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.

Kuala Lumpur International Airport

This article is already semi-protected because of sock-puppetry. Can you increase the level of protection to full protection since there are edit warring between registered users and a registered user is continuing to edit the page without discussion. Thanks! 71.12.206.168 (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems one user is blocked, not much need for full protection. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. With the one user being blocked I don't think the page needs protecting. User:CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), sunasuttuq 20:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Bangerz Tour

The article has been a mess. Recently, people started to clean up bad editing. I wonder if you can extend semi-protection time, or that would be impossible. --George Ho (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bracket Errors on 1 November

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to God in Islam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Quote|{That both Mohammed and those among his followers who are reckoned orthodox, had and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

El Clasico

Requesting permanent page protection on this article, among the most persistently vandalised pages on this site.User:Carlos Rojas77, talk, 14:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about Page Protecting

Is setting up page protection a special privilege that can be granted like "rollback rights" or do you have to be an Admin? Thanks, --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, bummer, its something that I'd like to help with, but I'm not ready to go the full Admin process yet. I don't even have 10K in edits. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm all to aware of the drama that can go on there and ANI and Arbcom and the rest. Plus, in my case I'm certain that more than a few Editors would object on a variety of grounds. I have my defenders, but I have my haters as well. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! That's is quite magnanimous. Maybe next spring or some time in 2015 and when I have at least 10K worth of edits or more. I keep busy mostly these days with the Pending Changes list and working my own articles. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's good advice. I'll start casually checking them out. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not alone in my idea Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Unbundling_the_tools. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still no more inclined to go near that gauntlet, but if other rights can be granted that allow me to help out, I'm all for it. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi,

Sorry about my edit summary. I'll change it now to something hopefully more appropriate. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my username. Who knew it'd cause all this trouble. I miss the days of being able to correct a simple grammatical error on a Wiki page without having to sign in. Sorry if the name offended you, it was a quickie idea, and I didn't know people actively paid attention to the names of Wiki editors! 😂 Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Username policy, especially the section Dealing with inappropriate usernames? I kid, I kid. I'll change my username ASAP. ☺

Glittershit (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about Les Invasions barbares

Doesn't a film that originated in French retain its French name, i.e. Les Invasions barbares? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Historiador1923

Dear CambridgeBayWeather Thanks for the clarification, best regard --Historiador1923 (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell

I see that you semi-protected Mitch McConnell for two weeks due to edit-warring and BLP violations. The real offender is a registered editor, Tina cain, so that the semi-protection merely prevents an unregistered editor from reverting the changes. (She is changing his Senate job title from Minority Leader to Majority Leader, a position to which he has not yet been elected because the incoming United States Senate has not yet met. She is also edit-warring at Harry Reid.) Could you please look at the conduct of the registered editor? I have filed a report at WP:ANEW and have notified the edit-warrior. I think that a block for her is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This has to do with the result of yesterday's elections in the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

McConnell is the leader of the Senate Republicans and is Minority Leader. Reid is the leader of the Senate Democrats and is Majority Leader. Since the Republicans gained a majority in the United States Senate, McConnell will almost certainly be chosen as Majority Leader when the incoming Senate convenes. Reid will become Minority Leader if the Senate Democrats decide to retain him as leader. (They might dump him and elect another Senator instead.) Tina is now up to 7RR in persisting in changing their titles in anticipation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Now that you point it out, she isn't autoconfirmed until November 9, so it does lock the page against her as well as against the IP who was one of the editors rolling back her changes. However, as far as being a completely new user, she had been cautioned. The first time that I reverted her changes, I reverted them as good-faith edits. Then I cautioned her again, and she persisted, so that she appears to be a new editor who has difficulty learning. I hadn't made the connection that the semi-protection blocks her until November 9. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Another admin (probably an American) was less accommodating than you were and indeffed the edit-warrior. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Key West, Florida

excuse you but i live in key west — Preceding unsigned comment added by VAVAvertigo (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Clinton Public School District: Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandalism by a past user which I missed when I only reverted vandalism from a more recent user. Donner60 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cell ID

Do you mind if I put the various companies in alphabetical order? It seems a much more natural (and much more intuitive) method of listing than the number of unique cells, and it would presumably pose less of a tempting target for editwarriors. Normally I'd rearrange the list without checking, since it's a small enough issue that editing through protection wouldn't be a problem, but since the list order was the whole reason for the editwar, I'm not about to do it without checking with you first. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've alphabetised them (and added an explanatory comment) while linking to your "please go ahead" comment in my edit summary, lest anyone complain. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Beijing Capital International Airport

Looks like PEK has been constantly bombarded from the Philippines in at least the past month to a point of overwhelming normal edits. HkCaGu (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Stradbroke

Dear Sir or Madam,

I notice that you have locked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradbroke/ to allow only auto-confirmed users to modify the content. I believe this has been at the request of user JEHargrave. Please could you let me know how I become an auto-confirmed user of the site.

