User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2022-08

You are currently viewing an archive of Oshwah's user talk page from August 2022. Please do not modify this page.

These discussions are no longer active and were moved here for historical and record-keeping purposes.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

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

You've got mail!

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Can you please reply on your talk page to indicate that you have received my message and replied to it? I don't check my email that often and was hoping you could give me a heads up to indicate that you received my email. Interstellarity (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

One more thing: can you please send your reply to my personal email mentioned in my other email. I lost access to my other email address and was hoping you could send it there. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Interstellarity! I'll check my email once I get home from the office. I should be back within the next hour or so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I got your reply and replied back. I regained access to my Wikipedia email and will be able to get replies to it. Interstellarity (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity - Perfect! I'll get back to you today! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m hoping that you didn’t forget about my email. Interstellarity (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity - Nope, not at all! It's on my to-do for today or tomorrow. I'm taking a vacation day tomorrow for work, so if I don't get back to you today, I'll be on Wikipedia all day tomorrow and will get back to you then. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, I'm hoping you didn't forget about my last email. Please let me know your status regarding getting back to me. Interstellarity (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Interstellarity! Sorry for the delayed response here. I did receive your latest response; I didn't see anything that I needed to respond to (unless I missed something?), so I figured I'd wait until you had an update to share. If I did miss something, let me know and I'll be happy to respond and help! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to let you know that my commitments to serving on ArbCom have dwindled at this point. I have been busy in real life to really participate in the ArbCom discussions and I might try to run in 2023, but haven't decided on that yet. My focus on Wikipedia right now is to improve our most viewed and important articles rather than get a seat on ArbCom. I believe this will be the best use of my time here and it's so easy to do except controversial changes which I have no problem handling and asking for help when needed. I hope you understand. Interstellarity (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandal "Jamie..."

Hi Oshwah, Five of the edits by the editor you blocked this evening had unsourced claims that read as slanderous (accusing two people by name of specific crimes with no evidence), and I wondered if those should be revdeleted. I won't link the diffs here so that I don't complicate things for your talk page if those edits do warrant revdel, but they were the only edits by this editor on the following pages: Two edits made on Washington Technology University, two on Adam Smith (disambiguation) and the one edit on List of people with the Chinese family name Liu. If I'm mistaken and all or some don't warrant such, that's fine too. Thanks for all you do here on Wikipedia! Zinnober9 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zinnober9! Thanks for the message and for the heads up about those edits. I've gone through and redacted them from the edit histories of those articles. Some were somewhat-questionable, but in this situation I think it's better to be safe than sorry. :-) Oh, and next time you need to bring any kind of edits that need revision deletion or (especially) oversight to my attention, you'll want to email me using this page instead. I appreciate that you didn't link directly to the edits here, but we definitely also want to draw as little attention to such edits as possible while they're public. Don't lose sleep over it; it's not the end of the world. Just make sure to do that moving forward. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident

Hi Oshwah, I was wondering if you know anything about the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident? Why was it significant? Doesn't stuff like that in Wikipedia happen all the time? What makes the incident stand out from the rest compared to other incidents? Interstellarity (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It stands out because it had a direct influence on Wikipedia policy - WP:Biographies of living persons exists almost entirely because of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Interstellarity! I just wanted to add to what Jéské Couriano said above. While it does happen on Wikipedia, you have to also understand that 2005 was a very young time in Wikipedia's development, influence, and growth. It was an incident that essentially caused WP:BLP to become policy. Another thing you need to remember too is that while it happens a lot with vandalism on Wikipedia to this day, we have a plethora of automated tools and systems that quickly remove the BLP violations - all of which did not exist in 2005. We have ORES, edit filters, anti-vandalism bots and scripts, and applications that make human-patrolling an absolute breeze. When I started vandal-fighting in 2007, we had none of that. I had to use Special:RecentChanges to patrol for vandalism, and pick out diffs from there that I thought looked suspicious. I then had to undo the edit (remember, rollback did not exist outside the admin toolset at the time), and I had to manually add the warning templates to the user's talk page and save it. I think by understanding how developed and mature we've gotten and allowed ourselves to advance to will give you an accurate idea of why this became an issue back in the day. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah for your response. Your response was insightful. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on when you say a very young time for 2005, which is four years after Wikipedia was founded, what timeframe you would consider to be a long time? Would it be 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? 20 years? Please let me know your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity - Gosh, I don't think there is a "time-frame" at all, really. For me, it's about a website's accomplishments and growth more-so than simply a website's tenure and how long they've been online. I mean, shoot... Myspace, just by time-frame, is coming up on being 20 years old since the day of its launch - but they're completely irrelevant in the social media market now. ;-) Back in 2005, Wikipedia did not have a BLP policy, nor did it have all of the automated tools and scripts that we have today. In comparison to how much we've grown from then and to today, I would definitely call Wikipedia in 2005 "very young". :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that info, Oshwah. I truly 100% agree with you. Wikipedia has accomplished much over the last 20 years especially since it continues to be successful as well as one of the most visited websites in the world. I'd be interested to know if hoaxes on Wikipedia were easier to create back then compared to now with better detection software than what it was back then. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity - I would say very much so. Back then, IP addresses and new users could just walk up and create an article or page. This has since been changed with RfCs that disallowed IPs from creating pages, then later from unconfirmed accounts. We also have the draft space which they can create on, but that namespace is not indexed by search engines, and draft pages are subject to easier patrolling, identification, and removal... Not to mention all the automated tools and scripts that I talked about above. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your deep and thorough explanation. I enjoy talking to you and you are a driving force behind making my time on Wikipedia more enjoyable. I appreciate that. Interstellarity (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity - Thank you for the very kind words! I appreciate it very much. You're welcome; always happy to make the lives of other Wikipedians better! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah!

