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.

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)

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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:14, 14 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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gforcepakistan4 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 November 2014

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 : [1], [2], [3],[4]) 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 @Tom Morris: 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)

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)