Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

"Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, J. Christopher Stevens, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)"

Hello Oshwah,

I have no idea why you removed my edit, as you left the source which was right there.

My edit: It was determined that there is no proof to allegations that Stevens was tortured to death. A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

Your edit: There are allegations that Stevens was tortured to death.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp%7C

If you would read the link resource it clearly states there is no proof to allegations that he was tortured to death. Furthermore, the line I added "A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke." is literally in there as well.

Why did you remove this additional information?? It comes across as odd to say the least to suggest that he was tortured, whilst providing a source that says that there is NO evidence for this allegations. There are no reliable sources for the allegations, and several reliable sources (among which Agence France Presse (AFP), and the doctor that treated him) saying that nothing of the kind occurred (all of this in the source I provided!).

Please revert back your changes to how it was, or explain why you want to leave the reference to allegations of torture there, but not my reference that there is no proof for them, as stated in the source provided

And a Merry Christmas to you :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by God-Himself (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi God-Himself, and thanks for leaving me a message. I was confused for a bit before I realized that the edit you're referring to edit was made by an IP address, not your account (I assume that this was you while logged out?) - I just didn't see the warning or the edit in your contributions. It looks like the edits made simply added to expand the previous statement, but I didn't see where it was also stated in the source provided. I took another look, and also see that the initial claim being made in the source is labeled as "unverified" by the same source, which naturally draws other concerns regarding accuracy and verifiability. It does appear that the source also cites other work, helping establish how reliable it is, and the fact that it cites other work typically also makes it a secondary source as well, so I guess I'm mixed. Are there additional sources that also state what was being added? Either way, if this source states the information that was added, please feel free to restore it. I apologize; I just didn't locate this exact information there, but I could have simply missed it... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts are being created just for the purpose of vandalizing/adding libelous content to the Richard Jefferson article. Could you try and protect it and possibly investigate the accounts being created? Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz - The page has been semi-protected. Thanks for the heads up! :-)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hey there. I believe you are the admin who protected the Bigg Boss 10 article. It is edited very frequently, and it's pending changes are getting very backed up. It seems that most of the content being added is not bad content, so I am of the opinion that it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove the pending changes protection. If it still faces content issues, I think semi-protection would be better than pending changes. Obviously, you have a better sense of things than I do, but that's just my two cents. (Noyster also made a request at WP:RPP, where they were pointed to you, but I don't think they have talked to you yet). Thanks! --hwalk | talk | contribs 00:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bojo1498! Thanks for leaving me a message with your questions and concerns regarding the article. Typically, I'll apply pending changes protection to an article instead of semi protection for many different reasons. If the article isn't generally edited frequently or have a very high edit rate, we prefer to try using pending changes protection first until it becomes a problem or is found to be unsuccessful at stopping the disruption in concern. One reason that's a little "off textbook" but still consider when applying pending changes protection over semi protection are situations where unregistered or new users are also currently making legitimate or good changes to the article on top of other ones that are causing disruption. Semi protection in this case would prevent unregistered/new editors from being able to add those good changes, where pending changes protection would not. If you look at the [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Bigg+Boss+10&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1 page logs], this is the exact reason that prompted me to change my mind and pending changes protect the article rather than semi protect it. However, it looks like disruption continued and KrakatoaKatie added semi protection to the article a few days later, so it looks like we're good. Once semi protection expires, pending changes protection will resume and continue from there. Again, I appreciate the message and I hope my response helped you to understand the situations where we attempt pending changes protection first before we attempt semi protection (although the cases aren't that common). Best -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that absolutely makes sense. I definitely see the logic. It seems like the frequent editing has died down (at points it was being edited several times a day), but for a time it got very very backed up. Do you have any ideas on how to keep it from backing up? A lot of it was editing specific things about episodes, so it seems like there would need to be a reviewer who watches all of the episodes to verify what is being said. Anyway, thanks for explaining everything! --hwalk | talk | contribs 16:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI, I saw that you recently corrected some vandalism by user Mattramzzz, so I thought you could help with this... That user vandalized the Dennis Miller entry today by inserting his own disparaging opinions into the introductory section. Thanks.

