User talk:CambridgeBayWeather/Archive39

Harassment
User:Roscelese's actions and their talk page (User talk:Roscelese) have become the targets of serious harassment from Djcheburashka, a newbie editor who is quite aggressive. They need a good block and interaction ban. They are also targeting me as well by following my past discussions and edits on controversies which have histories which they don't understand. By rashly jumping in to punish me, they just muddy the waters and kick sleeping dogs. After they return from a block, they need to stay away from anything that's potentially controversial for some time. Right now they've come here with guns blazing and have attracted lots of well-deserved and unwanted attention. Their disruption needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer Seeking to build consensus and address problems with pages is not "harassment." This pattern of claiming that any edits you do not like is disruptive is, however, harassment.  I am not "targetting you."  I have looked to see your past interactions with Roscelese after you inserted yourself into the issue.  When I found instances of you backing her in sourcing or POV disputes, and accusing others of vandalism or disruption, I went through and read the actual sources themselves.  Several times I found that you, Roscelese or both were correct.  In several other instances, however, I found that you were not.  I therefore acted appropriately by opening discussion on the article talk pages and proposing revisions.


 * In several cases, it seems that what happened is that an editor went to a page in which you and Rosceles had made edits. The editor either tried to open a discussion or made an edit.  You or Rosceles or both would then accuse the editor of bias, not reading the sources, and so forth.  The other would then join.  Since you both would post very quickly after each other (perhaps you follow each others' activities, I really don't know), before other editors had a chance to participate you would declare that a consensus had been reached because it was 2 vs. 1, and then accuse the editor of making disruptive edits or vandalism.  That is not acting in good faith, it is abuse.  Djcheburashka (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your following her around and creating trouble is harassment. Your repeated undoing of her deletions of your harassing comments on her talk page is also wrong. She is allowed to delete them. 3RR does not apply to talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My comments on her page were consistent with numerous, repeated warnings she has received from a slew of editors in the past. They are not harrassive. This is an example of the bullying I've been complaining about -- you're casting appropriate comments as violations of a neutral policy, when in fact you and she have worked together on pages to advance a common, extremist, political agenda.

You've requested an interaction ban knowing that she's embedded herself into numerous issues, where she (sometimes along with you) have bullied-off people who object to various things about the pages.

An interaction ban would make it easier for you to continue to (erroneously) claim that "consensus" exists on those pages, since her participation would prevent my own. When a series of people come to a page, and all raise the same issues, just because you and one other person always respond quickly does not mean you have a consensus. It means the opposite, along with violations of WP:tag team and WP:ownership of articles.

You are correct that 3RR doesn't apply to user talk pages, and I know that now. It doesn't make my conduct harrassive, or yours or hers proper. Djcheburashka (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "you and she have worked together on pages"? Really? I suspect you're confusing me with someone else. I don't recall us doing much editing of the same articles, but since I edit many types of articles, it's not impossible that an occasional edit may have occurred on the same articles. That's not a pattern. You're flailing in the dark and casting accusations, and that's not going to make your case any better. You're just digging yourself deeper. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel pretty comfortable with my "case." Thank you for the advice though -- and the very helpful comment you left that I was able to add to my user page.  I will, however, continue to keep in perspective that this is wikipedia editing we're talking about, not the moon landing, the cure for cancer, or war in europe.


 * Are you ever going to address the substance of any of the underlying issues? The improper reversions and edits without consensus?  The improper removal of the POV template?  The misrepresented sources?  The abuse of warning templates?  Djcheburashka (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Page protection...
Thank you for putting the protection on the False-rape and Liask pages. However, the page should have the POV template on it, since it is the subject of a POV discussion that has not reached consensus.

In addition, regarding the deletion of two pages --- my nomination was not in bad faith. Rosceles inserted herself, but those pages were nominated for deletion because they have zero citations, they have had warning labels at the top for 3-5 years, no-one's worked on them in that time.

That's consistent with the deletion criteria, and they should not be speedy-kept.

I've been following the wiki policy; within minutes of trying to open discussions to reach consensus, Rosceles has been declaring that consensus is reached and trying to terminate the discussions.

This is a longstanding problem. Going through her talk page I find dozens of complaints and warnings about bias, improper editing, and so forth. Going through her contributions, I see more and more of the same thing.

Djcheburashka (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted the pages to the state before the edit war and am not putting the tag back on. You can make an edit request on the talk pages and if another admin decides that the tags should be there then that is fine. Point to this discussion in case I'm not about and they won't have to wait for me to comment.


