User talk:CambridgeBayWeather

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.

Bobov dynasty

Hi Cambridge!

I would like to bring to your attention that misleading info has been put in the Bobov wiki by people who have agenda's. I tried few times to correct it but was deleted by others. At this point you have closed the editing options while the misleading, agenda promote info. is still out there. If you need more elaboration on the happenings please get back to me.

O. Bobov

Protection of articles

How did you protect I (film) article, bro? Can u tell me? :D Ssven2 (talk)

Can you please protect Kaththi article bro, atleast for 2 months because the vandalism is too much to handle. :D. Thx Ssven2 (talk)

Question about Full protection of Neil deGrasse Tyson

Now I see, it was a different reason then I thought. At least this makes sense even if I don't agree. Thank you.

Gforce Pakistan

Hello my friend, You know how this all works. You have made a change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_Force_Pakistan We'll ask you nicely to revert it back to as it was. We are not looking for trouble. Some Gforce Made members are not very happy with this change. We'll pay you $500+ Dollars for Giving the wiki back to us and We can adjust the price if you want. Please Respond.

Yours Sincerely, D'Amico (Associate and Messenger of GForce Pakistan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gforcepakistan4 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 November 2014

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)

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)

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)

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. --Redrose64 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Electronic cigarette. 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#OR accusations. 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. Wikipedia:Pending changes won't work. According to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theshitman Meters (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)