Really appreciate the favor you just done. :) Obermallen (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Obermallen - You bet! Welcome back! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1102789706

I always thought it was 45. Maybe I'm wrong also. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

FlightTime - I thought it was 45 as well, but the list of inactive ACC users page in the ACC Tool interface will list users as "inactive" if they haven't logged into their account for over 90 days, so I'm confused. I'll reach out to the other ACC Tool admins and see what they say... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it was changed by Stwalkerster (or other root), if so I don't remember anyone talking about it, but my memory......:P - FlightTime (open channel) 23:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I seemingly changed it in 2017 apparently: https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/waca/pull/461 stwalkerster (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Stwalkerster - Guilty as charged! ;-) No worries; the ACC Tool Procedures have been updated accordingly. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted page?

Dear Sir,

Hope you are doing great!

Please be kind enough and explain why you deleted my page?

Thanks in advance!

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami Abdulhai Al-hasani (talk • contribs) 08:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sami Abdulhai Al-hasani, and welcome to Wikipedia! We have policies on user pages and what is and is not allowed. If you refer to this policy, promotional material is not allowed - even if it's about yourself. One thing to realize and understand about Wikipedia is that it is not a social network. User pages should relate to and discuss topics that are Wikipedia-related. Creating an article-like page about yourself (such as what you did on your user page) is not allowed. Please review Wikipedia's policies on user pages, and please let me know if you have any questions about anything on that policy page. I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to join us! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Message sent

Emailed you a message yesterday, if you'd have a look sometime when convenient. No further action of the issue has occurred since I sent you the message, but still would like you to have a look. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zinnober9! Sure, no problem - I'll take a look at the email today and get back to you... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. As of today it's no longer an issue, as the user took their comments too far and got themselves banned indefinitely this afternoon. To my knowledge, no additional actions are required on this matter. Best wishes to you, Zinnober9 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Zinnober9 - Thanks for the update, and I wish you the same as well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Poetry

Love Love,what is love? Some say it strong attractio' Of feelin' between to individual' But for me it ain't that *, Feelin' happy is more than love, Stayin' true to yourself is more than love,soul satisfaction is more than ,So As They Have Fallin' in love,were they failing to keep these attributes for themselves? Anyone to tell me what is love?

Now I See Love as a show off deal,but Never a connection of feelin' , For ones they love through peer pressure*,Wow now love vias through a friend just before it serves you pleasure ,but For nowadays it ain't love it fakelove, Love never come nearer ,you ain't true anymore

Cuddler' favoured by strong smiles,they seem to be best lover's, but within their sight there is sorrow and thine regrets , pretendin to be happy lover's but their souls left in dark weepin' , does true love exist I wonder solemnly, Who devoured love ??

In ones life, love is like a hot cigarette ash meant to burn , Leavin' their skin with bruces that will long yonder their lives , Heartbreaker, why don't you smile , just for turnin' love into chronic pain ,but never mind it a new world of new order.

