User talk:CambridgeBayWeather

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have two requests for people coming here:

  • If you intend to revert personal attacks could you please use the {{subst:unsigned|user name|date}} template instead.
  • If you are here to complain about something I deleted could you please tell me the name of the article that you are talking about. If you do I will respond but if you don't I will ignore you.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks, I posted 1 error I found on facebook and it went ballistic my friend made 41 errors on purpose I was going to edit it but I am still learning about wikipedia. So thanks for fixing the mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.85.21 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It's good you were trying to help. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Other sock stuff[edit]

Could you take care of Power Rangers:Dino Charge (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) and the sockpuppet that keeps restoring it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Left as a redirect but permanent semi-protected. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The redirect really shouldn't remain because it's full of his garbage edits (unless they need to be retained for the SPI case). And at any rate, the article should be properly created at Power Rangers Dino Charge later along the line.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And its retention is keeping it like a honey pot.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you deleted it already. Is it possible to create protect?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Got it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Doraemon[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you semi-protected Doraemon yesterday for three months. However, I noticed that only one IP was vandalizing the page. Unless the IP was a sock, isn't three months due to a single IP too long? I think maybe at most one month is a better length, though I don't mind if the article stays at its current length of protection. What do you think? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

National Day of Commemoration[edit]

I have no objections to full protection, if that will help talk page discussion. Give it a week and I would leave it up to an uninvolved admin (like yourself as you are now fimilar with the context) deciding to undo protection once the outcome is clear. Murry1975 (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to put your SP protection decision into some sort of context. First though a remark about the editor Murry1975- if you will permit. If you study his edit history you'll see that by far and away the majority of his work is concerned with policing the current version of WP:IMOS. To that end, he trawls Wikipedia replacing instances of Republic of Ireland with Ireland. While this is the IMOS standard, actually, it leads to confusion. Consider one of Murry's edits today. Look at the edit [1] and then read the (start of) the article Drogheda. The reader will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that Drogheda is the 6th most populous conurbation on the island of Ireland. This is absolutely incorrect. Drogheda is the 6th most populous conurbation in the Republic. Unless the reader goes to the previous piped link of List of towns in the Republic of Ireland he will effectively be reading wrong information. And of course if the page is printed, the error is even harder to detect (impossible, in fact). It is this type of error that I was trying to rectify in the article in question. Again, ambiguity and potential error is being introduced due to these edits.
Why are these edits proliferating? Because of a small number of editors who object to the terminology "Republic or Ireland", it being deemed to be of British origin. As a result, they have managed to arrange an IMOS "ruling" which is favourable to this point of view. This ruling will never change now. These editors will not allow it. So against this background I was merely trying to ensure that wrong information does not get out of control. Unfortunately, due to this warrior mentality it is doing so, with the article in question being a prime example. The National Day of Commemoration ONLY applies to the Republic, but in the article this is not clear, and could be read as applying to Ireland the island. I know my edit warring is wrong, and I apologise to the community for it, but to me, edit warring is preferable to wrong information being disemminated as a result of political motivation. 86.9.250.59 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussing as to the merits of either wording on my talk page or edit warring across articles is not the way to go about this. The talk page at WP:IMOS is the place to have the discussion. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not discussing anything. I am providing you with background information so that in future you may be able to make better informed decisions. For instance, by taking account of this statement at WP:PROT: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes (my emphasis). 82.26.93.215 (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In case you've still got any doubts about this, you seemed to have sided with editors simply because they have accounts and I didn't. This is the type of edit one of them gets up to. Perhaps you could explain to me why my edit (left), was reverted, because I can't see why, and the reverter is incoherent about it [2] Neil Edgar (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If you read the edit you will see Neil, that you have added a "personal" remark about de Velera, in a section the is already tagged for citations. Anyhow, no new consensus has been put forward on NDC to replace the existing one and Neil here has revert the editor the restored the version before edit warring started, CBW, what next, I templated him for MOS. Murry1975 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

David Ospina[edit]

People are still claiming he has transferred, with the latest change saying it is official, even though neither OGC Nice or Arsenal have confirmed it. It's almost certain he will transfer, however he hasn't done so yet.

