User talk:Oshwah - Wikipedia

I want the page of Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal deleted, due to a name change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinkulit (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(ec) As far as I can see, Calvinkulit made some edits (and moves) on these pages:

• Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal
• Nippon Steel

plus

• Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation

which apparently describe the same entity. Possibly they will require some merge of edit history... --(talk page stalker) CiaPan (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Calvinkulit! Thanks for leaving me a message here with your request. I'm confused; I don't understand why this article should be deleted and due to a "name change". Can you elaborate and explain a bit further? What's wrong? What exactly are you trying to do? I'll be happy to help you once I know what's needed. I just want to make sure that I give you assistance with what you really need... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have already manually moved the page back to Nippon Steel, so there is no point in keeping Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal. Calvinkulit talk 6:22, 3 April 2019 (GMT +8)

(edit conflict) Calvinkulit - Uh oh! It looks like something went wrong somewhere with the page move. Looking at the page logs for Nippon Steel, it looks like you moved it to Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, then moved it back? And it looks like there's another article, Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal, with the same content as well. Somehow, it's now at a stage where the content exists on both places and no redirect is present. I can certainly fix everything, but I'm going to probably need to peform some history merges in order to make sure that the edit history is accurate and all in one place. Just to verify: the place where this article should be is Nippon Steel - is that correct? What was the original name of the article? Where has it been for the majority of it's time on Wikipedia? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(ec) @Calvinkulit: Oppose. The article Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal has a long edit history, you should not request removing it and replacing it with a verbatim copy with you as the creator. --CiaPan (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

CiaPan - A deletion is not going to happen. The pages, content, logs, and edit histories will be moved and merged to its proper title and location. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah: Yes, I know that. I just wanted to point out to the requester that blanking pages, copying contents to a new place and requesting removal of the original or temporary copies of article is not a correct way to update and organize contents at Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

CiaPan - Got'cha. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Calvinkulit - Okay...... *whew*... it took me a little bit of time, but I got everything done for you. I had to perform a history merge to undo the manual cut-and-paste move that you made when creating Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal from Nippon Steel, and do so for the talk pages as well. I moved the article to the final location, and modified the redirect at Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation to point to the destination. :-)

Next time, please ask for assistance if you need an article or page moved. When editors who don't know how to properly move pages try to do so by cutting and pasting the content to a new title, they break a bunch of important things and create problems because they didn't actually move everything that's needed. There are edit histories, logs, page restrictions, redirects, and visibility settings that also come along when an article is properly moved, and merging them from two locations and back into one is a complex task that most administrators don't know how to do, or aren't willing to do themselves (due to how easy it is to do incorrectly and make things even worse).

In fact, you're actually quite lucky that you happened to message me for assistance, as I'm one of the few admins who has experience with performing history merges and knows how to do it properly. ;-) Most admins who find themselves needing to do this will have me do it... lol Anyways, thanks for coming to me and asking for help. If you need anything else, or if you need my input or assistance in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be more than happy to help you out. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I also want Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal to be DELETED from the top search, and replaced with Nippon Steel. Calvinkulit (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Calvinkulit - The search should update automatically after some time has gone by to favor the new title instead of the old one. However, regardless of what's changed automatically - if someone searches for "Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal" and types this into the search box, that result is going to show up since this is what the user or reader is looking for. We can't control the search and what returns or favors as the result; all I can say is that it'll update and there's nothing you need to worry about. Either way, the reader will be redirected to the new page if they click on a result that takes them to a redirect. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Oshwah, bit of a weird one but I have a client here through Upwork who is basically a PR representative of a Uk based public figure, whose Wikipedia page is getting repeatedly vandalised by trolls/stalkers. They've hired me to try to get in contact with someone from here on their behalf. I haven't got the details of exactly which page it is, but is there any way we can get in contact about this, even if it's just to direct me to the appropriate ways to make a protection request? The client is also interested in having their page removed but I have explained for notable people that might not be possible. Anyway, thanks for any help. If you need to contact me via IM or anything that would be great.

[REDACTED - Oshwah] 11:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Just message me here and tell me what article is having issues with vandalism and disruption, and I'll be happy to take a look. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay so basically it's kind of a big long saga on this article here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shazia_Mirza

Go into the talk page and edit history for basically a long protracted argument over the person's age.

I have been contacted by her manager, Martin Twomey, to update her age on here to October 3rd 1982. Martin says he has her passport that confirms this but it's a bit of a stretch to put it into the public domain like that.

On the page there is a lot of discussion on this, sock investigations, a ton of drama, it's all pretty standard Wiki stuff. I have not much experience with Wikipedia but it seems there is a conflict here and I've been contracted to resolve it. It also looks like the 'source' given that's 'resolved' the issue is for a different person entirely. It says the date of birth is December not October, and the name is different.