By- samkelo matomela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samkelo Matomemala (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Samkelo Matomemala - Uhh... hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for the poetry! If you have any questions or need any assistance with getting started or how you can begin contributing, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to help! :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to make a redirect

I noticed that you protected Wikipedia:How to make a redirect in April 11, 2018, but you did not provide a reason for the protection. Please note that pages are not protected preemptively. I suggest you provide a reason for the protection or unprotect the page. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 22:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

FAdesdae378 - That Wikipedia page was protected by me due to the fact that active sock puppet users were starting to vandalize and disrupt it. I was actively patrolling through logs, abuse filters, and edit feeds, and I had been identifying and frequently blocking these users over the last few days prior. They all showed the same editing pattern and abuse; they would target an article or page, and immediately start flooding the page with highly disruptive edits, very quickly, and through many different edits between each account. This edit shows exactly when this started here, which is why I immediately put a stop to it. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you, and I'll be happy to do so! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk page block

Could you please block talk page editing for Special:Contributions/Orca_Vision_Inc. and delete all the pages they've created? Thanks! Uhai (talk · contribs) 23:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Uhai - This account is now globally locked, meaning that the user won't be able to sign in or do anything with the account. Hence, this should be resolved now. :-) If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Shushuga's RfA

Hi Oshwah. Did you mean to write "However, Shushugah's contributions do not demonstrate to me that they have a particular need for the admin toolset"? It sounds like what you meant was more like "However, Shushugah's contributions do not demonstrate to me that they have the required experience and understanding for the admin toolset". As you can probably see, there is a thread WT:RFA bashing people opposing at RfA with "no need for the tools". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333! How you re-worded it was exactly how I meant for that statement to convey. That vote was saved and published after a lot of editing, re-working, revising, and arranging words and sentences around... I'll go fix it now. Thanks for letting me know about this. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think that's bad, you should see some of the howlers I've put in articles. ("What's the IP doing ... fixing a typo ... huh, how has that been wrong for six months? Welp.") Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

my page is blocked

kindly unblock this page Ntaasia (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What in the world is this editor doing creating a draft on a blocked editor’s user page? Doug Weller talk 14:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It's because it's the same corporate user, I'm sure. I have now deleted User:National Theological Association/Sample page as a clear WP:COPYVIO, taken from https://ntaasia.org/about/. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have also soft-blocked this editor for username violation (shared use), and left a firm warning to avoid future WP:COI in trying to promote this organisation. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ding ding ding! Nick Moyes hit the nail on the head. ;-) Thanks for taking care of this. And a big thanks to you, Doug Weller, for following up as well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Review of Potential COI

Hey, I was wondering if you could review a situation I discovered over on Fountainview Academy where a user had posted their story as part of the article. I overview it in the talk page. Is this something the Wikipedia gods can weigh in on? Postcodenvy (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Postcodenvy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I looked through the discussion that you started on the article's talk page. While I understand your concerns regarding another editor and possible conflict of interest that may or may not exist, your initial message that began the discussion was unfortunately problematic when it comes to Wikipedia's outing policy. You created the discussion with concerns regarding another editor and added an external URL to a Twitter post claiming was made by a Twitter account belonging to them. Unless this user has disclosed their Twitter account information, or what their Twitter account handle was, onto Wikipedia - your initial discussion violates Wikipedia's policy on outing, or disclosing off-wiki information about another editor, because of that external link you added. I'm sure you've read that it is not a violation of the outing policy to disclose off-wiki information about another editor if they have self-disclosed or "self-outed" that exact information about themselves (past or present). This is correct; however, I looked at the user's past edits. While I do see that they had disclosed their Instagram account information in the past (which they since removed), I don't see any public revisions where the user disclosed their Twitter account information onto Wikipedia.

