User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2024-03

You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from March 2024. Please do not modify this page.

These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes. If you need to respond to a discussion from here, please create a new discussion on my user talk page and with a link to the archived discussion here so I can easily follow, and we'll be able to pick up where we left off no problem.

Were you trying to send me a message? No worries. Just click here to go the correct page.

Sock still editing

See [1] Sorry to be a nag. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller - No worries at all. I've investigated and closed the SPI. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. If I don't talk to you this weekend (I likely will), have a great weekend! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Same to you. Doug Weller talk 21:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

About reference

Dear Mentor @Oshwah, Thank you for your feedback to my new page. Sorry for disturbing you for the second time.I just wanted to know which references are invalid?Can I get the list or link for that article.I was just going through the different articles where I found they have given some Random web page.So I got this doubt. Brittlee1990 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

you beat me to the edit on Portal:LGBT thanks lol

ModdiWX (message me!) 16:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Lolkikmoddi - Thanks for the kitten! Yeah, those abusive edits needed to go... I'm glad that someone else had caught that as well, so I thank you for being diligent. It makes a big difference around here... :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Perza A (14:21, 2 March 2024)

Greetings from Finland, I try to create Wikipedia page for my Band, but are unable to find the draft I just made for it couple of hours ago. Where I could find it? --Perza A (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Perza A! Welcome to Wikipedia! Looking at your deleted contributions, the page you created was located here. However, it was deleted due to being self-promotional. Wikipedia highly discourages users from creating an article or even contributing to articles where the subject (what you're writing about) poses a personal conflict of interest. This is for many reasons, but one reason is because doing so makes it impossible for the user to adhere to a neutral point of view. Instead of trying to create this page about your band, I encourage you to locate existing articles that interest you and modify those instead. If your band is notable, another editor will undoubtedly create the article. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with my draft

Hey Oshwah! I am fairly new to Wikipedia, I started by editing articles that I have some knowledge about. I have created a draft of an article that I believe is important. I would love to get your opinion on it before I submit it for review. Thank you in advance! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Models_of_Judicial_decision_making# Marincyclist (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marincyclist! Thanks for the message! I think you choose a very good article subject, and so far the article appears well-written. Great job, and thank you for taking the time to contribute and add more content to this project! Please let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything, and I'll be happy to lend a hand. ;-) Thanks again for the message, and I wish you a great rest of your day! :-D Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Oshwah! Thank you for your feedback! I will be sure to reach out if I need any help or have any further questions. Thank you and have a great day! Marincyclist (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Your change at Editpage-head-copy-warn

Hi Oshwah, Your change to the above page has caused the message to pop up on every edit I make using the Source editor, even though I didn't see it before. Is this intended? Nobody (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi 1AmNobody24! I hope your day is going well so far! :-) No - the modification to this template only centered the text and added a green background to it. Nothing else outside of its appearance was modified, so any behavioral changes were either not made by me or not done so intentionally. The most likely cause of what you're describing is simply the fact that you didn't notice it nearly as much before, and due to the change to the template's appearance, you're noticing it much more now. This template appears immediately above the edit box when making an edit to any page on this project; as far as I know, there are no exceptions to where the template would not appear when making an edit to a page. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks again for the message, and (if I don't speak to you again today) have a great rest of your day! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I just checked some Images I had and it seems your right. Without the background my eyes just went past it to the editing window, without even noticing the text. I guess that does make me the perfect example for why a change was needed. The weird part is, that I instantly knew that Editpage-head-copy-warn was the reason (since I knew it existed from patrolling CopyPatrol) but didn't realise it shows to everyone, not just non-EC users. Anyway, thanks for the quick and helpful answer and a great day to you too. Nobody (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

1AmNobody24 - No worries! It's never too late to learn something you weren't aware of or didn't know about before. ;-) You bet; if you run into any more questions or need my input or assistance with anything, don't be a stranger! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove wikibreak enforcer

