (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

what is happening in my biography ...why it is rejected ? --Kaushal Goplavansi (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kaushal Goplavansi! The reason that the draft page you created was rejected from moving forward is stated on both of the two notifications located on the top of the page. In both instances, the reviewer found that the article subject (which is you, apparently) do not meet Wikipedia's criteria regarding notability. This is required in order for an article subject to qualify for the creation of an article on Wikipedia. Please take some time and review this guideline, and please let me know if you have any questions. On another note, creating an autobiography about yourself on Wikipedia is highly discouraged behavior that almost never results in the successful creation and retention of the article - it usually almost ends up being deleted. Instead of creating an article about yourself, I highly recommend that you focus on contributing to the project and helping to improve or expand it. There are many ways that you can do this, and Wikipedia has an extensive getting started page, as well as a very-informative new user tutorial, that will help you with how to do this. If you indeed are notable, someone else will undoubtedly write an article about you, so I wouldn't be overly concerned. :-) Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing! :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ploreky (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ploreky! Okay, I'll check it out tonight and get back to you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, there is a series of IPs from Vietnam, apparently one user, who has made unsourced changes to cited information on RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 several times over the past month. That's bad enough, but they've also misspecieized me as a dog, when my username clearly indicates that I identify as a cat. (Is calling cats "Dog" is a Vietnamese thing? I don't really know.) The first time, I just replied with "Woof", as I'm bilingual. (Thanks, Svengoolie!) However, when they did it again, I had to reply as a cat, as I must be true to myself. Thanks! BilCat (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi BilCat! I'm sorry to hear about the miss-identification of the species that you identify as - your username makes it pretty clear to me! ;-) Hmm... I see... Looking at the edit summary they left with this edit doesn't exactly make me think that they were calling you a "dog" in a good way. I'm not sure if they're playing on the irony that your username contains "Cat", or if this is a common insult in this user's culture, but I don't like it. Regarding the unreferenced changes that they've been making to RIM-161 Standard Missile 3: I see that they've been engaging in a "slow edit war over the same content over the past month, and without discussing anything with you directly. It's a huge range (2405:4800::/30), but I've partially blocked 2405:4803::/32 from editing the article for three months. I obviously can't apply the account creation restriction onto this block due to the size of the range; that would surely cause a lot of collateral damage if I did. However, this should put a stop to the disruption and (hopefully) provide the user the opportunity to educate themselves on dispute resolution vs edit warring. Only time will tell... ;-) Please let me know if you need anything else, or if you see any new accounts suddenly popping up to restore the same edits onto that article. I'll be happy to help! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm disappointed that "misspecieazation" is not a word. It's hilarious and totally should be! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, it should be! I appreciate the partial protection. And thanks for putting up with my odd sense of humor! It was quite late. (And I don't drink, so that's completely sober humor!) BilCat (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - No problem! Always happy to lend a hand! No worries; it's always great to chat with you! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Same here. BilCat (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) CiaPan (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

CiaPan - HA! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, Oshwah identifies as hair, not a pet. :) BilCat (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

BilCat - No, I identify as a bot, remember? That's what some vandals have called me in the past with my quick reverts. :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry! But bots don't have paws, unless it's a dog-bot, of course. BilCat (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah and BilCat: This talk went too far right for my phone screen with a desktop view, so I'll undent it. I hope you dont't mind :)

That reminds me... Let's see if I can find it in Oshwah's talk page archives abyss... Just a bit more time...
YES, here it is!

User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-04#Just..._incredible

Funny coincidence, I mentioned whiskers there. :)) CiaPan (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

CiaPan, BilCat - Ohhhh boy! The ole' turing test.... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

CiaPan (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the requested action is done already. :) --CiaPan (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

CiaPan - Yup, I read your email. The deed has been done. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Always happy to learn! Alas, my forgetting skills almost equal those of learning :(... CiaPan (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

CiaPan - Any time! And don't worry... so are mine. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)