Because of this, I have removed the violating content and links from that discussion, and I've gone ahead and suppressed the information. Since you're new to Wikipedia, I'm not going to run after you with any torches and pitchforks about it. Everyone on Wikipedia is allowed a mulligan (sometimes two) if they accidentally violate a rule or policy, so long as they had good faith intentions when the violation occurred (which I believe that you did). :-) All I ask is that you please please be extremely careful when it comes to Wikipedia's harassment policy (which is the parent policy that includes outing) - especially when it comes to disclosing or linking to information about another editor outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors who violate this policy - either in a heated or angry measure, or even those who do this despite being given a clear warning beforehand to not do so, are typically blocked from editing as a result of such actions - even for a first offense. Just keep that in mind... I just don't want to see you finding yourself in "hot water" over something serious that you didn't mean to do. ;-)

Going back to your original questions and concerns: I do see that there are some references cited in-line with some content in the "Controversy" section of the article that aren't considered reliable - such as the reference from medium.com, which the community agreed by consensus to not consider it reliable. You can reference Wikipedia's list of perennial sources for help with looking through that section of the article. This page contains a list of references and sources that are frequently used throughout the project to cite and support details and content, and/or where the reference's reliability is often questioned or discussed. It will help you with reviewing the verifiability of the information in that section. Just keep in mind that references to article content (especially if the article is a biography of a living person) should be reliable - in that they are secondary and independent of the article subject. If you have any questions about the policies that I've linked you to, or if you need any additional help, please let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm happy that you decided to join us, and I hope that you'll take off your jacket and stick around with us for awhile! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look @Oshwash! Those are good policies, and I can see why I ran over them. I apologize for the over zealousness. Ignorant indignation is arguably much worse than just ignorance. Thank you for cleaning it up. I'll do my best to avoid this in the future!

I'll take a look at the resources and explore a resolution. Most of it should stay up, so maybe a light prune, and then I'll leave it to knowledgeable folks who explore the caverns of obscure articles. Perhaps then I can go back to practicing hopping through life with a foot in my mouth ;) Postcodenvy (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Postcodenvy - No problem! Like I said, you made a simple mistake that violated a policy that happened to be very serious. You didn't mean to do it; we all make mistakes... they happen; don't worry about it too much. :-) Just be mindful about that policy moving forward, and you'll be extremely likely not run into any trouble about it. ;-) Sure, no problem. I hope that I provided you with some good tools and a solid direction to move forward on this. If you run into any more questions or if you need any more assistance with anything, please don't be a stranger! I'll be happy to lend a hand! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah⁣ - I wanted to check to make sure I'll use a template correctly. Most references in the article section are good, but it is primarily supported by two self published interview podcasts, and one aforementioned medium blog. From this world of documentation I'm exploring, I believe it is a mix of WP:RSSELF and WP:RSPRIMARY (the blog). Secondary sources can't be found from my initial research, so I will add a Template:Third-party to the section. The original author, another editor, (or a future version of myself) may have something in their knowledge bank to fully resolve the problem later. Postcodenvy (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Postcodenvy - If the article subject was the actual publisher of those references (meaning that they were the ones who put the podcast up online, not someone who interviewed them, etc), then yes - you can add {{Self-published}} to the top of the problematic section in order to tag it as needing attention and improvement for that reason. Obviously, the references you're describing are primary sources; you can add {{Primary sources}} to that section if you wish. While you won't find yourself under any scrutiny for tagging that section with both templates, it's usually preferable that you pick one if the reasons are pretty close. This way, it keeps the section readable by viewers and without a bunch of improvement tags from getting in the way. ;-) Please let me know if you have any more questions or need any more input or advice, and I'll be happy to help! Thanks for the response, and I hope that you stay in touch. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll go off that, seems simple enough. Thanks for all the assistance :) Postcodenvy (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Postcodenvy - Of course; always happy to be of assistance! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Postcodenvy: One may also use {{Multiple issues}} to insert several warnings in a more compact form. --(talk page stalker)CiaPan (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

CiaPan - Oh yeah, good call. I don't know why I didn't think of that... Duh! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I might just use that template then. Postcodenvy (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page index

Hello there, Oshwah! I hope you are well! I am writing to you today because I wanted to ask a question about my talk page index. (User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:Blanchey/Archive 1). I asked at the help desk although I don’t think anyone was able to help at that time. Basically, when I set up my talk page archive, I initially used ClueBot III, although I found it very hard code, and in the end, another editor let me use their archive bot code until I managed to sort it. I now use Lowercase sigmabot III. When I used cluebot, it automatically created an index, however because I no longer use clue bot, the index is now out of date. What could I do, sort it out manually? Maybe request deletion? Or is there a template that does has ClueBot III updated it automatically? It’s not a huge issue although it would be great if I could sort it. I look forward to hearing from you and have a great day! :-) Many thanks, Blanchey (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: I had it deleted. Hope you are doing well ;-) Blanchey (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blanchey! Sorry for the delay responding to your message and your request for input and advice here. I've been okay... life has kept me busy over the last two weeks, and I'm just now getting caught up with all of the Wikipedia messages, emails, pings, requests for help, notifications, mentions, and on and on... I just wish that my workload and expected pace and activity wasn't so crazy... Work has been leaving me feeling very worn out come end of the week... ;-)