Wikipedia:Interface_administrators'_noticeboard#Request_to_remove_wikibreak_enforcer Can you please remove the wikibreak enforcer script at User:ExclusiveEditor/common.js? Thanks, ExclusiveEditor2 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor2 -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

sorry

it was by accident Holaninos1233 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Holaninos1233 - Are you actually suggesting that I chalk this edit you made to the article up as "an accident"?.... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for getting rid of the (+971,337) edit to Pentatonic scale that crashed my phone browser every time I tried to get near the page. Goodness gracious! Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Phönedinger's jellyfish II - No problem. I ran that revision over with the revy devy so that other mobile users won't have that crash happen to them. Anyways, always happy to lend a hand! If you find anything needing my attention, don't be a stranger! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Request

Hi Oshwah, while editing the new article; Maalim Ibrahim Wikipedia accidentally signed me out and I did two more edits under my IP address, and as I am the only editor on a new article I would like for the IP address to be suppressed. Thank you in advance - GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

GoldenDragonHorn -  Done. For the record, you're more than welcome to email me these kinds of requests instead of asking here where it's completely public. ;-) Regardless, you're all set; the IPs are suppressed. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

RevDel

Hey,
Can I get a RevDel for User talk:The Herald (revision 1210766010) ?
It's RD3 purely disruptive material with obscene comments in Malayalam. Thanks and happy editing :) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi The Herald! Thanks for the message! I tried to translate the content added to English, but Google Translate couldn't do it. It did identify the correct language, but it couldn't do anything beyond that. Can you email me a translation and tell me what it says? By the way, you're welcome to (and you really should) email me these any requests instead of requesting a "revy-devy" on here publicly. ;-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Self-trout for missing the huge ass edit notice. You've got a mail, Osh. Arigato :") The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Herald - No self-trout needed. I just put that up a few hours ago, and I'm pretty certain that I did so after you had already messaged me here. Regardless, no harm; it's not the end of the world... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Revdel copyrighted material on Draft:Department of Economics, The New School

Hey there, Oshwah. I recently just declined a draft this morning while doing AFC reviewing for it being a copyright violation. Just now, based on concerns raised at my talk page by User:Nthep, they want me to have someone do a revdel of the page. Since I couldn't figure out who to talk to, I knew that you were the last resort. Is it possible to revdel the copyrighted material at all? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh I think you've me understood me, sorry. I can do the revdel as I'm an admin, I'm asking you to remove the offending material and identify the source of it as I can't find the source you gave. Nthep (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep Ah, crap. Yeah, when I was reviewing this morning, I think I was going a wee bit too fast to check. Well, I tried removing as much content as I could just now since it was pretty difficult for me to judge. The source does indeed come from dokumen.pub, as I checked. I just can't figure out exactly where since I'm not in school right now. When I get back, I'll check it. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

NoobThreePointOh, Nthep - It sounds like you two were able to get everything sorted out. However, if I am incorrect and if this is not true and my assistance with anything is needed, please don't hesitate to message me like you did here. I'll be happy to lend a hand with anything that you need help with. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Aqsa789 on User talk:Aqsa789 (10:11, 10 March 2024)

A particle moving with constant speed show that its acceleration is always perpendicular to its velocity --Aqsa789 (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Aqsa789 - A particle moving at a constant speed (velocity) will not have any acceleration. Acceleration is the change of a particle's speed (again, velocity) over time. So if the particle's speed is constant and is not changing, acceleration will be 0. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Mya March on User:Mya March/sandbox (11:24, 10 March 2024)

Hello, Does this have the ability to look for plagiarism? --Mya March (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mya March! This project has tools developed that allows for users (and essentially bots) to compare a revision of an article or an article's text against sources and searches, and will find plagiarism if such exists. If you have questions regarding Wikipedia's policies regarding this, I highly recommend that you review and understand this page that discusses this more in-depth. You should also give Wikipedia's policy on copyrights a review as well. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding templates for protected pages

Am I allowed to edit protection templates used on protected pages, if I can edit the protected pages in the first place? I do not mean to edit the template pages themselves, I mean to edit the {{pp}} part on protected pages.

Why would I want to do that? I want to tweak these templates to better fit the protection, as well as the reason for protection.

The Club Penguin and Poopy articles are semi-protected due to "persistent vandalism", but the templates used do not mention that reason, so {{pp-vandalism}} and similar templates would be appropriate there.