But anyway, what's best to proceed? I'm not really here to sock if there's no way we can prove the info is wrong on the page, but if there's a way to get a more valid source up, I'd be able to try and ask for it to be done. As you can see from the talk page this is one of the more weird ones and I have been thrown into the middle of it because I do odd Fetch Quests on Upwork.

Anyway, let me know how we can proceed or what to do. Logged back in btw -> Minggut (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Minggut! Thanks for responding with the information. Because you made your original message here while you were logged out of your account, your IP address was used in place of your username in the edit history of this page. In order to keep this information secure and private for you, I've redacted the IP address information and suppressed it for you.

Content on a biography of a living person needs to be supported by reliable sources per this policy. Any content on a biography of a living person that isn't supported by a reliable source can be challenged and removed, and any content that's unfererenced or not supported by sources that meet this requirement and that's contentious in nature must be immediately removed and on sight. Content should not be modified or updated unless there's a reliable source to support the new information. What I'll do is take a look at the article and make sure that all content is in compliance with these policies. If there's any current and ongoing vandalism or disruption, I'll take care of it and make sure that it won't continue.

As somebody who is directly associating with the article subject and therefore has a conflict of interest with this article, you should not make any kind of edits to the article. You'll be violating a number of important policies and guidelines by doing so. If you are being paid or compensated in any way to be here and talk to me, and oversee what's going on with the article - even if you're not directly editing it in any way, you're required to disclose this information per Wikipedia's terms of use. You can follow the instructions here to quickly and easily disclose the information required and make sure that you're in compliance with this policy.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you further. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I thank you again for taking the time to make sure that you're following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and get help with this situation rather than just trying to "wing it" and take care of things yourself. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah this all seems fair - I wasn't going to make an edit until there was a reason to or not. Will put the disclosure in my bio and read up on this also. To be honest I am only here to confirm what I have already told the guy, that he needs a super valid public online source for the age of the person and if one doesn't exist it's probably not going to be allowed to be changed on here - and that it needs to be uploaded by someone totally unaffiliated with the person.

What would you suggest to do next though? I don't really have much attachment to the issue, but would it be best to direct the guy to create a reliable public online source to back up this date, then someone unaffiliated can come back and link it into the page without conflict of interest?

Oh and also is there a template for disclosures somewhere? For now I have pasted a couple things to my user page.

Minggut (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Minggut - He cannot modify or edit the article himself. Make it very clear to him that if he does try to edit the article, it'll be caught very easily by involved editors and the community, and he'll just be completely wasting his time. References that are considered reliable on Wikipedia are required to be secondary and completely independent of the article subject, so no - he would not be able to just publish some public source with information he wants added or changed on the article and expect that it would be acceptable to use on Wikipedia at all.

Honestly, I would do my best to recommend that he leave well enough alone and try not to care too much about the Wikipedia article about him. So what if things aren't perfect? Why does he care so much? What underlying things are prompting him to hire you to do all of this? As long as there's no libel or false defamatory content on the article about him, there's not much for him to gain from putting any thought, time, and energy into the article and its content. Sure, the page will get vandalized and people will make stupid edits and be trolls... that's just as possible with any other article, and those usually get reverted and fixed very quickly. What do you think about all of this? Why do you think that he's concerned about all this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Honestly it's just a guy who doesn't really know how Wikipedia works so well, and he's trying to make sure his client doesn't have their age shown wrong. But yeah, you are correct here, I read the rules. There is little that can be done except if a separate party releases information on her age into the public domain and he can hope that some fan will change the article and link to the information by themselves.

Let me know if my declaration is all correct and I will return this information. Oh and I forgot, thanks for the help.

Minggut (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Minggut - Yup, that's exactly right. These rules and requirements are what keep Wikipedia articles and content as accurate, fair, factual, neutral, and verifiable as possible. Without these rules and requirements, we would have no standard as to where content is acceptable and where it's not, and nobody could be able to trust any articles and content here at all. We would essentially crumble and we wouldn't exist as the website we are today. That's completely understandable; not everyone is familiar with Wikipedia and how encyclopedias work. At least he's doing the right thing by having you get input and help, so that policies are followed and things aren't made difficult or harder by ignoring them... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

To tell you the truth buddy I was just told to go edit the page, but I was aware Wikipedia is governed by policy, and read that talk page, so I was not sure and made my way through a load of articles until I ended up here. Again, please make sure I have done that declaration properly and I will be on my way and relay this info in the simplest terms possible.

Minggut (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Minggut - By the way...... after your work is concluded with this client and all, and when you're no longer being compensated to be here, why not join us and help grow the project? You seem to be very intelligent and knowledgeable given that you've read and understand the different policies that are important here. You'd make a great contributor here, and we could really use someone like you... even if you're not interested in writing or creating content, there's a lot of different projects and areas that you'd probably find interesting (such as patrolling for vandalism and reverting them, participating in different processes, many things...). You should give it some thought and consider it... I think you'd do very well here, and you'd become an editor that everyone knows and looks to in no time at all. Shoot, you already have an account... why not volunteer some spare time and help be part of a project that makes information 100% available and free for everyone on Earth to access?... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

Minggut - Your declaration seems fine to me. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I might give it a try at some point I have a lot of hours in the day. I have basically returned to this guy and relayed the following:

If you are affiliated with someone like this, you can't simply edit the information, because it's a conflict of interest.