 * The two pages had nothing to do with Rosceles Roscelese and you are not allowed to decide who gets to comment on an AfD. The one page according to you has no sources but it is quite clear that the last version before your AfD tag had several sources. The history of Dark figure of crime shows that it has been worked on this year and the other was worked on last year. Note that having tags on the page and a lack of active editors is not a reason for deletion.


 * What Rosceles may or may not have done in the past has nothing to do with it. Anybody can put a warning on a page but you have to check into the background to see if it is valid. If you were to take a look through my talk page arcives you can find several invalid warnings about things. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Something funny is going on here. What Rosceles had to do with those two pages is that she inserted herself into the dispute, apparently because of her edit war over the *other* two pages, after I nominated them as candidates for deletion. I tried to prevent her from eliminating the deletion process.

I've looked through the background on her warnings, and on her current edits, and what I see is a consistent threat of biased, abusive editing to advance her political agenda.

The two pages for deletion may have had text edits, but they haven't had sourcing. Ever. I did go through the page. One of them had no citations at all when I nominated it for deletion. The other, the only "citations" on it are marks for "citation needed."

In addition, neither of them has any indication of notability. A google search shows there's little evidence that either of them even has an existence beyond the page -- unless the "dark figure of crime" is supposed to be the same as the "dark figure," which already has its own page.

Djcheburashka (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The nominating of two pages is not a dispute as you call it and User:Roscelese is fully entitled to comment on the two deletion nominations and in no way did she try to eliminate the process. You were the one that derailed the process by making an attempt to censor her comments. The other problem is you obviously didn't look at what you were doing. Feminist school of criminology and Feminist school of criminology shows quite clearly that your claim of no sources is just nonsense. As for Dark figure of crime, well Google seems to have several hits, including the Canadian and UK governments, about the very topic. In the last paragraph above you say that Dark figure has its own page. That is semi-true but dark figure is, and always has been a redirect to Dark figure of crime. While the dark figure of crime does not have sources, the section Dark figure of crime should have indicated that there was something to the page.


 * This is starting to look as if you have some sort of axe to grind and something against Roscelese. I suggest you take a step back and disengage from Roscelese. Also take more time and care to look at what you are doing. Your inability to notice that an article does have sources and another has multiple hits on Google indicates that you are not paying attention, at best, or being deliberately obtuse. Either way it needs to stop before you are blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like what happened with the two pages is I thought she was trying to revert the marking of those pages for discussion-deletion rather than simply voting. That was my error.

In the scheme of things though, its one of the smallest things that's happened here.

Regarding the rest of it --- I didn't know who Roscelese was until a day or two ago. I found a page with some obvious errors on it while researching something; I went to the sources cited in the article; I found serious problems; I then tried to raise the issue in the talk page, where another editor declared that any disagreement must be biased or idiotic, and refused to discuss the matter. I then opened a POV dispute so it could be resolved consistent with policy. Rosc then removed the POV template, again a policy violation, repeatedly.

I started to look through the record of other contributions, and to see the connections between Rosc and a very small group that all focus on the same set of pages, and found a host of additional problems.

The feminist school of criminology page does not have a single citation on it. It has a section of what it says are publications within the field. Those are not sources for the article. The article does not (or did not when I marked it for discussion) identify any source as supporting the contentions made in the article, however. '''[Note: I went back and what I said was too extreme. It does have a few; I think they're inadequate to establish even noteability, but that's a more complex discussion. I am not deleting what I said before, because I think that deleting one's record that way is improper.]''' Indeed, if "feminist criminology" has any distinct existence at all, google says it doesn't have much of one. The "dark figure of crime" page has some of the same problems. There's more indication on google that at least the "dark figure" exists, but the page is just one person's un-cited, un-sourced riffing on the topic.

There's a reason these pages have had problem templates on them for years. That no-one's been able to provide citations or undertaken to fix them, is strong evidence that they are not fixable.

If I wanted to vandalize the pages, why would I have started the slower page deletion discussion process?

It doesn't seem to me that you've actually looked at what took place; I'm the one playing by the rules.

The problems with Rosceles -- from improper "ownership" of pages; to abusive use of warning templates; bullying other editors; misrepresentations of sources; violations of page blocks; and on and on and on -- are well-established and have been a subject of numerous warnings from administrators as well as editors. Unfortunately, none of it has deterred her. Going through the edits I found a slew of pages with serious POV issues, misrepresented sources, violated policies, etc. Fixing that kind of pervasive bias issue is one of the things that editors are supposed to be doing.