The Ryan Reynolds article is a case where a page already shows a reason for being protected, but where I want to contest the reason for it being protected (after all, one can disruptively edit an article about a living person without violating WP:BLP). According to the template, it is semi-protected to "promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons," but Ymblanter, the most recent person to protect the article, did it due to "persistent disruptive editing," and the request for protecting article brought up the reason, "persistent IP vandalism changing dates against convention." An IP editor kept changing "mf" to "df" in the "birth_date" part of the infobox.

I have also seen pages without protection templates, such as Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. The page's reason for being semi-protected is due to "persistent vandalism," but the page lacks a protection template.

Besides, I am an autoconfirmed user now, so I can edit semi-protected pages (even if not the more protected ones) to do this

Why am I asking this? Because I have been wanting to do this for a long time, but before I commit to this, I want to discuss this with an administrator to see if it is okay for me to do this (since I have only seen administrators handle these templates, and often only after protecting the page in the first place), even if I am doing it out of good faith. I promise to source where the reasons for protections are coming from (in the edit summary) while tweaking the templates.

Long story short, I am asking if it is okay for me to edit protection templates on protected pages, as long as it helps the page as a constructive edit. I am an autoconfirmed user. CarlFilip19 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi CarlFilip19! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions. I apologize for the delay with responding to you. If you're talking about the template that's added to the article text to show editors that it's currently protected (it definitely sounds like you are), I don't believe that there's a strict policy that prohibits or restricts editors from modifying them. If the template is incorrect and is not displaying the correct protection level of a page, or if that protection has expired - by all means, please don't hesitate to update, fix, or remove them in these cases. If the template is correct and matches the current protection level that's applied to a page, I recommend leaving it there until the protection changes.

If you wish to dispute a protection that's been placed and that's currently active on an article or page, you can request edit protection to be lowered or removed by visiting this page, or you can discuss the issue with the editor directly by messaging them on their user talk page. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them for you. :-) Best wishes - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I am meaning to talk about the template that is added to pages to show readers (not just editors) that it is protected. And no, neither have I found a policy against doing anything to them.

However, an administrator called Acroterion has discouraged me from fussing with the templates, even reverting many of my edits to make that point. On my talk page, Acroterion has explained that there are more useful things to do according to Wikipedia:WikiGnome.

The thing is that while altering the templates in good faith is something niche, I do not find it useless either (I even find it fun, for I have even documented pages that I can leave be due to being protected for reasons other than vandalism, violations of WP:BLP, sockpuppetry, and editing disputes). And if it has been wrong of me to handle the templates regardless of your permission, I am sorry. I have seen non-administrators handle them, which subverts the expectation that I have believed that to be some administrator-only duty.

Also, I think some protection templates on pages could be updates. Some pages still use "semi-pp" instead of just "pp", and I see the deprecated |reason:"string"| argument in some, too.

So yeah, I have agreed to avoid fussing with the templates (and yeah, I see that you recommend me to leave the templates there) to instead returning to my streak of combatting unsupported attributions in pages (after all, defying administrators sounds impractical). But not without thinking that that conversation has been weird, to say the least. Thank you for at least managing to respond, though. Good luck. CarlFilip19 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi CarlFilip19! Thanks for following up with some additional information and what your thoughts are regarding these templates. I don't see what you're doing as wrong at all. It sounds like some page protections have been performed for reasons that make you believe that using the full template instead of the small lock symbol is warranted. I might've misunderstood your initial message; it sounded like you disagreed with the protection reason vs what you saw actually happen in the edits that led up to the page protection being applied. I apologized if that wasn't correct.

The most commonly used tools that take the manual work out of manually applying page protections (such as Twinkle) will add the protection template to the page for that administrator. Even if that wasn't the case, there's a bot currently in production that removes protection templates from pages once the protection applied to it has expired. I believe that it (or another bot) adds a protection template to pages if they're missing as well, but don't quote me - I'm not 100% sure on that one.