I was keeping any eye on the article, but I can't revert the current changes as I'm not registered.

It looks like it is official now. I've added a reference to the article. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For protecting the page I requested. Bobherry talk 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

reconsider pages like Vishnu Ganesha,and Others[edit]

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.this is the first rule of this page.But i did'nt get any notification.Second thing is user Redtigerxyz removed file on 15 July 2014‎ which is my edit Vishnu.He said reason is rm copyvio.same day it self i said before remove please check copyrights from flickr.he said Checked copyrights from flickr; plz familiar yourself with wikipedia image policies.then 6 July 2014‎ i added file from wiki commons.he removed even that file too.and said rm img crowding.i said again dont remove images.crowd not a proper explanation.please read WP:IUP.he reverted my edits said the image is broken, attributes missing.then continuous unknown ip users edited that page.user redtiger started to say one img enough like so . he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article plz click here.i informed in his talk page.but he deleted all.no reply from him.after blanking my talk in his he put smily symbol in his talk page Edit summary .plz click here.this is one enough showing how user rediger playing in Wikipedia. and he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article.so i asked semi-protection for vishnu.but

unfortunately it has declined.but now i hope the Admin carefully analyze all the things,and i believe that the admin do the needful.Because more person we believe Wikipedia is reliable.thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 14:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Roger Goodman[edit]

"Goodman has stated that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and originated from a 2012 divorce filing, where he claims that his ex-wife was trying to convince the judge of her then-husband's unworthiness in an attempt to get more money from the divorce.[12]"

Please review the sourced information. Goodman did not "state that the allegations were completely unsubstantiated" and does not "claim" anything about his ex-wife. This sentence should be removed.

FYI. The research would show that the divorce declaration cited, occurred in October 2012. The Motion of Contempt filed in August 2013 (presented in court September of 2013) is a completely separate entity from the Temporary Orders filed back in October. The Motion of Contempt, was in fact, filed in regard to violations to the Final Order (which was the settlement) which occurred in June of 2013. The divorce documents from October 2012 were not a part of the Final Order.

The original quote "I asked Carns if it was fair to quote contentious divorce documents in the Goodman ad, particularly since they're part of his ex-wife requesting more money in the settlement." was a false statement and has since been removed by KOMO 4 TV--the source continues to be quoted but if you look at the source it is simply not there. Since it is not sourced, the libelous statement should be removed.

The divorce documents had nothing to do with the Motion of Contempt mentioned in that false quote which continues to be cited. And since it is is impossible to change any financials after a divorce settlement is signed (in our case June 2013)--the three things are not one related to the other, placed in a sentence as if they are:

contentious divorce documents (Temporary Order--October 2013) and settlement (Final Order/Settlement--June 2013) requesting more money (Motion of Contempt--August/September 2013)

Requests for financial relief for attorney fees when forced to return to court for violations of parenting plans and settlement agreements is routine, but completely separate from the final settlement (inferring money) Final Order.

That is why I continue to edit this so that it is factual. The "undo" edits are disingenuous and an inaccurate picture. Erroneous and libelous.

I need to add that while you might have an opinion that my statements made under penalty of perjury were simply allegations, that is an opinion--not based in fact. Contentious indicates: causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. Roger too, had the right to respond to my supposed "allegations," under penalty of perjury but chose not to. That was the time to dispute my supposed "allegations." Under penalty of perjury. Through the court of law. Not now, through a medium other than the court of law that doesn't apply the same standards or opportunity to rebut the accusations made.

Therefore, it should be assumed that my divorce declaration statements were not contentious because they caused no argument or disagreement. Roger, making no response to the court, indicates concurrence, not controversy.