It seems you became involved when a friend of hers signalled you on the page, without pointing you to the discussion pages that led to the situation. If you're not willing to take the time to engage on this, then please step aside and let an administrator willing to take the time do so.

Djcheburashka (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again Google seems to have several hits about Feminist school of criminology. Can you point out which friend signaled me about User:Roscelese and where they did this? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a close look at those hits. And look at subject heading 21 on this page. Djcheburashka (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Section 21 above lists some of your misdeeds. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You asked where some signaled you about Roscelese. The answer is section 21. The contention that I behaved improperly is false.


 * So far, you have not addressed any of the issues raised concerning Roscelese's conduct. You have not looked into the sequence of events that led to section 21 or any of these. In fact, you've just ignored them. Earlier, I said that if you were not willing to engage on this fully, then please step aside and let someone else who *is* willing, do so. Djcheburashka (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes given that this is section 21 are saying that you are the one who notified me. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Huh? Section 21 when I view this is Calton asking you to intervene.  Calton posted that after I had (a) commenced the POV dispute discussion, (b) Roscelese began reverting the POV template, (c) I then requested that the pages in question receive protection while the POV dispute process played-out, (d) Roscelese had left several, bogus warning templates on my page in retaliation, and (e) I'd started going through the past edits and finding a pattern of misstated sources, bullying, and so on, several of which had led to multiple warnings from a slew of editors, which led me to ask for assistance regarding her.


 * Are you going to pay any attention to the issues I've raised, or is your interest exclusively in the question of whether those two pages should be deleted?  If its the latter, then we can stop here and I'll pursue the other issues with someone else -- while I believe those two pages should be deleted, I recognize that I need to lay out the reasons in more complete detail, and I want to wait for the presents disputes to cool-down and chill-out before doing that.  But the issues that led me to seek assistance -- and make no mistake, the reason your assistance was sought was in retaliation for that -- still remain, and need to be addressed. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The links User:Calton provided were to your actions. The first is you making a personal attack on User:Roscelese, the second is to the AfD while the third and fourth are where you deleted the valid comments that Roscelese made. So the comment is notifying me about you and not Roscelese. As far as I can remember I have had little or no contact with Calton and no contact with Roscelese although I have seen both their names around. On the other had I have spoken with User:BullRangifer before but it was probably about Arctic matters. Was Roscelese's conduct in the edit war a good thing, No it wasn't and neither was yours. A fact I noted at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I suspect that Roscelese realises that she had not been acting properly as she did not follow that up with any complaints. At the moment I am not interested in what she or you may have done in the past just what the two of you are up to right now. If you wish to escalate this further then feel free. But others will also look at the actions of both of you in the situation.I protected the pages so that an attempt to solve the problem. My other option would have been to block both of you and that's not something I like to do in this situation as there is then no possible way that either one of you can use the article talk page to discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok, I understand your position a lot better now, thanks. I don't want to escalate this further -- You may have seen, my view is I've been seeking dispute resolution to get this out of bickering and edit-warring since the start.  (I think we talked past each other regarding comment 21.  I'm not sure if you were aware, when you protected the pages, that I'd requested protection for the pages several hours before.)  I still don't understand why this isn't something that can be resolved by the ordinary talk-page and POV-dispute-resolution mechanisms, but apparently I stepped into what's already been a very long back-and-forth over POV issues with a number of long-time editors.


 * My preference for some time has been to let the action cool-off, and then resume the POV-dispute resolution process. Given the state of protection, how should I go about doing that?  Djcheburashka (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The best thing is to try the article talk page again. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Meh... last time I tried that there was a distinct "we will not engage in any possible discussion on this subject" reaction. Do you think the controversy, or anything else, will have shaken loose the ossification? Thanks, Djcheburashka (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can always try Dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition of external image
Hello! Please do consider the matter of unnecessary addition of an external image in Sophie Hunter's page. She's not a model whose appearance is pivotal to her profile nor is the external image notable in her body work. Other pages don't have photos in their infoboxes either and they still exist and work as a page even without an external image. The image the user keeps on inserting is also not solely of Hunter's appearance as she is with somebody else in the photo. This is not at all a very good representation or even rational to have an external image in the page. I hope you remove the innecessary external image.
 * Right now I can't do anything. We are having power outages. I will look at it later. 72.45.65.109 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked and frankly I don't have any opinion. You need to take it up on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for placing temporary protection on the List of Cyberchase episodes article. We who edit it have run ourselves ragged reverting edits by anonymous IPs who keep insisting that Season 9 has ended but won't cite a source to prove their claims. If it were up to me, I would desire a longer period of protection for this page, as the vandalism is just likely to get repeated again. But I suppose if push comes to shove, we can just let you or another admin know and have you block the problematic IPs. Anywho, thanks again for intervening on this issue. We owe you big time! --Jgstokes (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Charles Manson
Can you also add indefinite pending changes? The article needs further attention, especially when the semi-protection expires. --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Who
Hi. You were recently asked to semi-protect this page following this report. However, I have this page on my watchlist (I keep meaning to nominate it for a Featured article candidate but have never quite got round to it) and I don't recall persistent vandalism over the past year. There are certainly edits from IPs that degrade the article quality that have had to be reverted, but I would only class a small handful of those as an actual deliberate attempt to make Wikipedia worse. I'd also draw your attention to this edit request where an IP challenged a fact in the article and it turned out they were right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Ritchie333 I see now that was a request for pending changes. Would that be a better idea. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, from my understanding, pending changes is for vandalism, BLP violations and copyvios. The only one covering The Who in any serious depth is BLP (from IPs adding unsourced content), but even then I don't think there are serious violations. The biggest problem (from a recent sample of IP edits :, , ,) seems to be more a question of writing from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral one. And that's not something I can see that's an obvious candidate for PC, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've removed the semi-protection. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd better ping who also applied PC to the article before noticing you'd semi'd it. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  10:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Climate
You edited Scarborough, ON, I had to undo your information because it's wrong.
 * And your data is unsourced. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Media of Turkey article
You didn't say anything about that why you added protection to this page. When people wants to add or change this article, will you do that again? The problem was trustworthy of some information in there. It shouldn't be like that.MEOGLOBAL (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As you can see, protection was very much needed. He has very poor English skills and he is an avid supporter of the government, and he was really harming the article. If you can, please extend the time of protection, because he will ruin it again for sure. Gezginrocker (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Niels Bohr
Hi CBW! Would you please be so nice to have look at this article. Somebody destroyed the reference-list. I tried to restore it, but am not shure whether everything is ok. Thanks & Greetings -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Ilovaisk
Is there a reason why you limited editing of this article to users with the template editor right? I was requesting semi-protection. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Papists / RationalWiki
RationalWiki uses the phrase "Papists" here though it could just be vandalism. You can also see that many of the OP's questions are about what he found at RationalWiki which is the source his statements and even typos (see for example Ezrulie (sic) at the same RationalWiki page). In fact he's asking the WP RD to confirm what he found at RationalWiki. Contact Basemetal   here  14:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Basemetal, I don't think that I have ever seen it used other than in a bad way. I'm surprised that nobody else mentioned it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I know. All I'm saying is this is where the OP saw it. The reason no one else mentioned it is that people at the RD are very tolerant when they notice somebody's struggling with English. Btw, I don't think this is doing him any favor. When I try to point out that editor doesn't seem to know the meaning of some word he's just used there's always people who get in the way to defend him as if I'd said that just to be mean. IMO that's not the best way to help someone with their English. Contact Basemetal   here  19:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd also noticed that he seems to be ESL but letting him use words that are going to cause offence is not a good thing. It's one of the few words that does not seem to have made it up here, the Canadian Arctic, which is surprising given the number of Scottish people that worked for the Hudson's Bay Company. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Going Wild
Can you check this article, I began to edit it and am stuck on some odd information apparently added in 2007 by a "retired" editor. I can not find any references to the claims that the editor made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Whoops, now I find a bona fide source that validates the entries. It makes sense now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, everything is cool and to boot, we have an unusual film that is now detailed as a Wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Operation Zarb-e-Azb
Hey CambridgeBayWeather. I do not wish to waste your time regarding the edit war on the article but can you please revert to the revision: 21:18, 2 November 2014‎ Faizan (talk | contribs)‎. After this revision its edit wars and so I think it'll be wise to revert to that revision. Amy decision you take regarding this will be respected Sir. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dn do it for him https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version --39.41.212.125 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Too late. I already declined to revert to any particular version. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks :)--39.41.212.125 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Cyberchase episodes
Hi, why did you set List of Cyberchase episodes as template-protected? It's not a template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for protecting Electronic cigarette. Could you please revert the massive edits that were done after the last revert. They were done without any talk page discussion at all. AlbinoFerret 23:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret continues to disagree with the improvements. This was explained at ANI. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That case is closed with no finding of fault. Your activities, editing, making massive edits without consensus or discussion are the root of the problems with the page. AlbinoFerret  23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The case was not closed by an admin. Now you are proposing on the talk page to delete the text or add original research. I have responded. He claims his proposal is sourced but anyone can read the source. He is conducting his own analysis of the review. Side note: After I removed the OR another editor added the word "some". No verification was provided because the word failed verification. See Talk:Electronic cigarette. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for content disputes, bring that to the talk page. I am simply asking that the massive edits be reverted so they can be addressed on the talk page to see where consensus lies with them. AlbinoFerret  23:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User:AlbinoFerret, do you really think I want to waste a lot of time at ANI explaining why I protected it then reverted to a particular version of what appears to be a very contentious article. Sure, in some cases I have protected and then reverted but it has to be completely obvious and this is not. The article is in User:QuackGuru's version because that's how it was when I got there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation, I will start a section on the talk page to see where consensus lies with the edits. Thanks again for placing the protection. AlbinoFerret  23:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this not the place for content disputes. This is beyond a content dispute when editors propose original research and replace sourced text with original research. Only sourced text from review is verifiable. You want to start a section on the talk page to revert all the improvements? That is not helpful IMO. He claimed we can cite a study but we can only use a the review for the claim. He claim the study somehow meets MEDRS but that is not being used to cite the claim. We are using the review not the study cited by the review. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Boko Haram
Thanks for applying edit protection to this article.

1. Is it possible to amend the opening paragraph with text "The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, Australia, Canada, the UAE, the United Kingdom and the United States." One thing that I have noticed in a lot of Islamic extremist / mid east war articles is an emphasis on the US (and, to some extent, terrorism as well with a comparative lack of emphasis on issues like ethnic cleansing, Islamic criticism etc. Internet searches on terrorist and game get substantial hits).

2. Are you the admin for Boko Haram or who is? I was wondering if an extension could be made on Syrian Civil War / ISIL sanctions so as to cover all Islam related groups in the List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations.

Thanks

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  10:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Could a pending changes level of protection be used. If the article is in a post edit war situation it may need to be fixed.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye. Pending changes won't work. According to Protection policy only PC1 is supposed to be used. As the main people edit warring there were auto confirmed it would do nothing to stop them. For the changes you want use Edit protected at Talk:Boko Haram. Explain the changes, why you want them and give sources. It looks fine to me, but you never know when someone is going to object.


 * As to being a designated admin for a particular page, there really isn't such a thing. An admin may choose to help out with dispute resolution on a particular page but they aren't really the admin for it. Changing General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to cover others might be a good idea but would require discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. You would need to show why doing that is a better idea than blocking individual editors or protecting pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases
Hello,

thank you for putting editing protection on the article List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases since there is in fact an edit war going on. But why did you protect the version that is always set up by one single user who deletes the whole list of hundrets of terms every few days except for three(!) terms, while several other users try to restore the complete list? Yes, I know that the list has several issues but it still had been be a useful list. Now there is that one guy (who also has been involved into several edit wars according to his talk page) violating the article and you put protection on his version? I am sorry, but I really can't understand that.

Mnbvcxyz (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mnbvcxyz. I have no opinion as to which is the correct version. If the other version had been current then it would have been protected in that version. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Complaint
Hi could you please block Meters and Kansas bear becuase they have been putting disruptive facts and Kansas bear wrote an abuse on my talk page please? I am counting on you. I have lot of issues with them but I kept calm.

Thanks a lot! Thesnowymanlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesnowymanlan (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sock. Meters (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Meters I suspect they will be back. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. The identical edit started being made at least 14 months ago. Meters (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Laura Marano
Hi, could use your input and/or action on this article. A User has been adding a link to copyrighted image on IMDb.com IMO in violation of WP:HOTLINK and WP:COPYVIO using the Template:External media. This is also in the midst of ignoring recommendations on the Talk page as they keep re-inserting the template over and over. I'm done reverting as my policy cites and concerns go ignored even though I think I am covered by the exceptions to 3RR. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this person claims that they are also an Admin on their User page. I don't know how to verify this, but just a heads up. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Might suggest reading the discussion at Talk:Laura Marano if you choose to get involved in this. does not appear to have a good understanding of what WP:HOTLINK and WP:COPYVIO allow and prohibit with respect to external links, which is all I am appropriately adding. It is not a hotlink, obviously, as Wiki software has disabled hotlinking, and it is not a linkvio as the image is legally hosted on the referred to site. Also my having an admin account that I seldom use now is not relevant to this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking into this, my apologies for the misinterpretation. I had seen similar uses deleted previously without contention or incident, but either this instance is different or the others misunderstood as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I posted similar apologies and explanations on the Talk page to to User Geraldo Perez. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong and apologize even when its an honest mistake. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mughal–Rajput War (1558–78)
I'm not sure what's going on in this article, but its been on the Special:PendingChanges list for several hours with seemingly the main instigator in an Edit War or disruptive editing at the very least. Would you mind taking a look ? Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 12:35 pm, Today (UTC−8)


 * Scalhotrod. Thesnowymanlan has been blocked and all is well. Until his next sockpuppet pops up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) By the way, you can add Editing others comments to their list of violations. It took 2 tries to leave the above note for you. -- (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Next one?
Thesmashbrobrawler, same edit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Scalhotrod, probably so I blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for protecting The Holocaust. Hopefully this will force the waring parties to move onto the Talk Page and talk it out. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 17:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaia Octavia Agrippa, no problem. I hope it works. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

1989 Tour Stage Set up
Why did you delete that information and put a lock on edits? I will never donate money to wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:3781:23B2:5B4:1895:5AB3:E2A6 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete the information someone else did. I protected it because it violated the Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I read that and maybe I don't understand the rules as well as you do. In what way did it violate the biographies of living persons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.86.190 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't just look at the edits 2601:1:3781:23B2:5B4:1895:5AB3:E2A6 made I checked other edits as well. For example. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ban or protection needed
Hello,

An anonymous user keeps on removing large sections from Yeni Şafak article. Is it possible to protect the article or ban the IP of the user please? His IP is 137.122.64.60. Thanks. Gezginrocker (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi=protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quick response.Gezginrocker (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Korra (The Legend of Korra)
Hey, I saw you locked down the article. Look, I've been trying to work out something acceptable in the Talk page. I'm the one who started a talk topic and I even went to Sellingpapayas's personal talk page, which they then deleted. But they and Rhydic have been having none of it. And the ideas that 1) GBLT relationships require special authorial external-to-the-work confirmation (asserted by both) and 2) their to-my-eyes highly forced interpretation of events somehow being "objective" and mine (with supporting evidence, only a little of which I've had time to list) being invalid (asserted directly by Rhydic) is frankly raising GBLT erasure flags all over the place.

So I guess I'm asking: what happens now? The page is locked down Sellingpapayas's way until December 26th, so they get their erasure until then? Or what? Solarbird (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Solarbird, I don't know who is right and who is wrong but an edit war will only end up with people being blocked. You need to keep talking it out on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been trying, but Sellingpapayas in particular has just been REVERT REVERT REVERT combined with accusations. Like I said: I've been trying, and I've been the only one offering any sort of middle ground. I guess it'll float until the 26th then, but I don't expect it to improve. The authors said this ending would be controversial, so. Solarbird (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But constant reverting isn't good. Even though there are only two editors reverting you it does indicate a minor, and easily changed, consensus. If it resumes on the 26 then I am sure that people will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't the only one being reverted. Several other people were too. I'm just the only one with a confirmed account, so I strongly contest the idea that they have any sort of "consensus." The major review sites (such as IGN) for example, also disagree and are talking about the confirmation of the relationship in reviews. (Me, I've been around here a while. Not so active lately, but a while. Before I had a confirmed account I was editing too, but from IP address only. SO OLD or something.) Solarbird (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You should probably bring the sources to the discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have done. They were demanding confirmation from authors, or nothing. But once the article got locked down, they stopped talking. Here's the IGN link, fwiw: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/12/19/the-legend-of-korra-the-last-stand-review Solarbird (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just something you might want to mention (don't know where else to put this in being non-account) is the Dimartino oneof the creators and the one who did that episode posted on his facebook page a link to an article that says that Asami and Korra are together and that (and I quote) "if you think this final shot was denoting mere friendship, you're kidding yourself." The fact that Dimartino posted this is him endorsing the article and everything in it as true as he didn't make any statement about it being wrong.  This is kinda irrefutable proof and evidence form the mouth of one of the creators.  And if they try to argue that he didn't read the entire article (as the Korrasami statement comes at the end of the article) then simply respond with the fact that the URL which he had to have read to copy it over literally says korra-season-finale-recap-gay-asami so there is no way he didn't know and was in complete endorsement of it and the Korra and Asami statements in it.  There is no way that they can refute this and if they do then they are being petty and their argument is unsubstantiated, based purely on their opinion which I believe is violation of the wiki rules that you need to be neutral and that poster POV isn't allowed. 81.97.84.26 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, so, while I was out today, Tutelary yanked out a huge chunk of my argument about this topic and flagged it "copyright violation." I wrote it. I wrote it here, I reposted to my blog, and on my blog, SAID I WAS WRITING THIS ON WIKIPEDIA AND WAS THE SAME PERSON. I've reverted it, but if we're at this kind of point, I have to go to administrators now. Can we do something about this?

Electronic cigarette
I can fully sympathise with why you locked the e-cig article again, but is there any chance you could undo the change Doc James was edit-warring in and that got frozen when you locked it? Thanks.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for the change by User:MSGJ. The original version is this one from Dec 19th  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with MSGJ about that. Right or wrong he felt that a consensus did exist. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes waiting for User:MSGJ to respond. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection of usertalk page under WP:UPROT
I notice you protected User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof under WP:UPROT. But WP:UPROT doesn't include talk pages, only their username space. Tutelary (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Tutelary I went back and unprotected it. But Protection policy does say that it can be done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It does but it says for vandalism--which it still qualified but I just wanted to correct you in case you wanted to protect some person's user page indefinitely by their own request. That would only be valid if there was constant and repeated anonymous vandalism or trolling. In any case, your action was right even if for the wrong reason, but if you persisted protecting other people's talk pages under that wrong reason, you could lock out good faithed IPs/new users. Tutelary (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's actually been a strange day for talk pages getting protected. Not sure why. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fredrick Brennan semi-protected
I have been civilly debating Ryulong on that talk page, and now I cannot answer his most recent [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fredrick_Brennan&diff=638883277&oldid=638880933 statement]. I want to explain why WP:BLP1E does not apply. Please unprotect the page so I can rejoin the discussion, or at least put a note at that point that I am prevented from responding due to the page being protected. 70.133.151.184 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The two problem IPs were/are blocked so I unprotected it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My Last Day Without You
I would like to request the page be unprotected. The other day I got mad and started deleting the text several times because Cyristhelad for months keeps deleting 361 bytes of documented factual information I have tried to add. I will no longer delete all of his info (and didn't for many months) but I want to be able to put my factual info in and keep it there without him constantly deleting it. At the very least Cyristhelad should be dealt with too for removing my 361 byte addition all the time.

Thanks 76.14.244.233 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.244.233 (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I unprotected it. I would suggest that rather than try an reinsert the material you go to the talk page and sort it there first. Inform the other editors and ask them for opinions. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Binksternet
Can you please sort out Binksternet as they are harrasing me and other users (Stanlyfe) by calling us sock puppets without any evidence; I think Binksternet should know to have fact over fiction Muicfantasy (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what you mean by sort them out. It may be a dialect thing but your usage suggests number 6 and I think I'll pass on doing that. Anyway he has made the required report at Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky so it isn't really harassment. If he was calling you a sockpuppet and not making a report then you might have a claim. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He made the claim way before he did the report and then kept reverting my edits doesn't that count somewhere? Muicfantasy (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. it was number 5
 * Hmmm. I could block both of you for Edit warring but I don't think that really helps. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Page protection
Hi CambridgeBayWeather; Thanks for granting the page protection on Metropolitan (1990 film). I had originally requested Semi-protection (rather than Full) in order to investigate a possible sock. For such a low page-count article, I suddenly received 3 back-to-back quick responses from different dynamic IP editors and one other regular editor with an account. The IP editors appeared to be single purpose accounts as well. My plan was to revert on the Semi-protected page with my account in order to try to encourage the dynamically changing IP editor to open an account for them to make their revert, and thereby obtain more information on what looks like a sock. Reverting the page to the last neutral version, say thirty days ago, after the page goes to Semi-protection (only if you agree) should accomplish the same thing. My WHOIS on the IP editors showed only partial info as to the edit coming from Comcast somewhere in Mount Laurel, NJ, with no further info from my limited account. Cheers. FelixRosch  ( TALK ) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:FelixRosch I reverted back. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Felix, you don't seem to understand that the version of the article you supported was poorly written and even seemed to have been composed by someone who doesn't speak English as a first language. The other IP editor was attempting to create and maintain a plot synopsis that was comprehensive, well written, and not vague. There was virtually nothing to discuss beyond your frankly incomprehensible insistence that a terribly written plot summary remain intact. All you've really done is cause a lot of problems and compromise the integrity of an article.2601:E:2000:1A3:C914:D4EF:A4BA:8D03 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Previous user should please acknowledge that I am the one who initiated Talk discussion. @CambridgeBayWeather; Your edits appear to have move things ahead, and there is a very high certainly in my review that the three separate accounts (including the dynamically changing IP accounts) involved are not three separate persons. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 16:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Request unprotection of Korra (The Legend of Korra)
In light of new information provided by the creator (other links on the talk page), the edit war is resolved. I request full unprotection, or at least reduction to semi. This is coming to you, as the protecting admin.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 01:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Teach Me
Hi man,Can you Teach Me How To use Unblock and Block 115.133.38.236 (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. First you need to register an account. Once you have done that edit for several months. They should be constructive and valid edits. Participate in all areas of Wikipedia. However, before you do that read Guide to requests for adminship. Eventually either someone or yourself will take it to Requests for adminship. Good luck. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I need to know Tag Filter and Performer 115.133.38.236 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you link to what it is? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tag Filter and Performer are in Block log.Continue From 115.133.38.236.,Can you please The Tag Filter And Performer Cause I don't know how to use it,thanks.Load Vordemout (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. Performer is the person that did the blocking. If you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/CambridgeBayWeather you can see how it is used. Tag filter would allow you to look for actions by an editor using a specific tag. The lists can be found at Special:Tags. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Performer use my name right Load Vordemout (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Anybodys will do. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you example Block please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Load Vordemout (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not blocking someone for no reason. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok,Performer is for what and Tag Filter is for what. Load Vordemout (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I already answered that above. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Perfomer is name me.And Tag filter is for what.124.13.234.53 (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Metropolitan (1990 film) edit war
Thank you for your attention to the edit war occurring at Metropolitan (1990 film). Unfortunately, the version you restored appears to be written in ESL manner that is vague, difficult to comprehend, and incomplete. I strongly encourage you to compare the currently protected version with other recent edits and consider restoring the one which appears to have been written by a native English speaker.2601:E:2000:1A3:C914:D4EF:A4BA:8D03 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also encourage you to take a cursory look at Felix's talk page, which demonstrates a history of conflict with other editors and warnings from several administrators regarding disruptive behavior. This appears to be more about a troublemaker wanting to stir something up than maintaining the quality of an article.2601:E:2000:1A3:C914:D4EF:A4BA:8D03 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will also point out that the other user attempted to start a dialogue with Felix on Metro's talk page during the revert war, to which Felix never responded.2601:E:2000:1A3:C914:D4EF:A4BA:8D03 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous user should please acknowledge that I am the one who initiated Talk discussion. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 16:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which I then responded to. And which you ignored.76.31.249.221 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather:
 * The current talk page discussion at Talk:Metropolitan_(1990_film) has three editors making a case for the "new" version of the article, and none making a case for the old version. (Oddly, not even .) So, there is a clear consensus for the new version.
 * Beyond this, protection policy (see WP:PREFER) suggests that the version to be protected should be the new version. It was not only the "current" version at the time you protected the article, it was also the pre-edit war version. (Based on the criteria at Edit_warring, the ostensible edit war started with FelixRosch's first group of reverts . According to his edit notes, these reverts were not based upon a content dispute, but rather the fact that the edits had been made by unregistered users. This made the reverts a violation of Wikimedia's Privacy Policy .)
 * Given this background, it would be appropriate for you to self-revert your last edit (at ), to reflect both consensus and protection policy. If you're not comfortable doing this, I'll post an edit request in the next couple of days (to give time for other editors to ring in on consensus - though I suspect that none will.) Thanks. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Block Kistara.
Hi CambrigeBay,Can you Block Kistara.Beacause She Vandalishem Malaysia And Indonesia Armed Forces.People are so Angry her for her edits.Thanks.124.13.234.53 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:MilborneOne. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Protecting Amy Pascal
Hello. Thank you for protecting Amy Pascal's page; I am a little concerned that it has now expired (or will expire very soon depending on the time zone you used), however. Do you think it would make sense to extend it a bit longer? Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Zigzig20s, I would prefer to wait and see. It's easy enough to re-protect if there is a problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

==Yo Ho Ho== 

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas traditions
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It should probably be OK. By the time it expires Christmas will be over. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warrior with no change in his behavior
I apologise, but I really need to bring it to your attention that an editor that has been blocked for 24h just a few days ago for edit-warring is really not understanding anything and hasn't learned the lesson. Not only he makes problematic edits in a highly sensitive area, but edit-wars without knowing WP:BRD and even threatens other editors (diff). I noticed you were the blocking admin, so I am bringing to your attention his continuation of same behavior. Best regards, and wishes of happy hallydays, FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This time I'll try page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think it is fundamental to see if the editor understands that discussion is more important than the revert botton.  Lets see. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See this conversation, thanks
Vandalism in my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.125.162 (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian Airport Vandal
Hi CBW! There's now an IP vandal from Indonesia, and these two have become his favorites: TIA! HkCaGu (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hang Nadim Airport
 * Kualanamu International Airport