I mean... yeah, to some degree, I understand and agree with what Acroterion's advice was to you, but again - I don't believe that what you're doing is wrong. If there's something I'm missing, please do let me know (I'm saying that both to you and Acroterion). Of course, like with many things, some admins will find something that someone does to be more or less useful, disruptive, helpful, or correct than others. Honestly, in my opinion, if you're not causing issues (I don't think you are), I could easily list a book full of disruptive things that you could be doing instead (like the abusive things that I patrol Wikipedia and look for). With that in mind, I'm definitely not in a position to argue that what you're doing is right, wrong, bad, good, productive, great, whatever... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Just checking on you and a question

Hey Oshwah, firstly, I'm posting this message here to check on you and see if you and yours are all doing well. Secondly, I have a question about sources we cite on the English Wikipedia. Some editors at Talk:Zoroastrianism seem to disagree with the use of French language sources, I just want to check this with you. Is there a problem with citing sources like Yves Bomati or Jean Kellens for Zoroastrianism ? Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani! Things are doing well! I've been very busy with work and with studying for a certification exam that I'm taking next weekend, so wish me luck! I hope I pass it! :-) No, there is no restriction against citing a reference or source that does not use the English language. While it might be preferred if the choice is available (simply for convenience and ease for our readers), one should never substitute a high-quality, reliable, and secondary source that's not in English for a source of lesser reliability or quality solely because it is in English. There are plenty of notable living people who reside or whose work is primarily based from other countries; it would be a headache and - honestly - would directly conflict with our mission to create an encyclopedia of knowledge if those articles couldn't exist or contain content that is accurate, neutral, and true if we required references to be in English. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Oshwah,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question while you are so busy. I wish you every success for your exam !

Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikaviani - Of course; always happy to help! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from ExclusiveEditor

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § AI for WP guidelines/ policies. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor - Thanks! I'll take a look! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please help and block

Hi User:Oshwah now I have had enough this user User:Gopikakaa is not discussing the matter. I have even given my reasons Talk:Bigg Boss Kannada (season 10)#Help and improved the table here Bigg Boss Kannada (season 10)#Nominations table but she is keep edit warring please block her now permanently because her behaviour is not acceptable. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:3CA3:A917:B39B:2047 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bigg_Boss_Kannada_(season_10)&action=history Please check here as well. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:3CA3:A917:B39B:2047 (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Please as she is doing a lot of disruption to page and vandals. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:D56A:EAE5:D113:7587 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Oshwah 2A02:6B68:10:6100:D56A:EAE5:D113:7587 (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Oshwah Please reply and help 2A02:6B68:10:6100:E80A:45D5:9625:500B (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, let me take a look... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've fully protected the page from editing so that you both will stop the back-and-forth reverting that I'm seeing on the article's edit history. You both are in violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, and the both of you need to discuss your dispute on the article's and come to a consensus before any of you make further modifications to this article (unless they're edits that you both agree with). Please review and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's dispute resolution, consensus, and this section of Wikipedia's editing policy. They will help you with how to peacefully discuss the matter and how Wikipedia determines consensus. I'm also pinging Gopikakaa to this response. Please work things out... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Polarays (11:21, 22 March 2024)

Hello! Would it be okay to make my user page a sort of a parody of a real creature(as in 'A Polaray in their natural habitat can usually be found living under big rocks...' ) or would that be too confusing? --Polarays (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Polarays! Welcome to Wikipedia! I would review Wikipedia's policy on user pages as well as this page before you proceed. Take a look at the table of what users cannot have on their user pages here; is what you're trying to add listed as an item, or does something in that table closely describe what you want to do? What about here? If so, then I'd say that it's likely not a good idea. Remember that user pages should be primarily Wikipedia-related. Please let me know if you have any additional questions, or if you need help with understanding something pointed out in one of the pages I listed here. I'll be happy to help you out! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Note to scrap the nomination

Hello, and I hope you are having a good Friday today.

About the edit filter helper nomination for me on April 1, under the previous username 64andtim, unfortunately we should scrap the whole thing. I've tried to nominate myself for EFH two times but they did not go sucessfully. However, I plan to nominate myself again in two years or further, intending to assist with the abuse filter syntax language, and new filters.