Information on Wikipedia is supposed to be from a 'secondary source', so you can't just release info directly yourself and cite it yourself - it has to be released by someone unaffiliated with your client.

Even if the information is released by an unaffiliated party, it's still a conflict of interest if you upload it as an affiliate.

The only way to get her age updated or changed is if SOMEONE ELSE releases your client's age, then another SOMEONE ELSE uploads that on their own, without you prompting them.

But basically I'm going to try and close this Fetch Quest now and hope that this is helpful for the dude. Freelancer is always stuff like this. And yeah, leave some info on my page about when or if I can remove that declaration and maybe I might be able to help you out with some stuff sometime. Thanks much for the time. Minggut (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Minggut - Looks good to me! You can remove that declaration as soon as you're no longer being compensated by your client; easy peasy! I think that you'd be an asset to this project and that you'd enjoy it thoroughly. If I can be of assistance with anything else, please let me know and I'll be happy to help. :-) I really do hope that I hear from you again and see you back here on Wikipedia, and that you consider volunteering. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the mean time is there any other channel this guy can go through, or contact e-mail for submitting wrong info, or is it pointless still? The guy's concern is currently they are sourcing the wrong figure completely so it's misinformation about the person in question. And yeah I will try to contact you another time, I have stuff to finish currently. Minggut (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Minggut - Yes, there absolutely is. See Wikpedia's contact page information for article subjects here. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay I will link this through to the dude and say "That's it, Man.". Thanks again though will drop you a line maybe I can assign a few hours to help out at some point. Minggut (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

We'd be happy to have you here. Until we meet again... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

#Can you please delete a page?

You FAILED your Turing test. You were very close, missed just by a whisker – for being too good. Fast, experienced, helpful, reliable, willing, always ready and so kind... Definitely you ARE a robot. No such human can ever exist! --CiaPan (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

CiaPan - Damn it! I was so close! I must pass the test next time... :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Oshwah. Wanted to let you know that I blocked Natasharoy after looking at their contributions, and coming to the conclusion that the reporting editor was correct. There clearly NOTHERE, at the least, in my estimation. Of course, I've been wrong before, so if after looking further into the situation you think I'm in error, please undo my actions. Have a fantastic day! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi 78.26! Long time no chat! I hope you're having a great day and that life is going well for you! :-) I remember taking a quick glance at the user's contributions, but didn't remember finding anything to show that the username was promotional. It's certainly possible that I missed something, and I'm confident that you're correct in your decision to take administrative action. I appreciate the message and for letting me know about this. I'll take another look and figure out what I didn't see the first time. I'm sure it'll be something obvious and that sticks out like a sore thumb (knowing my luck), and I'll get to call myself an idiot yet again.... :-) Thanks for the heads up, and I hope we get to speak again soon. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

i'm azembe twhy,an upcoming artist pls i want u to help me post my information on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azembe twhy (talk • contribs) 17:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(by talk reader) @Azembe twhy: No. Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Azembe twhy. Unfortunately, as stated in the response above, Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or promotion. Articles that are created and added to Wikipedia must meet notability requirements in order for them to be kept. Otherwise, they may be speedily deleted, proposed for deletion, or nominated for a deletion discussion. Articles that either meet a criteria for speedy deletion or are shown by consensus in a deletion discussion to not meet the necessary and required guidelines are deleted. Please review the policies and guidelines that I've linked you to in this response, and let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them if you do. Thanks for understanding, and I hope you have a great day. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, but the IP vandals going back several days are all located in Ontario, and three to one particular school district. So it seems unlikely that blocking one of them will fix the issue for more than a day or so. GMG^talk 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi GreenMeansGo! Thanks for the message and for letting me know about this. I was on the fence regarding whether or not I should protect the article, so I thought that this IP being blocked would be sufficient. It sounds like this isn't the case. Hence, I've applied semi-protection to the article for one week. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Cheers, and thanks again - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for the heads-up about WP:AGF on AIV yesterday evening (or morning/noon/night, depending on your local timezone). Sometimes i get a bit too suspicious about IP edits like these. Anyways, i'll be more careful in the future when distinguishing between good-faith edits, test edits and vandalism. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nyamo Kurosawa! No problem! I'm always happy to lend a hand. Part of what I try to do here and with the "admin hat" is to take a different approach; I go out of my way to have editors' backs, and give them the support, encouragement, advice, and input they need in order to be the best version of themselves when they participate here. :-)