It looks like you managed to request deletion of the user page within ClueBot III's user space, which is good... However, did you manage to figure out your question and issue with going through those original archived discussions and sorting through them? Have you managed to work that out? Or are you still looking for input, advice, or assistance with that? Let me know! If I need to, I'll be happy to restore that page temporarily so that we can pull the discussions and other information, put it into a temporary page within your user space, and then get it all sorted out for you. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, no worries! I had it deleted although I didn’t end up having the discussions moved into the correct order. Although I suppose we could restore it and try to change it. Although I’m not really sure how to do it though. There were actually two pages. The one above and User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/User talk:Blanchey which basically had the same content. Thanks! :-) Blanchey (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Blanchey - Okay, so I did some digging for you. I took a look at the deleted pages that you linked me to in ClueBot III's user space. I went ahead and pulled the deleted content from those pages and put this together for you. That edit lists the content that was on those two pages before they were replaced with CSD tags and later deleted. One is just a table of contents that ClueBot III created and kept updated with each discussion linked to the23 appropriate section within Archive 1 of your user talk page, and the other just had a table header (presumably) for that first table. I also looked through the edit history of your user talk page as well as "Archive 1". ClueBot III never actually moved any discussions or content from your user talk page and into "Archive 1". If anything, it looks like it just created and updated a table of contents for your archive page as new discussions were moved there, but that may simply be due to you not having the bot fully set up at the time. I know that you mentioned some difficulty and challenge with setting up ClueBot III. In the end, (unless you might be missing another location that I'm not seeing) it doesn't look like there's any old or archived discussions that need to be "pulled from the grave" and sorted. I think that everything should all be either on your user talk page or in Archive 1. Does that sound correct to you at all? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes that’s correct. Thanks! So, what should I do with the table you created on the sandbox? :-) Blanchey (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Blanchey - You could copy it to your "Archive 1" or other page, but you might find that to be unnecessary. Keep in mind that the MediaWiki software will automatically create a table of contents list on a page for you when four or more section headings get created there (unless you add __NOTOC__ to the top of the page to turn it off, of course). Really, it's up to you. I did click on some of the discussions listed on that table, and a small handful of them appear to link to discussions that were either renamed or removed. You'll want to figure those issues out before you decide to move anything over to where you might want it to be. Honestly, if it were me, I'd just stick with the table of contents that automatically get generated for you, and I wouldn't do anything with that table at all... I don't think you'll need it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I see. I totally agree with you Oshwah. I don’t need the index, as long as I have a table of contents, I’m happy. Thanks for your help, I hope you have a great week, kind regards, :-) Blanchey (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Blanchey - You bet; always happy to lend a hand. ;-) If you run into any more questions or need anything else, don't be a stranger - you know where to find me! I wish you the same, and I hope you keep in touch! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from RaviBaldoa (19:48, 28 August 2022)

Hi Oshwah..how do i create a new page on wikipedia? --RaviBaldoa (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi RaviBaldoa! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to create an account and join us as a Wikipedian and become a member of our community! Being new and learning how things work around here may seem to feel like a task that's a bit tricky for awhile, but it's nothing that you need to worry or stress over. ;-) If you decide to regularly contribute to Wikipedia and the project (and I really hope that you do!), you'll find yourself becoming familiar with how everything works in no time at all - it just takes practice, patience, persistence, and the willingness to grow and learn (just like anything that you're first introduced to in life, such as a new job, or a new hobby, skill, or practice). Back when I first created my account and was very new to Wikipedia (which was back in January 2007), I didn't have any of the tutorials, projects, editors, help pages, guidelines, and tools that we've since developed and have available today - and I ended up getting through the "new and novice phases" of Wikipedia just fine. ;-) Depending on your level of dedication and time that you spend on Wikipedia, you'll feel mostly-proficient with all of the basic fundamentals, founding principles, and important policies to understand and follow after about 6 months of time has gone by. Don't worry, though... that time goes by fast. :-)