Thank you in advance. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Codename Noreste! No problem; I think what your thoughts are and what your plan is moving forward is a good idea. Participants do not like to see multiple requests for the same permissions by the same user in a short span of time. They especially won't support the request if the user hasn't addressed all of the issues that were brought up in the previous request. Give yourself time to address the issues, expand your experience, establish a good history that shows a consistent level of participation and necessary knowledge in this area first. When you feel ready, I'd almost advise taking the length of time that it took between now and that point in time, and then continue building trust and experience for that amount of time again. For example, if it took you 7 months and 1000 relevant edits before you felt confident enough to think about requesting the permissions again, I'd wait another 7 months and until you've made an additional 1000 relevant edits before you do so. That way, you'll know that much more for sure whether or not you wish to proceed. I'm here if you have any questions or need any help; please don't hesitate to keep in touch and let me know if you need anything. Good luck, and I hope that you find what you like to do on Wikipedia and have fun with doing on this project more than anything else - even if it means that you lose interest in edit filter work and find that you actually enjoy doing something else on Wikipedia. You should be happy and you should enjoy volunteering here; it's absolutely important! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Review

Hi please see this Talk:Sargun Mehta#Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024 and review please as I want to request to make changes. User:Oshwah 2A02:6B68:10:6100:A933:A997:5FE2:F33A (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm at the office for another six hours, but I'll be able to take a look at the discussion tonight after I get home. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this request was completed. Glad to see that! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Justinlikemind (13:55, 26 March 2024)

Hello, I would like to add a couple of images to a page on Glock handguns. Some of the models on the page already have images, but some of them do not. I would like to add a couple to the ones that do not so readers can see what the model looks like. How do I do this? --Justinlikemind (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Justinlikemind! Welcome to Wikipedia! :-D We maintain a step-by-step tutorial and guide over the uploading and use of images that I think you'll find to be very helpful. You can review this page at any time by clicking here. For an information page on the use of images on Wikipedia, and the important policies that must be followed, you can click here to go there. Both provide important information that you need to note, understand, and follow - especially policies involving copyrights. Whatever you do, it's important that you absolutely do not violate any of Wikipedia's policies on copyrights, so be very careful and seek advice if you're unsure about anything. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can help in any way. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Please

Hi User:Oshwah please see this Talk:Rakhee Tandon (actress)#Requested move 19 March 2024 and participate if you can please. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:B185:E66B:9FF9:1BDA (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Like I said above, I'm still at the office and for another six hours, but I'll be able to take a look at the discussion tonight after I get home. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the move discussion closed and that the move was performed. Perfect; nothing more that I need to do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An owl for you!

May this owl, a symbol of wisdom, be with you this weekend, and its cheerful wink will help you maintain a calm mood and sharp mind. --CiaPan (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

CiaPan! Thank you for the well wishes! My exam got pushed by one week, so I'm actually taking it next weekend instead of this weekend. I pushed it so I could give my knowledge some "polish" first. I'm somewhat ready, but this lets me finish this new review course that's been super helpful, and gives me time to do some practice tests first, so this is a really good thing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Glad to hear you feel well prepared! I'm quite sure the owl is not going to fly away this week, so it will be with you anyway CiaPan (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

CiaPan - I'm cool with that; the more help I get, the merrier! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Oshwacker de Oregon

Thank you for the good customer service! WeIcomeScript.exe (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Bop.&7 (02:32, 30 March 2024)

مرحبا --Bop.&7 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Bop.&7 - Your text (translated from Arabic) says, "Welcome". I appreciate the welcome, though I should be the one telling you that... So, welcome to Wikipedia! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Major165 (17:48, 30 March 2024)

Someone keeps deleting my edit. How do I get them to stop it? --Major165 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Major165 logging out to edit war on the Homicide article?[2] That puts Major165 at 3rr. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Kansas Bear - I'd say "Yes", and I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Major165 - Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for leaving me your message here with your request for help! :-) Reviewing your contributions, I believe that you're referring to the edits you've been attempting to add to the Homicide article. There are a few problems with what you're trying to do here. First of all, the changes that you're trying to add to the article (such as this one) are very controversial. Not only does this change add what many contributors and readers will view as a biased political viewpoint, but also a biased ethical viewpoint (at a minimum). Abortion is also a contentious topic on Wikipedia, which allows uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions against users who cause disruption in areas that involve contentious topics. Normally, I'd say that you'd need to discuss the changes by discussing them on the article's talk page, but you've already been (correctly) warned by Muboshgu to stop using the talk page as a soapbox and to stop spamming it with your point of view. You've also been edit warring on the article to repeatedly add your desired changes back to it in a back-and-forth combative fashion. You need to stop doing this as well before you end up being blocked from editing. I highly recommend that you move on to a different article and topic area to contribute to and help improve. You're at the point where continuing any further disruption (either on the Homicide article, or anywhere on Wikipedia involving the topic of abortion) will result in your account being blocked and without further warning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There are several problems here, but my edit is not one of them. There is complete lack of logic over a very simple word definition. This has nothing to do with either politics or ethics. It has everything to do with the definition of the word "homicide". An objective reading of the points I made on the talk page will show this to be true. The political/ethical point of view is the one preventing the accurate changes that I made. Furthermore, I did not "spam" the talk page as a soapbox. I engaged in the discussion by pointing out the erroneous comments made by those who, for obvious ideological reasons, cannot accept the simple fact of what the definition of 'Homicide" actually says.