I can only assume that the edits are made by supporters who are not caring about the Wikipedia standards for truth and non-inflamotory statements. Facts are very different from truth in Wiki world as well as my world. The edits essentially state that statements made under penalty of perjury are assumed false while statements with no standards for assessment or recourse are not. That is incongruent with reason. As you know, edits must be made fairly and rationally accessing the validity of claims. The rules for biographies are not being followed. Do I need to continue to report those who continue to make libelous claims?

If you would like, I can have one of my attorneys explain in legalese. If you have any questions please feel free to ask.

I understand completely how this kind of error could have been made. That is why I simply request that you make the corrections asked.

Liv Grohn (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Liv Grohn

Email[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, CambridgeBayWeather. Please check your email – you've got mail!
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.

- NeutralhomerTalk • 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Roger Goodman Edit-Thanks.[edit]

Thank you for your response and information on what to do better--when/if there is a next time. I also appreciate that you made the edit so quickly. I am clearly not a wiki person and only doing reputation management out of necessity. I have no idea what I'm doing and frankly, have other things I need to be doing with my time. ;-) I was frustrated as I did put short info in edit line but it seems like there might be a vested interest for some of the editors? (The news report indicated as such.) I don't know. I just want "my" person left out of "his" issues. That said, I probably should have created a different user name? I just wanted to be transparent in this case in particular.

If you decide to keep this edit, it would be more accurate to add that the divorce filing was made under "penalty of perjury." The way it reads now is as if it is a simple "he said/she said" case while that is not the case. Roger could have filed a response to my divorce documents but chose not to because he would have had to do so under penalty of perjury. Making a false statement would have legal repercussions for anyone who did. It is significant that he made a statement. I had to sign that what I wrote was true or face charges.

This edit surrounds the issue of 2014 campaign allegations. I am curious as to why that was the only thing referenced from my divorce documents. If the fact that Roger drove my kids stoned is relevant, why isn't the 20K IRS collections or DSHS failure to pay in full child support payments relevant? The omissions are interesting. All three were the subject of the source used, so why only use the part about the kids. Personally, I think this is irresponsible toward our children and question the integrity of the original poster who added this topic to the site. (BTW. I have letters, emails, texts and drug tests from Roger proving this supposed "allegation" If I need to release them to protect my reputation and protect my children, I will.)

The following is now, apparently also an issue of the 2014 … and frankly, who knows what is next.

"The prickly topic of Sonntag's inquiry was personal use of office computers, a continuing problem at the Sentencing Guidelines Commission (SGC) ever since Sonntag's office determined adult Web sites had been visited on the work computer of Leggett's predecessor Roger Goodman, who resigned."

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

And if you really need this edit, fall under the career category?

See why I don't see why this is all relevant? The campaign issues will take over the page which is really for biographies, right? I'm sure that's not what Roger wants … and I know it's not what I want for the children to see--nor is it necessary to the bio. Interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks again. I hope you will consider full removal of the edit or make the changes I suggested to reflect the truth and soften the focus on the kids.

Let me know if I'm posting this wrong.

Dger (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Liv Grohn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liv Grohn (talkcontribs) 23:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified dragonfly[edit]

Yes I do believe your image is of a Lake Darner. It would be helpful to see the shoulder area but the face does match that of an Aeshna eremita. Dger (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There are only three possible darners in your area–Lake Darner, Azure Darner and Zigzag Darner. The Lake Darner is the most likely candidate. Dger (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Check out my User Powers![edit]

Guess What Checkout my userpowers! User:Bobherry — Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Weather balloons[edit]

I think we should keep our substantive conversations about this where they are, but I wanted to tell you of the unusual source of my interest in weather balloons. There's a fellow named Charles Hall who writes about (get ready for it) Tall White extraterrestrials. He claims to have encountered them closely in the 1960s when he was a U.S. Air Force aerographer at a desert base in Nevada. I'm kind of open to this sort of thing, so I read his short books on the subject. They endlessly describe his balloon-launching trips out into the desert, and talk at length about using his balloons and equipment, though he doesn't really describe the latter in detail. Imagine my surprise when I found your photos. They depict exactly the things I remember him talking about. Lou Sander (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)