And not to worry; it's something that I've done many times throughout the years that I've been an editor on Wikipedia, and I've had to stop and self-evaluate where my thoughts and suspicions regarding an IP or an editor are truly from as well. There are times where I just get done from spending the last two hours blocking LTA sock puppet accounts that were causing a massive amount of abuse on Wikipedia, and I have to take note to lower my level of "suspicious awareness" when I return to normal patrolling and handling disruption.... so don't feel bad or feel down about it at all. We all make mistakes; trust me when I say this: I've made way, wayyyy more than my fair share of mistakes and screw-ups on Wikipedia over the years, and I still manage to screw something up sometimes. ;-) It happens to everyone, and it's it's why I make sure to review reports and amy bring concerns to one's attention so that they can resolve it before things blow up... lol.

This is an example as to why it's so important for admins to look out for others, support and build them up when they need it, and to be and their wing-man when they need one. Those little things don't take much effort to do, and they make much more of a positive impact to others than they think. ;-) Please know that my user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me any time you need or want to. Thanks again for the message! I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) Which is why Oshwah needs to clone himself. Barring that, perhaps host admin seminars. :) BilCat (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

BilCat - Ooof... be careful of what you wish for, man... I think just having one of me is bad and risky enough around here as it is... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for making disruptful edits, like I did on "List of programs broadcast by Nick Jr.". But what was disruptful about the edit I made on that page? SafariKid2 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm a talk page stalker. It looks like you've removed text that really shouldn't be removed. Your edit summary kinda makes it seem like you're predicting the future and we don't do that here on Wikipedia. We have definite dates for those shows and if they do return, that can always be changed later. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Hi SafariKid2, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your question. There's no need to apologize; the temporary block was added to prevent additional edits that myself and other editors viewed as disruptive. When looking at your edits to the article in general, you were making changes, then reverting yourself, then doing so again and again... this isn't something you should be doing. If you were trying to test out changes and see if they were going to work or not, you need to do this on a sandbox page, not within the article itself. What were you trying to do? Why were you changing content, reverting yourself, and then doing this again and again? On top of this, your changes removed legitimate content and replaced some of it with unreferenced information. This potentially problematic behavior, and in combination with the other edits and issues that other editors and admins have talked to you about recently, is what prompted me to apply a temporary block to your account. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Don't worry too much about the block. Just behave yourself, stay outta trouble, and make sure to ask questions and and ask for help with anything that you're not sure about and before you make changes to it. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

BilCat (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

BilCat - Received and replied. Thanks for the email :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, replied. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Received. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I am a co-founder of Support the Pink House and we tried to do our own Wiki page back in 2017 and again in 2018. We were surprised to find someone put one up. But there is a lot of incorrect and incomplete information on it. I spent quite a bit of time correcting it tonight, in advance of a meeting where big wigs who are critical to the process to save the house maybe looking at it, and it notes you reversed all my edits - and I would like them to be restored please. I am emailing you as it is a bit timely.

We ARE the authority, and we find it difficult that many of the papers/articles used to verify things don't fact check or don't report accurately - which is common. Also, as the negotiations were so delicate we were asked to keep things under our hats, so we did not encourage or seek much in the way of public press - thought Chronicle, a very popular prime time TV show did cover us in that time. However, the page is out, and should reflect the facts. A few that are incorrect - the house was built in 1925, not 1922. Support the Pink House is a grass roots citizens group and not a formal non-profit as stated.

Another example, the the Refuge did not meet with the Greenbelt on their own, Support the Pink House worked for 2.5 years to get that to happen. not the papers who get things wrong. We have done the research on the house, though I didn't correct the spite house rumor as we are fine with it being called an urban legend. And there are many meetings and several solutions being pursued since 2017 not just the one mention of Greenbelt in 2018. It makes a serious impact on the powers involved in this 4 year, tireless project to have that kind of sentence out there on Wiki, where many go for factual info!

It also doesn't mention what is a very interesting bit of information - that every elected official from the area's local and State Senators and Reps, Councilmen, the Mayor and Selectmen, mayors etc on up to the State of MA's three federal officials - Congressman Moulton, Senators Markey and Warren have been behind it. I put that in and have photos of these meetings, letters of support from them- but again, I gave those quotes to the Daily News and it was not published.

It was included in the March issue of Newburyport Neighborhood magazine, I have a PDF of it, and a physical copy but I'm not sure they put it online to link to. There also are the blog posts on SupporthePinkHouse.com that supports this.

Please do restore what can be of our corrections. I could not fix the categories at the bottom saying Houses Built in 1922 - I am newer to this but honest.