JEHargrave is citing persistent and disruptive editing when in fact he is the one removing any edits I make because he doesn't like them. I am aware that he has agreed with the administrators that no links should be added, so I simply added some text about there being an "official website called Stradbroke online". This is the village website which is endorsed by the local authority. No link was added to the page. I believe he's removed this text because he prefers to promote the unofficial website run by himself.

How can it be fair that JEHargrave simply asks for the page to be locked to prevent anyone putting anything that he doesn't personally like?

I'd be grateful if you could let me know what I can do to either become added as an autoconfirmed user, or have the lock removed from the page. My email address is stuart_crane@yahoo.com

Thanks in advance,

Stuart Crane... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.133.182 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to register a user name. Then be here for four days and in that time make 10 edits. You should go to Talk:Stradbroke and discuss the issues there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this page is that edit warring had started with users like 81.158.133.182 (Stuart Crane) deleting all links to one of Stradbroke's websites. What was agreed was that all links and text about both sites should be removed to prevent this edit waring, see User_talk:Yunshui#Stradbroke_Page. Once 81.158.133.182 had added the text about the website then another user added the link back. It is very clear these users are acting together as sock/meat puppets and indeed several have been found already such as User:Nodracol . Maybe if 81.158.133.182 (Stuart Crane) gets a wikipedia account we could have a civilised discussion on Talk:Stradbroke and come to an agreement about restoring the links to both sites and avoiding adding comments such as "improved" and other non-verifiable comments.Jehargrave (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be the best outcome. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Hong Kong protests

The article has been frequently edited. Well, we did debate some content that may or may not add significance to the topic itself. However, at least there hasn't been vandalism for a while. I am not very sure whether other contents, removed as undue weight, were made by unconfirmed and IPs. Therefore, I am requesting semi-protection extension. --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, one unconfirmed editor requested addition of something in the talk page, but s/he provided a blog as a source. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know; someone mentioned that content was cited with phony references. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Djcheburashka

You may wish to take a look at the recent contributions of Djcheburashka (talk · contribs), particularly this, this, this, and this. --Calton | Talk 13:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Afro Latin American

Hi friend. I think we should also consider the other involved user since I was restoring information that is referenced, no. This user edits and places drawn from other reference numbers that pass over the official and are not secure; besides that the reverse, you change other product data inherent to the case. The user User:DonBarchanga DonBarchanga (talk · contribs) adds a uniqueness to the figure for Venezuela, just as long as the rest of the country does not apply the same standard. I noticed on your user talk page and never responded, I invited him to discuss and neither did. I reported to the user for edit warring, but I think that was not complied with, for me it is a bit difficult here since English is not my language, I speak Spanish, but I would like to check up on the history of Afro-Latin American and will observe repeated arbitrary edits the user makes, recently returned to revert the changes. It is not fair that the issue of users to express their article when it is not true, I hope your answer, greetings. Jaam0121 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand, I began a discussion of the issue in the article. One question: When protection expires page pueso rectify the information? since the current edition is the other user, and the information is not correct. Greetings.Jaam0121 (talk) 17:48, 9 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#Notes and Feminist school of criminology#References 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#Further reading 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)

Jenni Rivera vandalism

CambridgeBayWeather,
Do you think you can reconfigure pending changes or even configure temporary semi-protection for: Jenni Rivera, lately the article has had more disruptive editing than before. Thanks! Fundude99 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

SHINee's Key

Firstly, I want to thank you so much for re-reverting that edit that Speakfromthesoul (talk) made. I really appreciate it.

And I think it would have been better though to report that user or simply block him/her (or give that user a stern warning that if he/she does this one more time, he/she will get blocked), because it seems to me that only this one particular user is creating the problematic edits while nobody else is. Thanks for fully protecting Key's page though, but I'm not sure if that would solve the problem completely as it seems that only ONE user is doing the problematic edits while the others are in good faith, reverting his/her edits.

Anyway I hope all is well and thanks again! Tibbydibby (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any further problems. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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).