User talk:Oshwah

Let's chat

Click here to message me. I will reply as soon as I can. All replies will be made directly underneath your message on this page.

Please create your message with a subject/headline and sign your message using four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Experienced editors have my permission to talk page stalk and respond to any message or contribute to any thread here.

Archives
Older Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2015 (Jan - Jun) July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 Year 2016 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 Year 2017 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 Year 2018 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 Year 2019 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 Year 2020 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 Year 2021 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 Year 2022 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 Year 2023 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 Year 2024 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August 2024 September 2024 October 2024 November 2024 December 2024

Table of contents

Kingdom of Ulidia

If you are able or even really interested anymore (I'm sure this mediation is turning out to be a far more onerous task than you ever imagined). The Afd at the Kingdom of Ulidia talk page desperately needs your attention. As you can see from the last paragraph of Mabuska's last edit to section 3.3 of the Afd "General discussion", which I have copied below, he is now threatening to go rogue and to engage in Edit Warring because the discussion is not concluding as he would like. Also the discussion is remaining horribly off point. Contrary to a portion of Mabuska's comments below on actual topic of the Afd, all editors expressing an opinion have unanimously cconcluded that the title Kingdom of Ulidia should not and should never have been redirected to Ulaid. Albiet (talk)Albiet

Mabuska - "I agree with Brianann that the ball is in your court Albiet rather than mine considering the evidence on display, and a line will need to be drawn. If you continue to fail to provide modern academic evidence to refute what I've provided (preferably from an expert in medieval history such as Byrne and Duffy rather than a Biblical scholar) and to back up your increasingly contradictory and speculative arguments, then I will proceed in a weeks time with the redirect with a working consensus (at present 3 to 1). A weak one considering the amount of editors to provide input but a strong one none-the-less considering the evidence provided. That should give you time to find something. If you fail to and still protest after the redirect then I'll happily go for an AfD citing all the problems above and the redundancy of the article, and you'll have a hard time proving against it."

How is that threatening edit-warring and going rogue considering you have failed to provide any evidence to back up your increasingly erratic and contradictory arguments? Consensus does not need to be unilateral, and despite your intentional misrepresentation of the other two editors views, you are the only objector and you have nothing to back up your objection. Modern academic experts in Irish medieval history, including Byrne who you rate so highly, disagree with your claims. I have repeatedly asked for evidence from such experts and you haven't provided any. Most of what you provide is OR and speculation and intentional distortion of sources - which you continue to refuse to acknowledge or answer questions about when called up on it.

In any case, on Thursday (as I said, a week after I posted the above comment) I am moving to redirect the article. For added insurance I am requesting an uninvolved admin look at the RfC to determine a close and judgment based on what evidence has been provided and the views of the other two editors. I did give you a week to find evidence from experts in the field, instead you resort to making false allegations. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Mabuska, Albiet - Aww, come on now... Have you two made any progress together as far as working with one another, discussing issues, and seeking consensus? I don't see an AFD discussion; I think you meant to say 'talk page discussion' (AFD is short for articles for deletion). Making threats to edit war and make edits against consensus is not only disruptive, it demonstrates battleground conduct, which are both behaviors that can lead to being blocked or even sanctioned by the community. Have you filed a request for mediation, as I suggested previously? If the threats continue and/or policy violations occur, such as edit warring or engaging in personal attacks, you're probably going to wind up back at WP:ANI, and without the option of accepting help by a mentor.

I can certainly offer input and assistance regarding specific content disagreements, issues with sources, or questions regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Even if you need help with responding to a message or uncivil behavior in the right manner, and help you respond with a calm and cool head... you bet. That's what I'm here for. What I cannot and will not do is sort out your personal grudges, arguments, nor will I help draw lines in the sand and build battlefields. It's up to you two to sort these things out yourselves. I can give input and coaching, but I won't stand in the way and watch battles ensure; that's a complete waste of time for everyone. Now, with that being said, is there any questions I can answer or assistance I can give? Are we going to have to file another ANI report? Help me out, here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Who ever said you were to draw lines or sort of "grudges", and who ever said anyone was going to edit-war other than Albiet? Getting an uninvolved admin to come to a determination for closing the RfC and enacting the redirect if they deem it so can hardly be called edit-warring. The message I took from the AN/I was that you where to mediate the discussion, in other words scrutinise both of us, both sides of the argument and call us up on any issues. That never occurred. I am still having to deal with an obstinate editor with clear WP:OWN and WP:COI issues who refuses to provide evidence disproving the evidence I have provided, who also likes to intentionally mislead and twist, and failing 99% of the time to answer questions asked of them, though make that 100% of the time in regards to questions on their misleading. Albiet can make up whatever allegations they want and continue to post walls of text that don't progress the debate, however I have a consensus backed up by the other two editors involved and evidence from academic experts in the field of medieval Ireland - one of which Albiet cites as the "utmost authority". As stated, on Thursday I will be seeking an uninvolved admin to take a look and come to a determination as Albiet is apparently willing to argue his moot point forever regardless of the inanity of it. Such behaviour itself is disruptive. I only see the need to go to AN/I if Albiet refuses to accept this. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Mabuska - Thanks for responding and for letting me know what you're thinking and how you're feeling right now. I apologize if I caused confusion, frustration, or if you miss-interpreted my previous response above. I'm not making any accusations of edit warring, nor do I believe that I'm actually drawing lines in the sand or constructing your "battleground" :-). I was simply making a general initial response without pointing any fingers towards anyone individually... yet ;-).

I typically try and mediate disputes by giving those in the dispute appropriate space to discuss their grievances and work on collaboration by themselves. If a bump in the road is hit, I make myself available to step in when asked, and then assist neutrally with sorting out the bump. Then, I step away and give you space and let you two continue to work on constructive collaboration until I'm needed again. I think that an appropriate mentor and mediator understands that a proper balance needs to be found with when it's time to step in and when it's time to step away. When "mediators" begin taking over the discussion entirely, it generally adds more frustration and issues rather than less, because people will believe that the process is being hog-tied with red-tape and constantly interrupted with unnecessary commentary when there isn't a need at the time. Then things just go downhill, and the encyclopedia left with no improvements made... obviously not good, since this is our #1 goal here :-).

When a dispute gets to the point where that proper balance must be constantly broken to resolve issues -- such as arguments, behavioral accusations, heated emotions, etc -- we know that there's obviously a problem. Sometimes it's due to editors wanting to kick dirt at one another, other times it's due to persistent edit warring and battleground conduct, and the list goes on... the point is, there's a problem that mediation can't resolve (usually because one or more editors aren't actually willing to mediate). I hope that this helped explain what I'm trying to do, as well as clarified what I initially meant to say.