If you prefer to directly email me pls do at [REDACTED-THEGOODUSER]

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you! Rochelle Chair and Spokesperson On Behalf of Support the Pink House — Preceding unsigned comment added by R9R (talk • contribs) 02:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi R9R, and thanks for leaving me a message here regarding the edits you made to Pink House (Newbury, Massachusetts) that were reverted. I'll be happy to explain why I removed your changes as well as explain the issues and problems with the edits you made. Your edits contained problems and issues that weren't in compliance with a number of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Much of the content you added wasn't referenced or cited by any sources (or any sources that were identified as reliable). Wikipedia articles and content must seek verifiable facts, not seek "the truth"; adding content to an article that isn't referenced or considered to be information that's "commonly known" can be challenged and removed. Furthermore, much of the content you added appeared to be based off original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You cannot add content and "cite yourself" as a source simply because you have a close relationship to the article subject. Adding content citing one's relationship, experience, association, or even one's own website, work, or research constitutes adding original research to articles, and this is not allowed for many obvious reasons.

Your edits also added content and statements that weren't in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, such as that paragraph that states that the participation by a number of people shows the movement's importance, or the statement about the "hopes" that one of options (such as land transfer) succeeds. Much (if not most) of the content reflects a positive point of view toward the article subject and words in in a manner that reflects to the reader that the article wishes the success of the article subject and what was added to the article. It was not worded to be neutral, as required by Wikipedia's policy on the matter, and in many different ways.

Your message here also shows that you have a conflict of interest with the article subject given your position in an organization that openly supports the article subject. Per Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines regarding conflict of interest, you (or anybody else closely related or personally vested with the article subject) should not be editing this article at all. This is because of the fact that edits made from users who have a personal conflict of interest with the subject are almost never able to make appropriate changes or add content that reflects a neutral point of view, or that doesn't explicitly or subtlety reflect the editor's personal opinions or points of view.

These are a few of the different reasons as to why I reverted your changes to the article, and why doing so was justified. Moving forward, you need to no longer make edits directly to the article given your conflicts with the subject. Instead, you can request edits be approved and made for you by a different editor on your behalf. Simply follow the instructions provided on this page in order to create edit requests and have them approved and made by someone else. This will both allow you to bring issues and concerns to the attention of other editors and have them fixed, while keeping you from violating the guideline on editing articles that you have conflicts with.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be more than happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was going down the vortex of reading random Wikipedia articles (it's really easy to do that on the phone app) and I ended up reading The Minimalists article. Anyways, the article seemed a bit "off," at least in the promotional sense. Everything in the article is positive and the "critical reviews" section is glowing praise. I looked at the history of the article and one user made a lot of edits to it. Exactly 50 edits to that article and just that article within the span of 3 days back in 2017. One of the edit summaries mentions that they "changed promotional tone to encloypedic tone" but the only difference in the diff is paragraph spacing. This seems weird to me. What do you think? Clovermoss (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Update: I posted to ANI. I noticed other things browsing through the history and decided to file a report there. Clovermoss (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Clovermoss - Perfect; thanks for the message and the update! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Another editor moved it to another noticeboard where it looks like it will now be closed. I was worried more about their edits to The Minimalists article, not nessicarily the mutiple accounts. Only editing that article and added all of that promotional stuff (since 2017) had me worried about paid editing. Maybe I jumped to conclusions too fast. If the sockpuppet investigation is closed, do I just leave it alone and forget about it, then? Clovermoss (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for correcting my mistakes. I am a novice editor of Wikipedia. I will study hard.AndyYCRccrUSWCAX (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi AndyYCRccrUSWCAX! You're welcome :-) Please don't hesitate to let me know if you run into any questions or need my assistance with anything, and I'll be more than happy to help you. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope that your time here is positive and fun, and that you enjoy your stay with us as a member of the community. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cahk -   Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm really sorry if it looks like I'm continually having a go at you. It's more subtle than that, and I sincerely think you are a nice guy and everything you do is done out of the genuine belief that it benefits the project. I'm honestly not here to upset people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ritchie333 - I appreciate you for leaving this message and for the very kind words here. I understand... you were just frustrated... it happens, and I don't hold it (or anything else) against you at all. Look... I know that you probably don't like me, and if everything went the way you believe that it should have, I wouldn't have passed my second RFA and I wouldn't be an admin right now. As much as I try my best to do the right thing, I'm not a perfect editor or a perfect admin - and I'll will never be. I just hope that I can someday gain your respect and your trust, and that we can be good "wiki-acquaintances" or even maybe "wiki-friends" (lol). Either way, please know that your apology meant a lot to me. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's a small list of people I genuinely don't like on my user page - currently Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg; I've got no reason to dislike you as (as far as I know) you've never advocated anything seriously unpleasant like denying the holocaust, discrimination against ethnic minorities, cutting of public services, making racial slurs or treating poor people with contempt (and I'll assume this is taking the piss out of this). The RfA is ancient history; I have criticised admins where I voted "support" at their RfA, and not had issue with several admins where I voted "oppose", and I am on record saying there is pretty much no correlation between an admin's support percentage at RfA and their ultimate track record. The problem is I struggle to articulate what the problem is in a manner that doesn't sound like a personal attack or outing, which is why I'd prefer to take it to email. Sometimes, I feel like James O'Brien in this exchange (not implying you're anything like Jacob Rees-Mogg; rather that every word Jacob used was civil and meets the standard of parliamentary language, but doesn't stop me from slamming my head into a desk). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

for reaching out. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time and have noted that a lot of the social entries I look at or have looked at have become very convoluted with vanity entries and newspaper like current reporting. Journalists also seem to be dumping a lot, making references to their current work.