It is very well known among people who do casual fact-finding on line that Wikipedia is terribly unreliable. This experience shows me first-hand exactly why. Major165 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Major165 - Let's put the edits you made to the Homicide article and its talk page aside. You engaged in edit warring to restore your preferred version of the article by reverting your changes back repeatedly. Edit warring is against Wikipedia's policy, and editors who violate this policy are usually blocked so that the disruptive behavior stops. You were also talked to and warned by Muboshgu on the article's talk page regarding your behavior as well. Despite the attempts at trying to talk to you about what you were doing, you responded to Muboshgu's warning, as well as my response to your message here stating that your edits are not the problem, and that no disruption is being caused. Muboshgu and I are both telling you that you are incorrect, and that your behaviors are disruptive. Both of us even provided links to the exact policy and guideline pages that discuss and support what we both were saying to you.

Look, I'm not sure of your intent, and I always try to assume good faith in situations where intent isn't clear... So I'll just say this (again, I'm not implying that I think that this is your intent, but I'm saying this to you because I've seen people do this many times on Wikipedia before): If you're here to try and make controversial edits to an article, or edits that you know will likely be reverted to see what happens, and then try to raise an argument on the article's talk page with your edits to see how others respond, and then take the events that followed and use that to strengthen your opinion or tell others, "Look, see?!! Wikipedia editors are terrible and look what they did?!!", then there isn't anything that I'm going to be able to say to you here that will change your opinion or convince you of anything otherwise. However, if your true intent is to join Wikipedia as an editor, and to work alongside other editors in order to help build, improve, and maintain this project - meaning that you agree to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and uphold Wikipedia's most important principles, you're not starting yourself well and you're currently on the wrong foot here. :-)

What can I do to assist you? What questions can I answer, or what information would you like to know about Wikipedia? You've obviously been warned and talked to about your edits and your behavior, so I'm not going to repeat what you've already been told (unless you have questions, of course); I'd like to help you if you'll have me... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I tried to make the edit by adding "abortion" as another example of what the word "homicide" means because it is a perfect example of how the word "homicide", which obviously carries a negative connotation, applies even to actions that are widely considered acceptable. I made only one simple change: added the word "abortion" to a list of several words in the second paragraph. I made no value statements. Another of the words in that list is "euthanasia", which is also a contentious topic. No doubt there are many many people who prefer to not consider euthanasia to be homicide; but clearly it is by definition. The same is true for abortion. Hiding behind "contentious issue" is not a reason to state a simple fact.

I went on the Talk page and explained my edit. How on Earth is that disruptive? There was previous converstion about that same edit and many of the comments about it were factually incorrect - doesn't Wikipedia want to be factually correct? We're not allowed to explain our edits, and if someone deletes it we're just supposed to forget it with no discussion?

I am sure that from your perspective, Muboshgu addressed me exactly as he should have. But the fact is, he explained nothing. There is nothing wrong with my "behavior". All I did was to try and explain my point (which he was wrong about too, I might add). He obviously was not at all interested in my explanation. In my estimation he was dismissive and a bully.

I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with my "behavior". I state my views factually and unambiguously. If people find that off-putting maybe they need a thicker skin. My approach to this might be outside of what you consider to be proper decorum - but no one challenged my reasoning; no one made a case as to why my edit was incorrect, only that some people might not like it. And that kind of reasoning tells me a lot. In light of the facts about the word "euthanasia", there is a clear double-standard at work here.