I'm reading through the mediation section of the RfC; there's a lot to go through. I think that you're right; someone needs to step in and determine the status of consensus in the RfC. Since I'm already involved as a mentor/mediator, and... well to be frank... there's a lot of text to read, I think that bringing in additional uninvolved eyes to help discuss and close the RfC is the best thing to do at this time. It would sure help me a lot :-). Remember that you're welcome (and should) report any violations of Wikipedia policy that occur (should it happen) to the appropriate noticeboards, and that you're always welcome to open an ANI and ask for administrator action. That's an option that's there for you, and you certainly have the choice of doing so. If you're ready, I think the next step is to ask for uninvolved admin input and additional eyes to help close the RfC. You can ask for uninvolved eyes at WP:AN, or for additional help wit closure at WP:AN/RFC. Once you have asked for assistance, I can provide support and input as a neutral party from there. If you have any more questions, or need help with additional processes or items, please let me know. I hope my response has helped clear the water and explain how I try and offer neutral mediation with an appropriate balance. Thanks again for expressing your concerns and frustrations to me; you're always welcome to talk to me if you feel the need to. My talk page is always open. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that response Oshwah and for the time you are putting into reading the walls of text provided by both Albiet and myself, it helps clarify things for me better. Though to state there has been no edit-warring of any kind, only the reverts Albiet made before the discussion started. Excluding the issues with Albiet I have already raised, and my frustrations with them, which is noticeable from my frequent pointing out of their contradicting and ever changing arguments and their lack of in-depth knowledge on the topic matter, I wouldn't really say there is any real battleground conduct from either of us.

I would simply relist the RfC for more input however I know that one of the first responses will be a wall of text from Albiet, followed up by one from me discounting them and pointing out the problems with their argument, and so we'd put people off all over again as happened last time. Yet if Albiet can answer the questions asked of them in an appropriate manner without a mass wall of text and allow other users to see the sources themselves, then maybe more editors would participate.

In regards to Albiet's apparent conflict of interest in the article, should I report that at the COI forum? And for what end? Just to prove there is a COI? Just to point out: the Kingdom of Ulidia article focuses heavily on the Donlevy's, even on events centuries after the end of "Ulidia". The Donlevy's are the attested ancestors of the McNulty's, and in Albiet's short time on Wikipedia they have created 114 articles, of which 80 are to do with McNulty's and variations. Of Albiet's 2,400 edits, over 400 have been on the McNulty article alone. The sources used in the Kingdom of Ulidia article are also antiquated family history/pedigree sources. Then add in edits like [1] and it is clear there is a conflict of interest of an apparent familial link to the McNulty's/Donlevy's, hence the puffery in the article and the desire to protect it from change or redirection. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to highlight that in the interest of getting unilateral consensus and to show that I am willing to work things out I have made the following compromise proposal to Albiet to take into issues I pointed out to them in my previous few comments at the talk page. This is more than reasonable in light of the many issues with Albiets arguments. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah,

Thank you for your intervening comments. They appear to have broken the log jam. At least, there is now, finally, on the table an initial proposal for resolving this dispute, and I shall do my part to keep the ball rolling. I am working up and shall respond on the Kingdom of Ulidia talk page with a detailed and what I think is a very reasonable counter proposal, which User:Mabuska should find palatable. I shall also post the counter proposal on your talk page, so you can evaluate it. I trust your judgement. If you think that I am being in anyway unreasonable, please, let me know. Thank you again. I can’t believe that you are still hanging in there through all of this prattle and still interested in helping Mabuska and myself. Job (biblical figure) has nothing on you.

I apologize for my brief delay in responding to you, but I had to step away from editing for a few days to cool off. It is very difficult for a man not to precipitously react in response to such tirades of base insults and innuendo. Mabuska’s latest efforts at "amicably" resolving this situation have escalated to include in addition to having repeatedly previously called me a deceiver or liar (accused me of intentionally “misleading” Wikipedia users) to now most recently implying that I am an incompetent by stating that I should stop editing in this area and leave that to “competent” editors like him. Some people just need to get over themselves. I am not interested in filing an ANI for Wikipedia:Personal attacks. This would just mean more interface with Mabuska, which appears now to be finally, otherwise, coming to a merciful end. I also cannot see how that path could anyway facilitate the resolution of the issue before us, which is really a very, very simple one.

The very simple, single issue that Mabuska raises is whether the article should be labeled Kingdom of Ulidia. I am not even the editor, who named the article Kingdom of Ulidia. Another editor did this back on March 21, 2015. Mabuska’s opinion is that naming this article Kingdom of Ulidia violates Wikipedia policy, specifically “[p]er WP:COMMONNAME”, because the word Ulidia is in his opinion anachronistic and has been supplanted in modern histories by Ulaid. Editor Brianann MacAmhlaidh echoes this opinion: "As far as I can see, modern historians don't seem to make such a distinction, or even use the term Ulidia." Mabuska’s exact words are “Although nineteenth century historians sometimes used Ulidia, modern ones don't seem to. It's merely a Latinised form of Ulaid” and “The majority of sources that make use of Ulidia however are not academic, and if they are, they tend to date from the 19th and early 20th century. Adding to this the fact academia now tends to take the native Irish language name as precedence”. At the same time, Mabuska is of the inconsistent opinion that the title Kingdom of Ulidia should be redirected to his revised version of the article Ulaid. When I pointed out to him the incongruity of these two position and the inherent illogic in maintaining both, in light of the vitriol that ensued from him, I quickly realized that the opportunity of prevailing upon syllogistic or rational persuasion here is at best very limited.

Both MacAmhlaidh and Mabuska, however, are anyway dead wrong. I provided Mabuska with cites to some dozen major contemporary historians, who like major historians for hundreds of years before them, use the term Ulidia in lieu of Ulaid. Many of these contemporary historians are Wikipedia notable, and one has additionally been awarded the Order of the British Empire for her work in the field. I went further and explained that these historians use the medieval (academically fabricated) Latin word Ultonia when referencing Ulster or the greater Ulaid or, really, the territory that the then arch-powerful Irish race the Ulaid occupied in prehistoric and, only, later legendarily recorded times. I went further to note that these historians used, instead, of Ultonia the medieval (academically fabricated) Latin word Ulidia to demarcate the medieval Irish kingdom that existed as the smaller or lesser Ulaid remaining after the late 5th century encroachments of the Ui Niell. I noted in discussion the sources themselves give three reasons for this: 1) the over-kings of the greater, though, by then, dismembered Ulster or the subsequent Kings of Ulster were rarely also the kings of this medieval Kingdom of Ulidia, 2) the majority of the territory of the medieval kingdom was not even occupied by the Ulaid race or Irish Ulothi tribe any longer. The tribe held a very, very small area in the far east of the kingdom roughly contiguous with today’s smaller diocese not county of Down, Dún da Lethglas. The Irish annalists even came to distinguish this area of eastern Ulster from the greater Ulaid as the ‘’province’’ or the “In Coiced, ‘the Province par excellence’’’, and 3) not just members of the Ulaid tribe but also members of the unrelated Cruthin tribe were for substantial periods over-kings of this kingdom’s 3 principalities or sub-kingdoms (Dalnriata, Dún da Lethglas or the Kingdom of Down, and Iveagh) and during their later ascendancy the Ulaid’s rule as over-kings of the Kingdom of Ulidia was largely titular anyway. Although he had, himself, relentlessly badgered me to produce such contemporary in his words "modern" sources, Mabuska then just dismissed all of this stating that it proved nothing, basically, that it meant nothing anyway.

For this reason, I became increasingly convinced that Mabuska was simply being disruptive of the Wikipedia, using the Rfd forum not to progress the Encyclopedia, but, rather, in attempt to berate and humiliate me, his perceived nemesis, before the World, while telling it how great and talented he is. And, he can’t succeed at this anyway. Fewer than 10 people a day of the, some, half billion English speakers in the World even read this article, and I doubt any of them besides you with your great fortitude has the stomach to ever view, let alone attempt to parse, the relentless ramblings on its talk page. Mabuska is basically writing epistles in praise of his glories to himself. I can certainly live with 10 a day of the world’s half billion English speakers thinking me a fool, if Mabuska can actually convince them of such. At least now, there appears to be some light at the end of the tunnel.

In interest of facilitating continued progress here (now that some progress has finally at long last begun to occur after your prompting), I think it important too to dispel the rank speculation of WP:Conflict of interest that has been ventured, I am neither a MacDonlevy nor a MacNulty nor is there any issue of a “family history interest” or WP:OWN here. Again, I did not even name this article Kingdom of Ulidia another editor did over a year ago, and my counter proposal shall include my own proposal for a redirect of the title, as well as text for presenting both legitimate views of this matter in Wikipedia articles. I simply take issue with the redirect as proposed by Mabuska for the reasons that I have stated above and because he took such action, which effectively deleted the article, unilaterally, and without any prior community input. I have, myself, simply been trying to document for the Wikipedia a comprehensive history of this final lesser patronage of the Ulaidh nation and its legacy into modern times. In a series of 4 diaspora the last chieftain clans occupying this lesser Ulaidh or medieval Ulidia spanned into other areas of the British Isles, to the European continent, into British North America and to British Oceania after the collapse of their nation. In this diaspora, these few, last, small noble houses of Ulidia have had a significant and vastly disproportionate influence on the course of contemporary history. I have created or contributed to articles on all of these small families and many of their members not just the MacDonlevy (> MacNulty). Their former high royals the MacDonlevy (> MacNulty) family just figure prominently amongst the others. The individuals include the medical scientists who first brought empirical methods to medicine on the European continent, first applied electrocardiography in medicine, performed the first bone graphs, and devised the indispensable Coulter counter, the heads of states of major nations, including the United States’ William McKinley and France’s Marie MacMahon, and others, major motion picture, stage and television stars, dozens of flag and general officers and war heroes of the US, British and Commonwealth Armed Forces, commanders of their major battles, dozens of prominent and historically significant Roman Catholic or Anglican Cardinals, Bishops or other prelates. I could continue, but, the fact that just one of these small families as Mabuska notes has over 80 persons noteworthy enough to warrant independent Wikipedia articles speaks volumes. This is why Mabuska sees certain passages in the Kingdom of Ulidia article as WP:Irrelevant and wonders why I restored them along with the articles other content. This is a reasonable question. They are transitory passages not yet connected to discussion of the diaspora. The article, as all Wikipedia articles, was a work in progress. In concession, I probably should not have included the transitory passages until I had completed the discussion of the diaspora and without it.

Looking at Mabuska’s user page, I could make the same types of accusations of conflicts of interest against him. Almost the entirety of the page is dedicated to espousing his what can only be called extreme fringe political views for an Irishman that all Ireland should be reunited with whatever on earth today is still left of England. I could speculate that he is editing virtually every article on Irish history in the Wikipedia in an attempt to diminish the achievements of these Irish patriots and, later Jacobites, who resisted English rule. Mabuska’s name appears in foot long reams on almost all of the edit histories for these articles, obscuring the very existence of prior editors, just as my name appears as creator of many articles on MacDonlevy and MacNulty. But, both are evidence of nothing. If I so acted, I would have no more evidentiary support for my wild speculations than Mabuska has for his. There is no basis for assuming that either Mabuska or I are not acting in good faith. Going down this road is simply silliness and is just going to distract further from the potential resolution of this dispute, which now appears within reach.

battleground conduct - And, Oshwah, whatever Mabuska’s current protests and back peddling, you did not misread his comments when reviewing the Rfd. His exact words demonstrate the meaning that you interpreted: “a line will need to be drawn … If you continue to fail to provide modern academic evidence … I will proceed in a weeks time with the redirect”. Hard to misinterpret. After later repeating in response to my communication to you these very threats above on this very talk page, itself, “In any case, on Thursday (as I said, a week after I posted the above comment) I am moving to redirect the article”, only then does Mabuska belatedly add “For added insurance I am requesting an uninvolved admin look at the RfC to determine a close and judgment based on what evidence has been provided and the views of the other two editors.”

Wikipedia:Personal attacks - And here are just a few verbatim examples of where Mabuska calls me a liar and deceiver just in the mediated section of the Afd: “Also please stop trying to mislead”, “Also you have destroyed your own credibility by intentionally trying to mislead editors.”, “Are you refusing to answer because you know the source does not state or imply this in any way at all and that you were trying to intentional mislead editors?” and above on this very talk page “questions on their (my) misleading” (parenthetical added for clarification) and “intentional distortion of sources”.

mislead … to lead in a wrong direction or into mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit … syn see DECIEVE” (caps are original) from Merriam Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary

Why should an editor, who is simply trying to engage in a debate to resolve issues in the Wikipedia and, thereby, hopefully, advance it have to suffer such vicious and greatly offensive barrage? If I did misinterpret some text, and I did not, Mabuska has no basis for assuming that I acted in bad faith when doing so and for leveling these types of serious accusations. Any reasonable person would take extreme offense. Regards Albiet (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet

When you intentionally mislead editors with distorting sources to back up statements they don't make and fail to explain yourself when called up on it then yes you are lying and doing it willingly. It is not a personal attack when pointing out the truth of the matter. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Albiet's counter proposal in compromise of the Rfd

User:Oshwah For your review and comment, this is the proposal for a compromise that I made to User:Mabuska to settle the Rfd dispute.

I would propose the following compromise in resolution of this Rfd.

1. In concession to your position that some historians employ both the medieval Latin words Ultonia and Ulidia to reference Ulster (I. Ulaid) or lists them synonymous, I propose that we agree to your redirecting the redirect Ulidia (kingdom) from Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulaid. I don’t believe that it is necessary to keep the word “kingdom” in brackets. Without the brackets, Ulidia kingdom should appear among options anytime that someone begins to enter Ulidia as a search term. I make this concession even though I do not agree that a source’s stating generally that both words are used to reference the Ulaid in anyway establishes how each word is used when referencing the Ulaid province (e.g. as referencing Ulaid during its entire history and fluctuating expanse or just during portions thereof).

2. I propose that we agree to insert the following edit into the article Ulster before the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of its Early history section: “For a variety of reasons not the least of which being that the rulers of this remnant Ulaid were not always also Kings of Ulster, some major historians have through the centuries and into contemporary times demarcated this medieval Ulaid, which was confined to eastern Ulster, as the Kingdom of Ulidia.

3. I propose that after making this edit, we agree to redirect Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulster#Early history.

4. Finally, I propose that we agree that sometime during the months of August and September of this year, I shall create an article MacDunleavy dynasty and then redirect MacDunleavy (dynasty) and MacDonlevy dynasty from Ulaid to the new article. You recently redirected the last 2 titles from Kingdom of Ulidia, an article which contained at least some information on this dynasty, to Ulaid which has even far scanter almost non existant information on the dynasty. The only reason that I can think of for this after looking at the web of redirects and linkages that you have made to your revision of the Ulaid article is that all roads must lead to the glories of Rome. I am already familiar with 50 or more both antiquary and contemporary sources from which I can craft a comprehensive description of this dynasty and its rule for the Wikipedia.

I can’t envision how you can have any reasonable objections that would make this proposal a complete non starter. Albiet (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet

Seriously Albiet? That must be the biggest wall of text you've posted yet and most of it wasn't even needed. Like why not simply link to your proposal? Why post it in its entirety here? However I must refute... both me and Brianann are "dead wrong"? My argument is based on fact, yours on misinterpretation and over-dependence on antiquated sources. You've failed to disprove my argument in any shape or form! Mabuska ^(talk) 12:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Also I am not even the editor, who named the article Kingdom of Ulidia - maybe not, but you created it as Ulidia (kingdom). Not a real difference there is there? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Massari

I thought that's what your supposed to do was change it to correct it. The entire page should be about the word Massari. If you look up the word "Cash" the entire page explains what cash really is. It doesn't bring up the rappers who are also named Cash.

What do you consider a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction1001 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Correction1001! See Wikipedia's guide on identifying reliable sources. It will provide you with everything you need, and will answer all of your questions. If you still have questions after reading through the entire guideline, please don't hesitate to message me and ask. I'll be happy to help you. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

article quality reassessment

Hi again Oshwah! The article Bruchus rufimanus has been edited majorly and I am sure that it is no longer stub class. Usually, I just submit a request for someone to re-evaluate the article but for Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification and Wikipedia:WikiProject Beetles/Assessment, there is no such thing. How can I get it re-evaluated. Thank you so much for always being there for me! NikolaiHo 04:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Nikolaiho! It's good to see you again! Sorry for taking so long to get back to you! I was busy last week and didn't get an opportunity to contribute here much. I believe the place you're looking for is Wikipedia:Assessment. This looks to be the main page where an article that isn't classified by a specific WikiProject can be classified. Please let me know if this helps you out. I'll be more than happy to answer any more questions you have. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I'm Peter SamFan. You probably remember me. Anyhow, I'm taking the summer off from Wikipedia, and I finally got around to asking you this: would you check my contributions from time to time to make sure that nobody has taken over my account and used it for vandalism? If someone has, I give you permission to ask an admin who has known me to block my account. Thank you. Peter Sam Fan 16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter SamFan! Taking the summer off from Wikipedia, huh? I hope you enjoy your time away, and that I see you back here again! Make sure that you keep a strong password set on your account and add and verify your email address with your account as well. I'll be happy to watch your user, user talk, and project pages while you're away, and the community will certainly keep watch and take action if edits suddenly suggest that your account has been compromised. Again, I hope you enjoy your time away, that I see you back here again, and that you make sure that those two steps are taken care of before you step away... very important!!! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Update OSTI information

The page at Office of Scientific and Technical Information is out-of-date, but we have been told it is inappropriate for staff to edit the page. Please advise the best way for us to ensure the information is accurate. Should I just go ahead and update until someone speaks up? Thank you. Nenamoss (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nenamoss! Welcome to Wikipedia! We encourage users and editors to be bold; never forget that. However, I acknowledge and I thank you for asking about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and guidelines before making edits to pages and article subjects where you may have personal ties or connections to. Editing articles where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged behavior, as it will typically interfere with the ability to edit the article in a neutral point of view. In these situations, it's always best to ask an uninvolved editor to update the information on the article, and give them the source you're citing so that they can verify it and check it for issues (yes, you'll want a reliable source to provide if you're asserting that information on an article is out-of-date or incorrect). This is the safest and best option, and will keep you out of any potential heat from others who may ask. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Darien National Park edit

I recall adding some information about Darien National Park. I don't know what citation to list and am not very familiar with editing Wikipedia information. My information about Darien is based on my 7 visits there, totaling about 2 months staying at Pirre Camp, as part of an entomology biodiversity study I have been conducting since 2007 as a research associate with the University of Florida, Mississippi Entomology Museum at Mississippi State University, Arizona State University, and the University of Panama.

Any assistance you can give me so I can provide accurate information would be appreciated.

Thanks, Albert Thurman, Phoenix, Arizona Albert214 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Albert214! Welcome to Wikipedia! I understand that you have personal experience and knowledge regarding Darien National Park due to your trips and visits there. While it's tempting to simply add and update information because you know that it's incorrect or missing, it's not something that should be done if the only source or reference you can provide to back up the claims are... well, yourself. This is what is known as original research -- adding content to a Wikipedia article based solely off of your research (be it experience, personal knowledge, writings, reports, or even published sources or articles). Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if you're able to locate a reliable source that can be cited in-line with the information you're adding or updating, you'll be 100% fine and good to go! I would start by reading the Wikipedia guidelines I provided for you, then try searching for a reliable source afterwards. You can go from there depending on the results of your search. You're also more than welcome to message me any time; please don't hesitate to do so if you have any questions about the Wikipedia guidelines I've provided to you. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Good luck, and have a great rest of your day! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing panel for New York naming debate

A debate is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city, the dab page or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. Would you be willing to exercise your wisdom and participate in a closing panel tasked with adjudicating this 15-year-old conundrum? Apply here: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Closing panel. Note that the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input. You might want to read those prior discussions to get a feel for the arguments. (Be sure to have your cup of tea handy!) — JFG ^talk 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi JFG! It's good to talk to you again! I apologize for the delay getting back to you. I was busy all of last week and didn't have many opportunities to contribute or respond to messages. Sure; I'll be more than happy to volunteer and help if it's what is needed. Is there still a need? Let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, looks like we have a full panel already, but just hang on for a few hours in case somebody gets kicked out (never know what could go wrong in those emotional discussions…) Thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi JFG, no problem. Just let me know if I'm needed. I'll be happy to help if I am. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Panel is at work now, judging whether to revert a 15-year-old status quo… Exciting times! — JFG ^talk 01:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

JFG - Oh, I bet! Should I bust out the popcorn and get a front row seat? :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Jason Patric

Danielle Schreiber was only his GF from 2002-2008. They briefly dated again in late 2011 into early 2012. Also, his biological son's (legal) name is Gus Schreiber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.229.144 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Make sure you review Wikipedia's biographies of living people guidelines, as well as the guidelines regarding reliable sources and how to cite them in-line with content. Any unreferenced content in an article that is a biography of a living person must be removed immediately and on-sight - especially if the content is controversial or contentious in nature. Please let me know if you have any more questions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Block User:Alexandraprice29

Hi Mr. Oshwah, can you please block User:Alexandraprice29 for failure to cite a source pages on Jillian Ward article? He or she keeps editing a wrong birth date on the said article but the source pages stated that Ward was born on February 23, 2005 and not May 23, 2004. Help me please? Biserific (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Biserific! Sorry for taking so long to respond to your message; I've been busy all last week and didn't have time to contribute as I usually do. It looks like this user just received a final warning for making unreferenced changes to biographies and data. If the user continues, he can be reported at AIV and blocked. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to assist you with them. Thanks for the message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Biserific, I just reported this user to AIV for continuing to modify birth-dates against references and without providing any. Just wanted to update your request and let you know. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to respond with them. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Joe Budden edit

Sorry its my first time. Here is the source:

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/07/joe_budden_chasing_video.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.107.37 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Kathryn Cartini

Hi Oshwah. I'm wondering if this user's account was hacked? The recent edits are very out of character. This user had previously been very engaged, courteous and open about their connections to subjects they had edited about. --Drm310 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drm310! I'd report your thoughts to WP:ANI or WP:AIV (if it's vandalism that's occurring) and get more input. That's the best thing you can do if what you believe is actually occurring. Let me know if you have any more questions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hank Johnson

If you see that information is added, why don't you verify it before you erase it? I didn't think that was the way it worked. But its not my website, so I guess Ill refrain from adding additional content or make further donations. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.54.44 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for the message. I reverted your changes to that article because it did not include a citation to a reliable source. According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the burden of providing proper references and citations to content added is on the user that is adding the content to the article, not the person who is reviewing the content added. If you wish to add the content, you need to locate and cite reliable sources. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for understanding, and I wish you well :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Daren Sammy

Regarding [2]: I'm not questioning the move, but leaving a redirect seems sensible as it is a likely typo. Also not sure if this qualifies for redirect suppression — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dang it, MusikAnimal (haha)! That has been bugging me ever since I performed that move... I thought that I should have left a redirect. Thanks for poking me with your input; I agree. Done - redirect added. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not me

I am sorry, my friend was using my account. Please forgive them ~Wallflowerkitten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallflowerkitten (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER EvergreenFir (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Help me?

The wiki page ==Kayla Ware== Needs to be made and I don't understand how to do anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallflowerkitten (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Now deleted pages indicate this editor has some growing up to do before they can contribute constructively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Indian films

I AM GULSHAD SAIFI

USER NAME gulshadsaif ":"you was massage me that i have wrong entered in List of highest-grossing Indian films. i have checked url of bahubali and i have not found any article for bahubali that show 600 crore is completed. only found that it will earn 600 cr. so why that url is proper by you. i have also searched in google bahubali worldwide collection. tell me how i can check url is correct?Gulshadsaif (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Seancody (edit reverted)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Cody&curid=27426074&diff=731573369&oldid=731573164

The previous revert was going back to a version of my edit, and was also unreferenced...

Perhaps a citation needed template could have sufficed? Or just a comment on my page?Situphobos (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Situphobos! So, I acknowledge that my message to you could have been a bit more helpful (I apologize for that); however, I see that you cited a source! Perfect; you're good to go then. Problem solved :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

All good, you're just doing your job here. Thanks for patrolling. Out of interest, how did you stumble across my edit? Situphobos (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Situphobos - Thanks, man! I appreciate the kind words. There are Wikipedia tools and programs that allow experienced editors and patrollers to quickly navigate through the list of recent changes. If you're starting off with the place I did when I first started patrolling over 7 years ago, that would be the good olé fashioned recent changes log. Oh, good times... Anyways, if you run into any more questions or if you need help with anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be happy to lend a hand. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I'm yet to create the 'Give Oshwah a daily Anti-Vandalism Barnstar' so i guess I will have to do it manually in the meantime. Whenever your online it gives me a chance to maybe watch a movie or catch up on some reading. Hopefully reading this will give your 'D' key a rest for a while. David.moreno72 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

David.moreno72 - Hey man! Thanks for taking the time to leave me this very kind barnstar, and for the wikilove! Seeing the notification pop up that you left me this made me quite happy. Ahh see, the key that is being given a rest while I'm reading and responding to you is the 'Q' key ;-). That reverts for vandalism and leaves a warning. Then, of course, there's the 'S' key for marking an edit as suspicious, E for edit, O for open, R for revert, T for talk, and (of course) all of the custom shortcuts I created myself. Yeah, I've been doing this for awhile... lol. Again, I really appreciate your fist bump, and I hope to run into you again soon. Heck, I'm sure we will. Cheers, man! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Steve Shutt

Hey Oshwah, regarding my edits of Steve Shutt's page, I am currently very interested in updating or creating "playing style" sections for historical and current hockey players. None of the written content in that particular article (or any other that I have made) consists of anything other than statistics or opinions of people who observed that player. Even the "masterful goal scorer" quote is taken from sports journalist Brian McFarlane, as seen in the video used in many of my citations. Would it be possible for you to reinstate that part of the article which I have created? Update: I replaced "marvelous" with "multifaceted", and whenever a hockey expert makes an observation about Shutt within the documentary I have used for most of my citations, I put their name in the citation as the "author" to distinguish it from the others— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.120.145 (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I note that you seem to be putting a lot of time into this article. However, there was a lot of issues that were added as far as adhering to a neutral point of view. The content added speaks favorably about the person, something we try to avoid. Encyclopedic content must be edited neutrally, and it can be hard at times. I highly recommend that you review and understand the guideline, as it will help you with adding neutral content. If you have any questions, please let me know. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you. I wish you happy editing, and a great rest of your day. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No subject

I live in Sheridan, Wy, where Forrest Mars lives, and he had a heart attack on Sunday and has now passed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheridanwy (talk • contribs) 01:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

moringa edit

Hello,

I am the founder of The Moringa Company, the leading producer of American Grown USDA Moringa. My edit comes from my many years of research and expertise cultivating and experimenting with the plant and all of its capabilities. Please confirm my edit to you page as the more factual information available the better. Thank you

C.S Jones MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csjones.md (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Csjones.md and welcome to Wikipedia! I understand that you have personal experience and knowledge regarding the article subjects you were trying to edit. While it's tempting to simply add and update information because you know that it's incorrect or missing, it's not something that should be done in an encyclopedia. If the only source or reference you can provide to back up the claims are... well, yourself... it doesn't make the encyclopedia content verifiable.

All of your edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) -- are clearly based off of original research. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if you're able to locate a reliable source that can be cited in-line with the information you're adding or updating, you'll be 100% fine and good to go. I would start by reading the Wikipedia guidelines I provided for you, then try searching for a reliable source afterwards. You can go from there depending on the results of your search. You're also more than welcome to message me if you have any questions. I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Good luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

PartyNextDoor age.

His soundclick page verifies that he is 31 years of age. Thank you.

http://www.soundclick.com/members/default.cfm?member=jahron%2EB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.106.153 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a content dispute; it should be discussed on the article's talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply to message

Hello Oshwah,

I saw that you sent me a message on a page that I have been editing today. You said that you wanted to talk to me about something? Is it about what I have been editing to the awards page? Because what I am contributing to the page is all true from MTV. If you are nominated as a featured artist in a certain category, you are a recipient of that certain nomination. Last year, Kendrick Lamar won the award for Vid of the Year. Cornerstonepicker is basically saying that he did not win that award because he was a featured artist. What I am saying is that I am correct. I wish that this editor that I mentioned previously would please stop taking out Lovato's nomination. She is nominated for it since she is featured on it. Even MTV's Twitter account agrees. This person is basically saying that only Demi cannot have a nomination as a featured artist and everyone else can. Meanwhile there are dozens of singers who have won VMA's as featured artists and cornerstonepicker does not even care and is not acknowledging that and isn't leaving the nomination alone.

Please respond to my reply!

Thank you!

Lovatc543 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Anopheles albimanus page

Hi Oshwah,

I'm sorry my previous edit was a bit sarcastic; that wasn't nice. I did want to help though. The two pictures with the red background on that page are not the correct mosquito--something in an entirely different genus. They should be changed or removed, but I wasn't sure how to remove an entire image.

Best, Ethan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:B402:C100:A80B:6F65:DB63:216 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Steve Shutt

Hey Oshwah. As stated in my edit of the last message I sent, I have removed any "romantic" language which does not come directly from the sources I have cited, or is not justified by them. I also must dispute the allegation of "original research". Every claim I have made about Steve Shutt's shooting ability, positional awareness, etc. is cited and backed up directly by those citations. Furthermore, the references used are actually video footage of hockey experts and analysts being interviewed, rather than written material - this would seem to make each claim far more reliable, as you are hearing it "from the horse's mouth". Could you please reinstate my edit to the Steve Shutt article? If not, I would very much like to know specifically which parts of the article you find at fault. All the best! Update: Thanks for your last message. Steve Shutt is a Hall of Famer, and generally considered to be one of the best hockey players of his era. That is confirmed by consensus and statistics. I find it difficult to not make note of this by describing his various skills. Is it the tone you have a problem with? Because I can only say that skills which make a player better, and their team better, are a positive thing and can only really be described in positive terms, just by their nature. In other words, you say that I describe Shutt "favourably". I can only say that I was describing his playing style favourably, but in the words of people who saw him play. His playing style and stats speak favourably for themselves, which is why there was a documentary made about him and why he is in the Hall of Fame. For example, his slap shot WAS more accurate that the average player of his day. Stating this is a fact, but is also favourable by any definition. Do you see the dilemma? All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.120.145 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No subject

Hi,

you're source isn't credible. please read it, it is clearly asking a question based on no evidence at all.

this is an interview the artist had and it clearly states he was born in 1993, http://www.thefader.com/2015/04/21/partynextdoor-cover-story-interview

"He's just 21 years old, born on July 3rd, 1993" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbb12345 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

locked?

Hi, can you please tell me why the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PartyNextDoor

page was locked? you've been tricked by vandals into believing the wrong date of birth

i gave you a source on the birth date, the wrong source was listed on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbb12345 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zbb12345. The article has been semi protected due to numerous modifications to a biography of a living person that has conflicting sources and no consensus or discussion reached. You should discuss your arguments on the article's talk page to get input from the community. You should take your discussion there so that the community can have visibility and provide input with your assertions. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the reply, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion there. I've noticed a ton of vandalism on the page today such as changing the date of birth, and adding foul language to the page. the current source is not reliable, can you please read through that reference listed, it is a gossip site. This is a reputable source: http://www.thefader.com/2015/04/21/partynextdoor-cover-story-interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbb12345 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Zbb12345 - Ah, so you should start a new discussion with your concerns. This will allow others to respond. If you start a discussion there, I'll be able to look into it and give input :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: I removed the DOB per BLP. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89 - Good call. I considered doing that myself. Both sources seem about the same to me, and I'm not sure if either one is reliable; a discussion must take place before either of those birth-dates and sources go back on the article. Thanks for doing that, my friend! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong person

Never edited Wikipedia before. Are you sure you sent the message to the right person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.71.91 (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're using a public or shared IP, consider registering an account in order to avoid being warned or otherwise blocked from editing due to edits you may not have made. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

reliable sources or not?

check links and reply is that source is reliable

1. http://www.boxofficeindia.com

2. http://www.koimoi.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulshadsaif (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

reliable sources or not?

3. https://web.archive.org/web/20120205213224/http://boxofficeindia.com 4. http://indiatoday.intoday.in 5. http://www.indicine.com 6. https://indiandhamal.com 7. http://www.talkingmoviez.com 8. http://ibosnetwork.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulshadsaif (talk • contribs) 06:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gulshadsaif! What article is this in relation to? I'd have to see the actual article that you're trying to use as a reference. In general, homepages of websites shouldn't be used as sources; you should instead use specific external articles or peer-reviewed writings outside of Wikipedia to cite the content you're trying to add. Take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources, as it will provide you with the information you're looking for an answer any potential questions for you. If you have more questions after reading this guideline, definitely let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Username Issues

Hi Oshwah, i hope you fine.

how to change the username related to wiki policy. And see this page, how they created with their company name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._R._Thanga_Maligai.

Please instruct me to create a wiki page in step by step process. I have checked many blogs, videos for how to create id. Waiting for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalithaa jewelleryMartpltd (talk • contribs) 09:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I responded to your questions on your talk page. Just follow the instructions and you'll be all set :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Lori Robinson

Her biography on af.mil clearly states that Robinson was commissioned a 2ndLT on May 24, 1981, not 1982. The wiki article states that same date under "Effective dates of promotion". You find a link on the bottom of the article, pointing to Robinson's bio. 2001:7E8:C248:9301:F154:D344:33B8:9548 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Vandalism on the Article Syed Qaim Ali Shah

HEy Dear Oshwah , Thanks for your Vandalism corrections on the Qaim Ali Shah article, which is currently under Vandalism attacks. I have replaced the Vandalism text edits of some IP and THis USER who changed the real name of the article person [HERE SEE HIS VANDALISM] including some new Users listed here User_talk:Zahiddar143, (User talk:Adil naveed), (User talk:Saadusman17) see more Vandalism on history page of the article Syed Qaim Ali Shah..--Jogi 007 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Oshwah, some people in real life questioned the reliability of Wikipedia, and said If any one can edit Wikipedia, even without registered user name i.e I.P and makes wrong edits or spoils the content of Wikipedia, such as putting a wrong information suppose some editors through its registered account or IP edit Wikipedia article London and edits that the London is in United States rather than UK, how will it be reliable that anyone might put a wrong information, and if a person reads that article and go to London but thinking that London is in USA as information placed on that article. or suppose there is any article of a city in which some editor (IP) puts wrong info which does not really exists there, suppose one puts a info that bla-bla (City) has a prostitution/ brothel, but actually that city/town does not have that thing, then how Wikipedia is reliable, what happens to these edits, MY response was that the senior Wikipedian could revert that incorrect info edits which is called Vandalism on Wikipedia. but again they asked if no senior Wikipedian reverts that wrong info on the article for two or more days then that wrong info must be existed in the article. but still they were stubborn to accept it, I was confused how to convince them, but I persuaded that the wrong information or vandalism is reverted by the Wikipedia bots or the authorized users. could you please undrstand what they actually wanted to say and did I asnwered them the right information as I could? and does really Wikipedia is not 100% reliable subjected to the Vandalism?.

Thanks...Jogi 007 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi Oshwah,

Please review the latest updates and let me know what you think. If you have any questions for me or if there's anything more I can do to help, just let me know.

Regards, Scottjcamp (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about Huggle

As Wikipedia's number 1 Huggle user, and being a developer, have you ever looked at the source code? I have. As a developer myself, I have found trying to get a mac development environment up and running very frustrating, and as yet I have not been successful. The main reason, the use of Qt. (I had never heard of it before) So I downloaded the latest version (5.7), but I could not get the libraries to link when using Xcode. I then used the Qt IDE, which enabled me to link the libraries, but I couldn't get one of them to link. After some researching I discovered (to my horror), that Huggle was using a deprecated version of Qt (version 4.8)(Well I think it is, I may be wrong). Probably when Qt changed their API it was just too difficult to update. So, this is what I would like to propose, or wish. What I would like to see is a fully native Mac version of a reverse engineered Huggle, written entirely with Swift. Crazy eh. What I think would be great is if there was some sort of community project to achieve this, headed up by the best Swift developers that Wikipedia can muster. The end result, a project that you can download, double click the Xcode project file, and bang, you are locked and loaded. There just seems to be nothing out there to help a newbie to get a Huggle project up and running. I would really appreciate your input, ideas, suggestions. (If YOU have got it running I would really like to know how you did it, or if there is someone lurking out there reading this, come to my talk page.) Many thanks. David.moreno72 14:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

David.moreno72 - This is a response to acknowledge your message. I've been meaning to get back to you, but have been busy or just tired lately. But yes, we should talk. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi David.moreno72! Sorry for taking so long to get back to you! The reason for doing so was because I wanted to actually sit down and give you an in-depth response. Indeed I have looked at the source code for Huggle :-)! I'm actually working to try and study all of the code so that I can fix a few things and create a pull request to have my changes merged. In short, they didn't add shortcut/hotkey mapping programmatically for the drop down items for revert, warn, and revert-and-warn options after the 10th item, so adding hotkeys to "failure to provide a reliable source" is impossible right now. But anyways, I'm getting off-topic. Qt is something I've touched, but not in a very long time. Have you discussed your thoughts with the project members of Huggle? They may be able to confirm your findings and/or help you with linking everything to Xcode so that you can improve the code. Why is your overall goal to migrate Huggle to a swift project? If I recall correctly (from my off-wiki experience with iOS and Xcode), swift is only used to develop mobile apps for iOS, not for the development for desktop apps for Mac OS. I could be wrong; perhaps this may have changed since I last worked with Xcode and iOS. I've only so far studied the C# code for this project; there's a lot to go through and I've obviously been busy with real life (lol). Let me know if you contact any project members and what they say. I'm quite intrigued. Good luck! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for a reversion

Thank you for this. I appreciate your diligence. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Quadell - You're very welcome :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Iron Order Motorcycle Club Edit

You removed my edit to Iron Order Motorcycle Club page. However, I only added what their very own Webpage referenced in the article states. Nearly verbatim. You should research your edits before changing well documented edits. Dtwenty7 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dtwenty7! Thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns. I still believe that your edit here may not be in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as this article is completely unreferenced. Can you provide me with the exact reference or source that you're referring to in your message? Remember that, according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the burden of providing proof or references to support the content being added to an article lies on the editor who is adding the content being challenged, not those who are challenging it. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

Hi, sorry for that "edit" from this IP address. It looks like someone else made it since this is a shared IP from a local library or random WiFi address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.241.242 (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. You should consider creating an account in order to avoid being warned and blocked due to edits made by other editors. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just reported IP 50.205.18.53

Was this vandalism of IP 50.205.18.53: in User talk Alicb ? Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gerhardvalentin - According to the IP's talk page, there was a warning left for vandalism made to that page, yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 Manchester City F.C Season edit

Hello Oshwah I hear that you reverted my deletion of an event regarding a friendly football match between two Manchester based football clubs in china the reason why I deleted it was the fact that the aforementioned football match was cancelled due to the football pitch not meeting professional standards I do apologize if my actions were misconstrued as an act of vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.196.86 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries! In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. This helps other editors to understand what you're doing and why, and will avoid confusion such as this :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Constructive

Hi there,

I didn't realize it came across that way. I just made a few different contributions. Having more than five years in the public BDSM scene, I don't feel like I'm ignorant of the issue and find the article in its current state to be in severe need of help. I also fixed obvious graffiti - that the "roleplaying" link forwarded to generic mental disorder instead of to Role-playing as it should have.

I also wanted to include asexual BDSM as it is absolutely a thing and seems a shame to be left out of the discussion. It would probably be better if I logged in and engaged on the talk page though. Do you think that's a better way to approach this?

Thanks,

Victor (vasalmon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.71.147 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! If you have an account, it's always encouraged that you use it. This way, you can use your account to build experience and better reference your changes rather than having to refer back to IP addresses to look back. If you believe that the content is legitimate and should be added, by all means you're welcome to take that first step and have at it! Just remember that other editors may have different thoughts and opinions, and provide feedback with your changes. Remember to assume good faith and collaborate with them constructively; we're all here to build an encyclopedia, and we're all wearing the same team jersey together! Please let me know if you have any more questions or if you need assistance. I'll be happy to help! Best of luck, and happy editing to you! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments and opinions

Hi there Oshwah, I came across your page in search for some outside opinions and comments regarding an ongoing dispute on the talk page for the country Eritrea [3]. The issue involves what naming is prefered to describe the location of the country Eritrea in the lead and the geographic section of the article. I have argumented for restoring the use of the term East Africa or Eastern Africa which used by international organization such as United Nations, African Union and African development bank to mention a few, East Africa was also recently used in the article until the other part in the dispute changed it to Horn of Africa. One of my suggestions was to include both since Eritrea is part of both East Africa and Horn of Africa, even though the latter being a less recognized region and a less used term to describe the country's location by international organizations and media. At the moment it only mentions Horn of Africa. I think it could mention both or only East Africa. The sources from the international organizations are being overlooked. It would be great to get some opinions from an experienced user like yourself. Would you mind taking a look and leave some comments? FYI ive also opened up a case on the disupte resolution notice boarding in trying to resolve this. See [4]. I also belive that the article needs supervision by admin since some users on there are trying impede changes leading to possible breach of WP:NPV and WP:RS, see the section "content dispute" on the talk page [5].Could possibly suggest one? ThanksRichard0048 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Barry Stevens edits

Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I did not intentionally delete any content from the entry for Barry Stevens. In fact, I was adding valid info. The original entry was put together in a strange and possibly confusing way. There was an initial section on "Life," about her early years, then a later section on "Personal life," which was wholly focused on her son, now Steve Andreas, and his career. In my editing of the "Life" section I mentioned her daughter, Judith Sande Stevens, then cut the "Personal life" section and pasted its content (on Steve Andreas) into the expanded "Life" section. All the substantive content was retained, and valid new content was added. Is it possible now to restore my edits, all done in the interest of improving the Barry Stevens entry? Furfortman (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Furfortman! I apologize; I see that you were making modifications to the article, and you provided a reason for removing the content (it looks like you were just trying to move it?) - it was my mistake and I have restored the article back to where it was after your last edit. Please feel free to ask me any questions or express any concerns. Otherwise, I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks for keeping up with all this. Furfortman (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Furfortman. Thanks for leaving me a message and for the heads up. I very much appreciate it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

More on Barry Stevens

One more detail: in the Barry Stevens entry, in the "Life" section, there is a note that "Fritz Perls described Barry as a "natural-born therapist." I had put that line in the intro paragraph, where it belongs, but with your cancellation of my edits it is back in the "Life" section, where it is out of place. Furfortman (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Furfortman. If you take a look at this diff, it shows that the page has been restored to the exact state that it was after you made your changes. If content is in the wrong place, can you verify that you may not have moved it yet? If you can provide a diff of you having moved that content, that would be of help as well. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dean Tuza - proposed deletion review?

Hi Oshwah, I saw that you proposed deletion of a 'Dean Tuza' article. To be honest, I'm not incredibly familiar with adding/updating wikis.. but from what I ve read i think you prosposed to delete it because there wasn't any sources/references. I've added a couple now, which reference Dean Tuza's work as a professional music producer. Hopefully this will suffice, but I'll keep looking for some more and add them if I think they're suitable. Let me know if there's anything else that you believe is missing in order to remove this proposed deletion. Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stclairjon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stclairjon! If it's a biography of a living person and I proposed deletion on the article because it was unreferenced, then you can remove the PROD tag if you've provided one. That's perfectly fine to do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements edit revert

Hi -- you reverted one of my recent edits at List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 due to it not being constructive. Can you please elaborate? Thanks in advanced. MrVenaCava (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi MrVenaCava, and thanks for leaving me a message with your concerns. Looking at the edits I reverted, I'm honestly not sure what happened. I might have accidentally reverted your edit in the list instead of the one that I intended to. I went ahead and have stricken out the warning I left on your talk page. You're more than welcome to restore the content I reverted. If you need help doing so, let me know. I apologize for the mistake and the confusion. Again, I'm not sure what happened and how. I very much appreciate you for bringing it to my attention. I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries -- the edits have been restored. Have a great day! MrVenaCava (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

updates doesnt appear

Hi

I uploaded my first article few days back and according to your suggestions and others i have added few links and make it more formal but still the changes are not appear in artciles. in otherhand it shows in mobile version . can you please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerrabelo (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rogerrabelo! Welcome to Wikipedia! What article are you referring to? Is it Nandana Lokuwithana? If so, then it looks like the last edit you made was reverted because the editor felt that the references you cited were not reliable. I recommend that you review Wikipedia's guide on identifying reliable sources. It will provide you with everything you need to know, and it should answer all of your questions. If you still have questions after reading this guide, you're welcome to either ask me, or you can ask JJMC89 (the editor who reverted your change). I know JJMC89 well, and he'll be more than happy to assist you as well. Thanks again for the message, and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Oshwah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ilyushka88! Check your inbox. I responded to your message ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump University

I don't understand why you removed quotes from Trump "University." Upholding a neutral point of view does not require us to pretend that a business that sells real estate seminars is a university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreystringer (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeffreystringer! I think you should read your message to me again (but do so aloud to yourself); I will answer your question and hopefully it will make sense. You're close, but I'll correct you on a few key words here. Upholding a neutral point of view requires that we do not make or imply analysis "that a business that sells real estate seminars is a university". That is not up to us to do, and adding those quotes does just that -- which is not in compliance with the policy. Please take some time to review the policy, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have regarding it. Thank you for leaving me a message, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Name spelling needs correction.

Hi,

My name is POOJA GOR. There is a page with the name POOJA GAUR. The last name spelling needs to be change. I myself am the person in reference. there are enough articles on the net to prove the spelling. please tell me a way to prove it. thats also the reason i changed/edited the content on the page which was removed. I need my name spelling to be correct. Thats all i have to ask. I have a facebook page and instagram page verified. At least the verified accounts should assure you that the spelling of the last name is GOR not GAUR. Please see https://www.facebook.com/ppgor09 , and https://www.instagram.com/ppgor09 Please change it. Thank you so much in advance.

POOJA GOR Pjgor09 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Pjgor09: I have moved the article. However, you may not be notable, as you do not have coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notable doesn't mean famous, it just is the standard that Wikipedia has to determine what gets an article. Also, you should not edit the article yourself, as you have a conflict of interest. Propose changes on the talk page. I may put this article up for deletion, after a thorough search. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

reliable sources or not?

DEAR OSWAH SIR,

I AM TRYING TO KNOW THAT CAN I USE THESE URL FOR BOLLYWOOD MOVIE RECORDS OR NOT

EXAMPLE -

1. List of highest-grossing overseas Indian films.

2. List of highest-grossing Indian films in overseas markets.GULSHAD SAIFI 15:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gulshadsaif: Neither sources are reliable, as they are both on social media websites. For more info on what makes a reliable source, please see WP:RS. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing of the Kasumi Dead or alive article

I wish to remain anonymous but between us, I am the one who made that review. Therefore I can assure you that the review is from a reliable source.

I tried putting that detail (that KBP scored a 1.5/10 citing 140 flaws in a 34 minute movie) but the data got repeatedly taken down. The reason I did not post a link to the actual video is because the video contains sexual content and I was unsure about the policies here about posting a link to an xhamster or pornhub or xvideos page where I conducted a very thorough review. You can see its existence for yourself, just type "kunoichi broken princess detailed review" in google videos and the 43 minute video is my one.

Please do let me know if I am allowed to post a link that takes users directly to the xhamster, pornhub or xivideos page. I feel if you can make a reference to Studio FOW, then surely a reference to some work that specifically reviews movies from Studio FOW must be included.

Thanks 50.89.208.187 (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)K-S

Baldwin State Jail

thank you for your help Oshwah, much appreciated! --Lockley (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You bet, Lockley! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

test

test just to see if my message got posted.

50.89.208.187 (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)K-S

Trump Tower (New York City) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_(New_York_City) 203 m is equivalent to 666.01 ft.

Good evening Oshwah

203 m is equivalent to 666.01 ft.

The source that I am citing is math pure and simple.

Unit: foot = 1 (ft) = 12 inches = 304.8 Millimetres = 0.3048 Metres

1 m equals 3.28084 ft. 3.28084 x 203 = 666.01 To be exact it is 203m = 666ft 0.1259964in.

If you want a source use this links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Acceleration_conversions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system

Please put back the correction the math is precise. I have also confirm the architectural drawings for Trump Tower and it measures exactly 203 m in height. I am also keeping a record of this conversation like wikipedia is keeping a record of my IP and I am sharing it with all my colleagues in architecture and engineering. One thing is to have in wikipedia erroneous facts about other disciplines but math is for lack of a better word precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.33.103.12 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the deal. I'm trying to leave Ed Waltons legacy on his hometown wiki. It's not my fault you don't know the glory that is one Edgar Edwin Walton. -Chris Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:C102:B8D2:159A:8CE1:F7AD:BA25 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah I try to change it once again providing my my sources link and it wont allow me to do it. Is my math wrong? I do not think so... Are my sources wrong? I can use the Speed of light standard if you like but the math will be a bit heavy and only change the result slightly. Why is putting the correct number in ft for a building such a problem in wikipedia? Or is this building in particular... Ill try to find another building with a mistake to edit this one is some how protected... But the height is 666.01 ft.