I have made a few gentle edits to get started and will continue on that theme if everyone thinks this is helpful.

I would be very interested in shortening a few bios, which stretch over pages and pages.  However I will listen and learn for a while and check out what the common ground is.

All the best JF III — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Fritzinger III (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi John Fritzinger III! Thanks for the message and for updating me on what you've done with the article! No problem; I'm always happy to help and make sure that others have everything they need. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi IanDBeacon! Thanks for the coffee and for the very kind words you left here! :-) You're very welcome; always willing to lend a hand. If I can do anything else for you, please don't hesitate to let me know, or (recommended) file a request on the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks again, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I took that out because there isn't a map. Then the page gave me some stupid alert, and asked me to confirm, but of course deleted my note. I'll nuke it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.39.204 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Thanks for the message and for explaining your edit. Sounds good to me; thanks for following up and for letting me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just writing to say thank you for reviewing my page.

I hope we will get on. StellarMuzak (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)StellarMuzakReply

StellarMuzak - No problem, and welcome to Wikipedia! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add me to the IP Block Exempt group? It seems immature people at my education institution thought it would be funny to vandalize Wikipedia. I am currently unable to edit on wireless devices. Seems this problem may occur frequently as various IPs in the buildings have been blocked repeatedly. The relevant request may be found here. Noah^Talk 16:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this auto block was removed. I do have reason to believe that blocks may be placed on the various IPs at any time as there has been a history of multi-year blocks on them and recent vandalism. Noah^Talk 16:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hurricane Noah, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions and your request. I'll be happy to explain how different blocks can affect innocent editors and show you where to request the IP block exempt user rights. There are two kinds of blocks that can cause collateral damage or accidentally get innocent editors and users caught in their web: Autoblocks, and Hard IP address blocks.

• Autoblocks are created when a block is set on a user account and the appropriate option is ticked as 'enabled' by the blocking administrator. This option also blocks the IP address that the account was using (as well as any subsequent IP address the account logs into and tries to edit from) when the block was placed. If any other account that is not IP block exempt tries to edit from that autoblocked IP address, that account will also be blocked... and the cycle continues onward from there.

• Hard IP address blocks are an option that an administrator can enable when placing a block on an IP address or range. Normally, when IP addresses are blocked, this option is disabled which means that anyone who already has an existing Wikipedia account can edit from this IP address without any issues or problems. However, if the option is enabled - the block will also disallow any existing accounts from editing from it (unless they are IP block exempt). This option doesn't block the account like autoblocks do; they simply do not allow the account to edit while they are connected through the IP address or range. As soon as they change networks or internet connections to one that isn't IP hard-blocked, they'll be allowed to edit as usual and without any issues.

Being caught in an autoblock or a hard IP address block does not create a record in your account's block log. As annoying as it can be to get caught in one of these blocks and having done nothing wrong, these blocks are necessary in order to stop the abuse of multiple accounts as well as high-volume amounts of abuse if the block is applied to an open proxy or VPN. To get yourself approved and granted the IP block exempt user flag, you just need to follow the instructions under the green highlighted section, "How to request" under this section of the IP block exemption policy page (where it has you use your main account to contact the Unblock Ticket Request System). They'll have a checkuser verify your IP information, authenticity, etc, and make sure that nothing fishy comes back. Once those checks are done and no issues found, they'll usually have no problem granting the user flag temporarily. Just know that they grant the user flag based on need; it's typically not given out permanently unless you're a well-known user account with a very high level of demonstrated trust, and you constantly run into autoblocks or hard IP address blocks to the point that granting it permanently is the best solution (just so you're aware).

I apologize for the delay responding to your message, by the way... life gets busy sometimes! Please let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything else, and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. ;-) I hope my response was helpful, and I hope you have a great rest of your day! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I put a lot of time putting together my page only to find out it was deleted without even notifying me. Please explain.