Now, onto your question: Have you gone though any of Wikipedia's help and tutorial pages for new users yet? If you haven't, I'd first start by going through Wikipedia's getting started page, and then complete Wikipedia's interactive new user tutorial lessons and learning topics. The first page will guide you through where to start, what things you should know and familiarize yourself with first, and help you with how the structure of Wikipedia and its pages and namespaces work. The new user tutorial, which I always recommend that new users go through completely and finish, is an interactive guide that shows you the basic fundamentals, tools, and items that are essential for this project to function and work, and teaches you how to use them properly. In those tutorial pages I linked you to, you will be presented with the topic of creating a new page, and how to do this. However, instead of just linking you straight to that help topic and saying "good luck, bye!" to you, I though that I'd provide you with the pages that will actually help you. Creating a page is only one step out of many that you'll need to know and understand if you want to be a successful editor and member of the community here.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need any help with the new user pages that I provided you with above. I'll be happy to answer them, and I'll be happy to assist you with anything that you need. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad that you decided to join us, and I hope that you'll take off your jacket and stick around with us for awhile! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy Sixth Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Oshwah a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chris troutman! Thanks for the "anniversary" message, and I hope you've been doing well and that life has been treating you kindly! Wow... I completely forgot that my "admin anniversary" was just over 36 hours ago (in UTC of course). Has it really been that long? ...Six years? Dang, It really doesn't feel like it's been that long, but... behold... the math checks out. Time really does fly by fast in life if you're not paying attention to the calendar... Geez... ;-) Thanks again for the warm wishes and for the message, as well as for reminding me how old I am now compared to back in my "Wikipedia past", and the fact that I'm only getting older... lol ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - That's right! I did get awarded this, and only like a day after passing my RFA six years ago. Good times... lol. Thanks for the precious anniversary message! It means a lot to me, and I'm happy to be here and a part of this awesome project. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome and dashboard template

I have a question for you! Whenever I use Twinkle to add the {{welcome student}} template on a user talk page and there's already a dashboard.wikiedu.org template, my welcome template goes to the top and pushes the dashboard template underneath. It looks like when you add a welcome, it goes underneath the dashboard one (and looks better, IMHO). How do you do it? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Drm310! That is indeed strange that you're noticing this when using Huggle to leave those welcome messages underneath the student's dashboard notice. I actually just ran into a page where I noticed that this had happened with you (permalink). I took a screenshot and outlined exactly what I do in order to welcome students who have their dashboard up already. You'll be able to see it on the image I've added to the right of this discussion. I just open the HG menu, click on Wel, select the {{welcome student}} option, and then press Submit Query. That's all there is to it; are you adding the template the exact same way that I am? If not, how are you doing it? Let me know; I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I am doing it (with Twinkle, not Huggle) with the same options in the exact same sequence as you described. Yet the placement of my welcome differs from yours. I wonder if there is another setting in the preferences somewhere that determines the insertion point of the template chosen? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Drm310 - Good news! I think I was able to fix the problem for you. In the Twinkle preferences, there's an option to "Place welcomes above existing content on user talk pages". Your twinkleoptions.js file had the variable "topWelcomes" set to true. I went ahead and fixed that for you. Do you want to give welcoming a new user a try and see if this resolves your issue? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It worked! Thanks so much, Oshwah. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Drm310 - Nice! I love it when someone asks me for help or brings an issue before me, and I'm able to figure out what's going on and resolve it! :-) Well, that's certainly going to make things much less of a pain in the butt for you. No problem; always happy to lend a hand! ;-) If you find yourself needing help with anything else, don't be a stranger! You know where to find me. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your work welcoming new student editors and generally being helpful and kind to editors when they ask for your assistance or opinion. Mifter (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mifter! Thanks for taking the time to write these very kind words and for the barnstar. I means a lot to me when I see that the time that I give to this project is (hopefully) making a positive difference and impact. Assisting our new and novice editors (especially those who are students, and hence (IMO) are people who have a higher likelihood of becoming a dedicated members of the community after their class ends) is something I believe that all of us as editors, administrators, leaders, and teachers share. If we want to be the driving force for positive impact on this project, and those who make real, significant, actual change for the better around here when it comes to culture, civility, retention, and just plain having fun - helping those who need the assistance is one of the best places to start. It's where we can really lead by example; with courtesy, respect, and kindness behind the positive, fun, collaborative, helping hand that we offer to new users each and every time. :-) Cheers, my friend... and thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)