208.91.64.179 (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC) My name is Ken K. I'm just a Wikipedia user and don't have a login here.[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Not sure how to take someone to ANI. Is there special criteria that is needed? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WarMachineWildThing: AN/I is not a criteria required process. When you escalate to AN/I, you are requesting Administrator Intervention usually against ongoing behavior that has become disruptive or out of line with accepted Wikipedia policy and practices. The most successful AN/I requests (as judged by administrative resolution) include specific diffs of behaviors and quotes of policy in violation. -- Dane ^talk 04:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dane Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WarMachineWildThing - Going off of Dane's response above, make sure that you're reporting behavior that is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is ongoing and needs attention or intervention from an administrator, and that it's not something that should be reported elsewhere (such as AN3 to report edit warring, AIV to report vandalism, etc). Like Dane said, make sure that you provide evidence such as diffs or user contributions to support your argument. Failure to do so will make the process more difficult at best, or be considered personal attacks at worst (especially if the accusations are very serious and the supporting evidence can't be found or provided). Make sure to keep calm and civil throughout the ANI, answer questions when you can, and be open to feedback and criticism both ways - remember that nobody is safe at an ANI; those who respond will (and generally should) take a neutral and level-headed look at the problem from all angles and everyone involved. Good luck to you - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Oshwah, its Palmer. I've been having an issue with an anonymous user that keeps changing percentages of the 2016 us election in Florida, Washington, and Pennsylvania, to % that are unsourced and refuted by the certified results from various Secretaries of State. Can you help? Thanks PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)PalmerTheGolfer[reply]

Hi PalmerTheGolfer! It looks like the edits are being made by 117.53.77.84? Are there other IPs that are doing it as well? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was another address that kept rounding % to the nearest whole number, IP 86.162.254.10, but it had been a few weeks since they edited in such a manner, and MB298 had prevented them from rounding % in an unconstructive manner. If you could just keep an eye on that IP as well that'd be great!! Thanks PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

diff I hit revert, and it does nothing because of an edit conflict. I go back and hit revert again, but someone has beaten me to it :). I've noticed that Twinkle is superior to Huggle in situations like this, as it continues reverting if the new edit is by the same editor, whereas Huggle just stops. Maybe this should be changed? Adam9007 (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam9007! Huggle should allow you to rollback the vandalism, even if the same editor edits the same article after the diff that's displayed. It should let you know that a newer edit was made to the page by the same user, and pressing 'Yes' to proceed should revert those changes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I like to check each revert I make by looking at my contribs (no idea why :)), and that did not appear. I went back (in Huggle) and there was a new edit by the same user. No dialogue box or anything. However, I've just spotted an option in Huggle "On revert of multiple edits by the same user" with 2 options: Skip and Revert. It is currently on Skip, but the "Revert edits newer than the displayed diff by the same user" box is checked. I assume I need to change to to Revert? Adam9007 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that should do it. Be warned that this option has drawbacks if you change it. For example, if someone removes content in one edit, then adds it back to the article somewhere else in their next edit (so, just re-arranging content overall), you'll revert all edits if the changes were made by the same user and the removal (older edit) is what you see. This option (if I'm correct) also includes edits by the same user in the past as well. So if they made 5 good edits followed by one edit that appears questionable, you'll also revert all edits made by the same user if you only see the revert that is questionable (their latest edit). If it's possible that the edit you're looking at on Huggle is one of many edits that, together, would be legitimate - press H to look at the article's history and make sure you're seeing everything before you decide. Let me know how that change works out for you (if you decide to change it). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (seriously :)) I changed it, but if it has worked, how will I know? Will I need to check manually? (If it has worked, then I won't see a need to) I think I have Huggle set to display the diff of all the last user's edits. I also suppose my slow internet connexion is part of the problem too (some of the larger pages take several seconds to even load let alone save an edit). Adam9007 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007 - You'll want to verify manually so that you're 100% certain that Huggle is doing exactly what you want it to be doing (and vice versa). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the reason (so maybe I do have some idea why I do it; I'm talking bollocks :)) I double-check my reverts :). Adam9007 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oswah. I have removed the vandalism from the United States of Colombia page again. In the future, if you revert people's edits, make sure to see what you are reverting to - what you reverted to was a bunch of nonsense vandalism. Even though there was no edit comment, it was very clearly vandalism that was removed and if I had not come back to the page it would have remained there.