Thanks,

Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank D. Girardi (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(by talk reader) @Frank D. Girardi: Which page are we talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris troutman (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC) (and his sig. added by CiaPan (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC))Reply

Hi Frank D. Girardi, and thanks for leaving me a message here with your questions. Your user page was deleted under U5 of Wikpedia's speedy deletion criteria. In short, the content you added to your user page looked to be intended to advertise, promote, and host links to an organization and other content that was not Wikipedia-related. Please review and make sure that you understand Wikipeidia's policies and guidelines regarding user pages, as well as what they are not to be used for. The guideline page states that user pages are not to be used as a forum, resume, social networking profile, or web host or for purposes unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. Your user page clearly violated these guidelines, which was why your user page was deleted just earlier. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on user pages, of if I can be of assistance with anything else - I'll be more than happy to help you. Thanks for the message, I hope you understand, and I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Joshy Washy. I just wanted to let you know that your administrative privileges have been removed, and you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Kim Jong Un is very against wikis and encyclopedias like this one, and he's the one who blocked you. He wants to ban the use of the internet and the world wide web entirely, because he's against internet altogether. He also wants to bring down Tilted Towers, Pleasant Park and Salty Springs because Mario and Luigi have been beating up Sonic and Tails, all in celebration that the SNES sold more than the genesis. He also wants a North Korea invasion so that he can take over the UK, the USA, and then the world. GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

GOLDIEM J - *GASP* - You're really Kim Jong Un in disguise?!! :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Oshwah.

Before I get into an edit war, may I ask you to review this edit, and offer any advice?

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Aoziwe: It looks like a copy from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are (in parts at least). --(talk page stalker) CiaPan (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but sorry, I might have been a bit obtuse. I was thinking it might be a form of block evasion too? Aoziwe (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Aoziwe: Possibly, but I have no idea. I am a talk page watcher – I'm not an admin and I don't have an immediate insight into blocks data. The more, I can't verify the user's identity. I can only comment on the linked edit. --CiaPan (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Which is why I pinged Oshwah. Oshwah put the block on User:NHMRCMEDIA and User:Healthedits101 seems to be direct evasion, as per that edit? Aoziwe (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aoziwe! Thanks for the message and the request. Please excuse my delay responding to your message here... life has been busy for me lately! :-) When looking at the edit you requested that I review, two things stand out that are problematic:

1. The edit changes the content on the page so that it appears to be worded like an advertising or promotion rather than an encyclopedia article where neutral wording and neutral point of view is the priority. The content has many issues and concerns that don't appear to be in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
2. As pointed out by CiaPan above, I also find that a significant portion of the content added and changed has been copied directly from the website mentioned. This is by far the most serious issue of the two that I found, as this represents a copyright violation - a policy violation that we take very seriously and will impose sanctions upon editors for violating repeatedly.

My advice would be to paraphrase any text that you feel should be cited from external links and add them completely in your own words. Even close paraphrasing (where you copy and paste text, but change a few key words and phrases to be slightly different) is against policy. Remember to also cite your references in-line with the article text and make sure that you cite from reliable sources. You'll avoid a lot of issues and potential trouble if you do these things. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. I hope that my response was helpful to you, and I wish you a great day and happy editing! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I submitted a page with info about a motorcycle club. It was deleted. I would like to resubmit. Im trying to make it a facts and history info based only. This motorcycle club already has a website, southsideridersmcnation.com . Can you please guide me as to how and what is the acceptable way to publish a wikipedia page. Thank you. Sincerly,

SSR PREACHER [REDACTED-THEGOODUSER]— Preceding unsigned comment added by SSRMC PREACHER (talk • contribs) 14:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi SSRMC PREACHER! I'll be more than happy to help you with your request. :-) First and foremost, Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines on conflict of interest highly discourage users who have a personal conflict of interest with the article subject from editing or even discussing it on Wikipedia. Doing so adds issues to the article, since someone close to the subject edited it. It also makes it nearly impossible for the article to be worded to reflect a neutral point of view. Instead, you can follow the instructions in order to make an requested article about this club for other editors to view and look into creating an article about it. This way, you won't be violating any policies and guidelines by having another editor create the article. Also, if you're being paid or compensated in any way to be on Wikipedia and make these changes, you are required to disclose this information per Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Please follow the instructions listed here in order to properly disclose this information if you're being paid to edit Wikipedia in any way.

Articles that are created and added to Wikipedia must meet notability requirements in order for them to be kept. Otherwise, they may be speedily deleted, proposed for deletion, or nominated for a deletion discussion. Articles that either meet a criteria for speedy deletion or are shown by consensus in a deletion discussion to not meet the necessary and required guidelines are deleted. Please review the policies and guidelines that I've linked you to in this response, and let me know if you have any questions. This is very important to know and understand, and to determine accurately about your article subject and before you spend any effort requesting the creation of an article about this subject, or creating and writing an article about it yourself. You could find many hours of your time ultimately wasted and for absolutely nothing if you don't verify this information first!