I'm done with this issue. I have no desire to suffer this foolishness any longer, but I do thank you for your time. Major165 (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Major165 - I'm sorry that I couldn't help you further, and I thank you for taking the time to talk to me instead of making further edits to those pages. I know and acknowledge that, when referring to someone who hasn't edited here before vs someone who has edited here for a very long time, you and I come from the upmost opposite ends of that spectrum. I just surpassed my 17th year of being an editor on this project (good Lord does time fly...); I've seen, handled, and cleaned up after many quarrels, arguments, beefs, battlegrounds, disputes, spats, abuse, harassment, threats, the whole nine yards... Sure, it's easy for someone like myself to respond and to see things differently than you do when it comes to this project and making modifications to articles. All I can tell you is that there's much more that is discussed and implied when an editor adds a perceived "definition" to an article that describes a certain "term". Depending on the article, topic, and circumstances - it's not as simple as you believe it is (and say it is) to make the kind of edit that you were trying to make. There's much more to it; much more than I can provide in only a few edits while asking you to to stop and listen (which I acknowledge that you did). I'm open to any questions that you may have, should you decide to ask me them. Otherwise, I wish you well, and I (again) thank you for your time and your understanding. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"All I can tell you is that there's much more that is discussed and implied when an editor adds a perceived "definition" to an article that describes a certain "term". Depending on the article, topic, and circumstances -"

First, just to clarify, I did not add or modify any definition. I simply included another example of what the existing definition perfectly describes (e.g., my reference to euthanasia above). Facts can be ugly, uncomfortable, and inconvenient. This is the nature of reality and it does not mean we should ignore them and just shut-up about them.

It's fine that there is much discussed and implied when an editor adds... I attempted to discuss my edit and was summarily told it was spam and I should just shut-up about it or get kicked out. Even now, after all this back-and-forth, I still have not been informed as to why or how my edit was incorrect -- I'm willing to hear a reason why it was incorrect, but I'm not willing to hear about how some people "might not like it". I am also not willing to repeat that experience.

But as long as you are willing to hear it, I will point out another page that interests me, and that is badly in need of editing because it contains objectively false information. That is the entry on Joe Paterno.

Under the heading "Child Sex Abuse Scandal and Dismissal"

midway through the first paragraph is the sentence:

"... described Sandusky "fondling" a young boy in an act he described as of a "sexual nature," but stopped short of the rape to which McQueary would later testify." and referencing three news paper articles.

But, the claim that McQueary would later testify about a rape is objectively false, and it was falsely reported in the press. How do we know? Because the trial transcript is publicly available on line via the State of Pennsylvania Court System and at no time did McQueary say he saw a rape. In fact, the accused was acquitted of that very charge. However, apparently, this page cannot be edited and corrected. The page contains verifiably false information that leads to the tarnishing of a dead man's reputation, but no one is allowed to correct it. Now, I realize that you, personally, probably are not familiar with the case - and that's fine. The point I'm making is that false information is allowed to persist. Why? Why does Wikipedia want to publish false information? What good is editing when editing is not allowed? Major165 (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Major165 - I think we're going around in circles with our statements here. To "break that cycle", I think it's best that I point you to a few pages in order to help you with getting started as well as guide you through the basics regarding Wikipedia. Wikipedia's getting started help page is a common place that I point our new editors to, as well as Wikipedia's interactive new user tutorial. I highly recommend visiting and reading through (or in the case of the tutorial - completing) both pages. From there, a few more-specific pages that will help include Wikipedia's introduction to policies and guidelines, Community expectations and norms, as well as a few essays: Eight simple rules for editing, and Ten simple rules for editing. If you'd like more assistance with getting started and learning the policies, norms, culture, and guides - please don't hesitate to reach out and let me know. I'll be happy to assist you with anything that you need. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the guidance, but I really don't see myself "fitting in". I come from a rigorous scientific background where criticism can be brutal but reasonable. The standards here are just too sloppy, too imprecise, and too frivolous for my liking. [REDACTED - Oshwah] ([[User talk:[REDACTED - Oshwah]|talk]]) 03:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Major165 - No worries; I obviously can't force you do to anything. :-) Regardless of what you choose, I appreciate you for taking the time to allow me to try and help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, your last response here was made while you were logged out (probably accidentally). To protect your anonymity, I went ahead and suppressed your IP address information from that revision. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)