Hi there! Looking through what you removed, I agree that it was vandalism. I had originally thought that you removed the only infobox on the article (which obviously wasn't the case). I apologize for the confusion and I appreciate you for letting me know. Just make sure that you provide an edit summary with your changes (the edit summary you provided with this edit was perfect and all that was needed). This way, other editors will be able to see the edit summary and know what you removed and why. Other than that, I owe you a handshake and a big "thank you"! If you see more vandalism, by all means... remove it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is not notable. This is what is bad about Wikipedia - people like you. How can you justify a page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B804:60A9:1450:5992:BDAC:E628 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the page is not the proper process of having an article listed or discussed for deletion. See Wikipedia's deletion policy for our processes, the criterion that articles need to meet in order to be included, and how to appropriately take action if they don't. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiNouveau15 made three edits. Two hiding that they were newly registered and a third to vandalize Deven Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Interestingly, it appears that Deven Green herself is editing as Neveded. I sort of got caught in the middle. Should anything be done, such as a revdel? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim1138! I've rev del'd the revision text of the edit made by WikiNouveau15 to Deven Green, as it doesn't actually cite a specific source (even though it may appear as a failed attempt to do so in good faith). In the end, it's a serious BLP issue due to not being properly referenced and it's gotta go. Thanks for reporting that :-). Please let me know if I can do anything else for you. Thanks again! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled and didn't find anything, so I think it was made up and the editor made themself appear a veteran. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think you will have to revdel up through my last edit on the page. My first edit restored the BLP vand, the last removed it again. Sorry. Jim1138 (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim1138 - No worries, I'll take care of that for you. Going through the recent history of Deven Green, I also see that Marti1056 has very similar contributions as WikiNouveau15 (namely, the creation user and talk pages that redirect to the other). I wouldn't be surprised if Neveded was also the same (although I don't see an obvious connection when glancing through that user's contributions). I'd advise opening an SPI; it looks like there's socking going on... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on the Chyna article? Sources linked in article clearly state her birth year 1969 an age at death as 46, but users keep changing it to 1970 and 45 stating Unsourced yet the sources are right there. I've seen IPs try to fix it but they are getting reverted by users as Unsourced when they are very well sourced by New York Times, which states age and birth year in the report and NBC, which states age right next to them. Ive changed it with explanation in the summary as per the sources linked but since some users clearly are not reading things..... Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WarMachineWildThing - I've added pending changes protection to the article for two weeks. This will allow unregistered and new users to add legitimate and positive contributions to the article, but first be reviewed by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. If things continue and need more intervention, let me know. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, the unfortunate things was IPs tried to fix but registered users were reverting as Unsourced,which it wasn't. But hopefully this fixes it and people start reading sources. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Attach the picture of Abdullah Bravo Macapaar to his profile in order to avoid confusion by readers

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Fiefee (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like your hardline stance on NPA and CIVIL policies and your willingness to enforce them when they are violated. I figure that Quixotic's comment did not arise out of a vacuum so am offering them the opportunity and time to provide some context behind this. I know that some editors and admins will disregard NPA and CIVIL in circumstances where "a spade" is being called "a spade". An example of this is in regards to white nationalists and neo nazis that occassionally join Wikipedia. I remember a not so old case where subtle evidence of nazi sympathies was present on a user page. The user is question is Zaostao, their user page has been deleted but admins can review the page. You might notice a biblical reference and 14/88 on their page, also an image associated with Nazism. In this case nobody had any qualms referring to the editor as a Nazi (or whatever) and nobody was about to enforce any of our policies. I suspect one of two scenarios here; 1. Quix has been perturbed by comments/contribs that David A has made and lashed out in response to what they considered bigoted speech (I'd like them to offer up their evidence and I might have a chat to David about it if anything comes up) or 2. Quix jumped to hard off the gun at David for their criticisms of Islam. In the second case, Quix has definitely crossed the civility line and should be told so, that said, Wikipedia isn't a platform for debate and critics and David may need reminding of that. Q: How do you "noping" - I can't find it anywhere in template doc and I didn't particularly want to ping Zaostao? I made a guess, but am not sure it's right.Guess I'm about to find out. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr rnddude! Thanks for the message, man! I appreciate your comment regarding how I stand behind and enforce civility and Wikipedia's policies against making personal attacks. While I think that administrators should generally take a more firm stance on the enforcement of these violations of policy, I also understand the general hesitation to do so. Blocks that are performed on established or experienced editors due to civility or NPA violations usually come with harsh and drawn-out criticism by editors citing WP:NOPUNISH, stating that the block was punitive due to the editor's behavior, and not preventative to keeping the project from further harm. I agree that there are many examples where "discussing other users instead of discussing content" is acceptable (such as an ANI to discuss an editor's behavior, an RFA, the list goes on)... of course... we know and see them often. These are discussions and areas where "calling a 'spade' a 'spade'" (provided that such assertions are supported with evidence) is generally fine. However, going to this case, where the discussion was centered around content... I don't see how this response contributes positively to the discussion at-hand. This is an example where editors should "comment on content, not on other editors". Even if The Quixotic Potato was simply commenting on the previous comment ("the average Muslim possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of Islamism") - how does it make his response towards David A acceptable? What does it have to do with the RFC discussion at-hand? How is this response positively aiming to help the discussion come to a consensus? This is a situation where we have to look at the spirit of the policies involved, and not the letter of the policies. Doing so will show that, while many discussions on Wikipedia allow for (and even are centered around) edits regarding other users and not necessarily content, this particular discussion is not one of them (at least in my eyes). If I missed something, please do let me know! Oh, and the template for performing a "noping" is '''{{noping|USERNAME 1|USERNAME 2|...}}. The documentation for that is here :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have many good reasons to strongly dislike nazis and islamophobes (heck, I almost married a Muslim girl and I have two Jewish ex-GFs and some Jewish family members). Bit of a personal story but I am willing to explain it in detail. [1] (read the editsummary) [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. In the context of the discussion I was clearly calling a spade a spade. Someone asked me to be less blunt about it next time, and I've promised I will. I think what you are missing is that I would've been willing to spend a lot of time talking to him explaining why I believe his views are wrong, hoping to save him from the extremists... I would describe what I did as tough love, and if people wouldn't have interfered then I would've at least tried to help him understand that antisemitism and islamophobia are the same to me. If you haven't already, please read the userboxe(n/s) on Davids userpage... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: you should know that I'm one of Oshwah's talk page stalkers. I can't speak for anyone else, but I nonetheless feel sure that the other two involved in this would agree with me when I say that WP is not the place for you to help another editor overcome their own bigotry. As noble a pursuit as that may be, it doesn't belong here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: Agreed. David has email enabled so in this hypothetical scenario that would've been a good option. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template doc link Oshwah. I didn't realize but I was on MediaWiki while looking for it, no wonder I couldn't find it. I agree with you in just about every respect. Discussing the contributor at the RfC did not help or improve the encyclopaedia in any way and there is a difference when you're at AN/I expressly discussing the editor (their behaviour generally) and on the talk page of an article. I can't think of a single way that David or Quix benefited from the interaction or indeed how any of the other RfC participants would have found it insightful. The reason for my more lenient stance is that Quix has done a bit more than just sling an insult, they've made a claim. I'd like to see their evidence in support of the claim. Then I can have a candid discussion about the issue(s) with either or both editors. Though you have my full support behind the civility warning. For me I'm in more of a; Quix has an issue with David, the issue is what David has said, so what has David actually said? Note, I read their comment about "the average Muslim" and "the critics of Islam" very differently to Quix. That comment alone doesn't even raise my eyebrows, let alone warrant the response it received.

For that matter I read the userboxes on David's page, I figure the political compass one is part of what you're referring to Quix, eh, moderately right and a little authoritarian. If he's taken the PC quiz it's likely his economic stance on "protectionism", "regulation" and "taxes" that puts him right field and his authoritarian stance is possibly strong patriotism, the death penalty for severe crimes, and other issues of the state. I was able to generally emulate their result, some things raise my eyebrows for such a moderate seeming score, others not so much. Other than that, clearly against fundamentalism, supports secularism and he's an atheist like you and me. AGF, unless he has a UBX saying "I don't like Muslims" or "despite the name, there's no Muzz in Muslims" then I won't be drawing any conclusions about it. Not everybody thinks its a good idea to state your political beliefs on your user page, and they're probably right about it. Just draws criticism and arguments. I do it anyway. Be mindful of the language you use and no more outbursts. No person in the face of insult has ever stopped and thought, you know what they may have a point. If anything they'll be even more deeply rooted in their beliefs not less. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reping due fail The Quixotic Potato Mr rnddude (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude' - I commend you on your in-depth analysis and your viewpoints, which aim toward assuming good faith and attempting to understand what the comment in question was trying to say. Indeed, I believe that the community was correct in stating that the comment was problematic. The Quixotic Potato - I also see that, despite the initial responses that you made in the ANI thread (which also caused some editors to become even more responsive to the ANI), you appear to understand where the community stands on this particular situation and why. I hope you know that your past assertions that have correctly identified problematic, biased, and even down-right disturbing editors in the past - are not something I believe that you did wrong at all. Your comments have led to many problematic and POV-pushing accounts being sanctioned, and that's an awesome thing! There's are discussions and appropriate times that need to be considered before these assertions are made; otherwise, they come out completely the wrong way. I think you understand this now, which is a big step in the right direction. Just be mindful of the context and your words in the future, and all will be well. I thank you both for your participation and your time. I think we can step back, breathe a little (LOL), and move on from this. I've closed the ANI thread with my honest thoughts. The Quixotic Potato - please take them to heart. I wish you both happy editing and conflict-free collaboration. Cheers!!! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rnddude: You have interpreted the comment he made based on your idea what he may have meant. I responded to what he actually wrote. Maybe you are correct, maybe I am, only one person knows for sure (but based on the list of contributions and what he actually wrote it seems far more likely that I am correct). I don't have an issue with David, TBH I consider this discussion a waste of time that could be spend far more productively, but if one is falsely accused then it is usually a good idea to respond. It is unclear to me what the word "outbursts" is referring to. I mentioned just two diffs but you can easily find plenty of diffs that show a pattern. Oshwah, leaving that comment to close the discussion was a very bad idea (and the contrast to the comment above is very noticable), it seems to be an emotional reaction to my comments left at 13:09, 13:53 and 13:56. It would've been better if you would've stepped back and let someone uninvolved leave the final comment. Please read WP:SPADE. I had to deal with some kneejerk reactions from people who didn't spend enough time reading that didn't make much sense, but when I explained the situation it became clear that I hadn't done anything wrong and that that comment in that context was a reasonable response. Your closing comment shows that you still aren't clear on what happened and why. In the future please ask questions if something is unclear to you. Of course communicating in written text over the internet is problematic; I am sure that you would've changed your mind and perhaps even apologized to me if we could talk about this irl. Your closing comment is insulting to me (I assume because of those comments left at 13:09, 13:53 and 13:56), it doesn't de-escalate the situation (quite the contrary) and it isn't a good summary of what happened. You should consider rewriting it (but give yourself at least 24hrs, and make sure the section doesn't get archived before then) or asking someone who is uninvolved to write a better one. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. You seem to be undermining Rnddude's approach, who has actually spend time to try to understand my POV (even though we may not agree on everything), and has consistently tried to de-escalate and communicate. The last time I criticized you your response was far from perfect, but now you have a chance to do better. I am arrogant enough that I DGAF, but you'll find that Wikipedia is full of frail ego's and if you treat people like this then you will cause a lot of drama, even though your intention is to reduce the amount of drama.[reply]

(talk page stalker) Speaking as someone who didn't comment in the ANI thread, Oshwah's close was pretty spot on. You should take Oshwah's suggestions to heart. I think perhaps in the future you should take more care before making such comments, such as the ones that seemed to raise general concern. Take my advice or leave it, it is what it is. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is what we needed, more people who post comments before reading. In the future, you should spend some time reading before leaving a comment. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you didn't hear that. Now can you please stop trying to prolong drama you aren't even involved in and do not understand? People have wasted enough of my precious time. Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. You have good intentions, but the wrong approach. It is sad that so many people with good intentions do not spend time reading, and instead post knee-jerk reactions that may be appropriate in clear cut cases where someone is nothere, but are incredibly counterproductive in situations like these. Rnddude spend some time trying to understand my POV, and because of that he treats me very differently. It should be obvious, even to those who disagree with me, that my intentions are good and that I truly do not believe I did something wrong (because I didn't). I am totally in favor of using RBI against bad-faithed editors, but this situation is clearly different, and if we communicate then we can probably end up with something we can all agree on. Heck, I understand Oshwahs POV, even though I disagree with him, and if you give him the chance to have a normal conversation with me aimed at de-escalation then we are probably able to understand eachothers POV and laugh about our miscommunication later.[reply]

People have already wasted far too much of my time on this BS, so please take your time to think about this before responding. Stuff like this is one of the main reasons why our editor retention rates are so low. I believe in Wikipedia's mission and I am so arrogant that I know I shouldn't GAF about the opinions of ill-informed people who aren't willing to read; but it is difficult to have a DGAF attitude when treated like this. Please read User:Bishonen/Optimist's guide to Wikipedia and https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/45/8d/b4458d0d7ccd5751ea38bc523403ed74.jpg (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to get a ban, I have not commented her yet but in the name of god. Now you are calling users ill-informed when you have failed to produce any evidence (diffs) to back up your assertions. It is not bullshit to expect you to treat others with respect. Personally I think it is clear from this you have not learned your lesson, and will just start (as you seem to be here) treating others users with discourtesy and disrespect if you think they deserve it. If you carry on with this attitude you almost certainly will get a blockSlatersteven (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there would be a god then this planet would look very very different. More cats, no humans. I'll ignore the rest of your comment, you are here to cause yet more WP:DRAMA. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought experiment

This is a thought experiment, a completely hypothetical situation.

Imagine there would be something that is the Jewish equivalent of Islamism; I'll call it "?-ism" because I don't have a word for it.

And imagine the SPLC wrote a list very similar to this one but about "anti-Jewish extremists" that lists a bunch of antisemites with very extreme views that are completely unacceptable outside of far-right circles.

Two fictional people, I'll call 'em X and Y are having a heated discussion about this fictional list.

Fictional person X writes: "the average Jew possesses enormously more bigoted views than most critics of ?-ism"

Fictional person Y responds: "It is sad that you do not realize that you hold far far more bigoted views than the average Jew."

This is the exact same situation, only the religion has changed.

Oshwah, please respond on my talkpage, not here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said you put ECP on this page after I requested it at RPP, but it must have failed to go through since it is not present in page log. WNYY98 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WNYY98! Oh weird... you're right, somehow my protection change didn't apply. Thanks for noticing and for letting me know -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do here. I don't want to get into a flame war, so I just contact you. The article in question is this. Any help from anybody is appreciated. I am not very good in these situations... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RileyBugz! Hey, there's no shame in asking for someone's help. It looks like the center of the discussion is involving the addition of this content to the article. I don't see anything wrong in general, but I'd tell the user to paraphrase the source instead of quoting it directly as he did - doing that isn't necessary. What may be called into question is it's relevancy. Well, I can't decide on that one. These are the things I see from the get-go - what are your specific concerns? What do you see that is violating NPOV? I just see that this is what you warned this editor regarding... wanted to get your input on that as well :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put NPOV in error, but I think I fixed the situation. The problem was I thought that the information added should not be included in the article it was included in. The editor explained his problems, and I called you in because I didn't really know what to do at the time. I thought it over for a bit, and then I edited the article to add a controversy section to the background section, I reworded it to make it clear that the information should be included in the article. Thanks though, could you also possibly remove my warning? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you banned this guy for disruptive editing, and he's now doing exactly the same thing on his talk page, removing the template. Please protect his page if you can. [8] 88.105.187.38 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again Oshwah, but another IP: 109.155.126.85, has been editing mostly unconstructively, rounding percentages to nearest whole numbers, while not even bothering to have an edit summary explaining his edits. Being an anonymous user, I have no way of contacting them, and thus cannot tell this editor this. I don't mean to bother you again, but I know no one else to contact. PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)PalmerTheGolfer[reply]