If you have any questions, you're welcome to respond here or you're welcome to ask them on my user talk page (click here to go there). Myself, or another admin, will be happy to answer any questions you have and help you. I appreciate your understanding and your cooperation in this matter, and I hope you have a great day. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

He's at it again. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Lard Almighty! Sorry for the delay responding to your message here. It looks like this IP address has already been taken care of by another admin. If things continue after the block expires, let me know or (recommended) file a report at AIV. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added a dummy edit to 286 protected mode. Thanks for the nice reminder. Quarl ^(talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Quarl! No problem! I just wanted to have your back and leave you an off-the-record reminder about it in case you did this on accident. I wouldn't want someone to go running after you with torches and pitchforks if the cause was a simple mistake. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I changed it to a picture of President Trump's family because it was previously the former President Obama's picture. I was just updating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.55.254.114 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker)Thank you for trying to update the image, however your edit only removed imformation without explaining why A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 14:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, and thanks for the message and the explanation regarding your edit here to First Family. As pointed out above, your attempt to update the picture only resulted in the current image being removed from the article. If you need help with images, I recommend that you refer to this guide for information and help. If you have any more questions or need my help with anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. :-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you happy editing! :-D Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Contributer7 - Thank you very much! I really appreciate the message and your very kind words. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Oshaw,

I hope that I'm posting this question on the right place. We recently had a talk on List of Serbians about renaming the article and the popular vote is in favour, because it is creating a confusion and the list is sort of in conflict with List of people from Serbia. I would like to ask you to help me to rename (List of Serbians) to List of Serbs. Whenever I try to do it the standard way, an error keeps poping up. Should I make a requested move or something else?

Thank you, Mm.srb (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(by talk page stalker) Hi, @Mm.srb:! The name List of Serbs you mention above is an existing Wikipedia entry, so you cannot simply move another page (List of Serbians) to it. The destination is a redirect to List of people from Serbia. You would have to delete the redirect first – or have special privileges to make moves over redirects (which you apparently do not have). Anyway the links to the redirect should be carefully checked first and possibly fixed, to make sure they will point at correct contents after the move. --CiaPan (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mm.srb! Thanks for the message regarding your request for assistance. From what I'm gathering from your message above, it sounds like there was a discussion regarding the moving of the page List of Serbians to the new title, List of Serbs? And it closed with a consensus to move the page to the new title? If this is correct, I can perform this move for you no problem. I just need to take a look at the discussion and confirm that it is indeed closed, and that the consensus is clearly in favor of the move. Once I've done this and agree with your findings, I'll perform the move (if not already done by someone else) and let you know when it's done. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Mm.srb - After looking at the discussion you mentioned, there was indeed a consensus to move the list to List of Serbs and I have performed the page moves just moments ago. I also made sure that there were no tangled or double redirects present after the move, and I updated the distinguish template on both pages to point to the other properly. Everything should be good to go! :-) If you spot any issues that I need to fix or take a look at, let me know and I'll be happy to do so. Thanks for the message, and I'm glad that I was able to help you out with the page move. :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I created a draft for an article earlier this week but didn't move it into article space until the subject met the notability guidelines. Someone else ignored the draft and created the article. Can Draft:Jimmy_Schuldt be merged into the history of Jimmy Schuldt? Enigma^msg 04:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Enigmaman! Sure, I'll get that done and resolved for you right now. :-) Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Enigmaman - All set. If you need any more history merges done for you, or if other admins are feeling shaky about doing one - you're welcome to let me know and point them in my direction. I've done many of them before, and I'm usually the one whose name comes up when a very complicated or messed up history merge is needed. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you keep an eye of the user? S/he keep adding "Nick Kibler" on Where Are Ü Now as same pattern as Special:Contributions/DC124. 183.171.114.103 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Already blocked. 183.171.114.103 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cool deal; thanks for the message and the information nonetheless. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi This is with reference to our conversation a few weeks back about the reversion of my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Nutrients.

I note that the page is still inaccurate and my original comments still stand. Ive read the original paper and it is misrepresented on this Wikipedia article. I say this as soneone with a PhD in biochemistry. Please advise how I should proceed?

Best Martin Martingoodson (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Martingoodson - Have you expressed your specific concerns to other editors in a discussion on the article's talk page? This is the perfect place to go in order to discuss your concerns and receive input and assistance from other editors about this. Be careful not to modify the article without citing reliable sources and adding references to those sources in-line with the content being changed. If other editors undo or revert your changes, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and discuss it on the article's talk page. Be careful not to engage in edit warring or any other kind of disruptive editing, as this behavior will result in being blocked from editing and having the process becoming much more harder for you to argue your side and support updating, not easier. :-) Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Please refer to the pages and guides that I've linked you to here, as they will provide you with the information you need in order to fix any issues present while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. :-) Best of luck - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou! Martingoodson (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can I opt him out of media wiki mass message delivery? His talk page is getting full and hard to browse. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thegooduser - This is something that he needs to request himself if he wishes to no longer receive them on his user talk page. I know and understand that he's retired, but even in these situations we don't touch or modify their user or user talk pages unless they specifically request it. It's out of respect for the user and their wishes. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply