Jump to content

User talk:CambridgeBayWeather: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Disruptive editing: new section
Line 672: Line 672:
[[User:Holynightfever|Holynightfever]] ([[User talk:Holynightfever|talk]]) 09:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Holynightfever|Holynightfever]] ([[User talk:Holynightfever|talk]]) 09:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Holynightfever}}. It is restored now at [[Draft:Cloud28+]]. The reviewer notice is just a general thing. It was deleted because of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cloud28+]]. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]], [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Sunasuttuq]] 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Holynightfever}}. It is restored now at [[Draft:Cloud28+]]. The reviewer notice is just a general thing. It was deleted because of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cloud28+]]. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]], [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Sunasuttuq]] 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

== Disruptive editing ==

Hi there, You semi-protected a page earlier today [[David Davies (Welsh politician)]] after several paragraphs kept being deleted by another editor. When protection was applied, these deleted paragraphs were not restored. Is the problem with the paragraphs themselves or was this a mistake? [[User:RightSaidFred|RightSaidFred]] ([[User talk:RightSaidFred|talk]]) 19:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:57, 31 January 2017

It is approximately 10:24 PM where this user lives (Cambridge Bay). [refresh]

Template:MsgEmail

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
The person who has been Vandalising the Casper (film) has done it again, can you please blocked the page so it won't continue. DonJakes (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar. Give the page a few more days to see if they return or it was a one off. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting subpages

Per here, I think the bot refused to archive because we didn't protect User:Gestrid/Editnotice (which I've just done). For future reference, you can use Twinkle to mass-protect. E.g. go to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Gestrid/ and click on TW > P-Batch, choose your options and boom, all are protected in seconds. You can do the same for deletion (D-batch). Both options appear on any wiki page and relevant Special pages. Best MusikAnimal talk 00:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew about the deleting one but not the protecting. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Bay Weather

Hi Friend, It me Norsemanmick form Edmonton, long time no talk. How is the weather up there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norsemanmick (talkcontribs) 05:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norsemanmick. Hi, it has been a while. It's been very mild up here with temperatures about 10C above the normals. But it looks to go back to normal in a few days. How about in Edmonton? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a balmy -1C at the moment here in Edmonton. Today was lovely with sunny skies. THere is trace amount of snow on the ground and the roads are slick as the city has not been out salting or sanding too much.Norsemanmick (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been cloudy here for days and we have had three days of nonstop snow. Even if there was no clouds there would still be no sun to to the polar night. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Polar night is amazing, but I spoke too soon about the weather here in Edmonton, we have just encountered a cold snap, -17 this morning and it is apparently going to stay for a week or so. Still not that cold, but from where we were its a fairly dramatic change. CheersNorsemanmick (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. We dropped to -22 and are having a blizzard. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Heavy Ice Fog in Edmonton, worst i have ever seenNorsemanmick (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norsemanmick. Mot much of that here. Mostly just the fog that is formed by hydrocarbons over town in the cold. Weather has been strange though. First time in years that we had several days of below -40. But then a few days later it's -10. Now back to -29. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart News

Hi. I was in the process of editing Breitbart News when you fully protected it. Could you please assist by implementing the edit request here: Talk:Breitbart News#Protected Edit Request the purpose of which is to improve the references. Another editor noted that some references do not support the material. Apparently bad references were added to derail the RfC. Thank you.- MrX 00:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

The issue had been resolved. Protection was unnecessary and unwarranted. --John Navas (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

if a user commits 3RR meanwhile he is reported and his case is investigated in two different ANI noticeboards (incidents and edit warring) simultaneously, it is needed to report in a different (this time the third) incident the fresh breaking of 3RR or it is not necessary? Thanks for your answer!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

If one of the original reports was still open you could add it there or open another report. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time distortion effect

Hello CBW. I hope you are well. I saw this and I have to say that I have had a week or three in my life that felt like they lasted forever :-) Cheers to you and I hope that you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 17:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD. Thanks. I'm fine, hope your are too. Given that I'm off to work in a couple of hours and a blizzard is coming it should be interesting. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect page Jayalalithaa for next 20 days

Protect the wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargayichul (talkcontribs) 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor vandalism

Hi. There's an ip editor vandalising this article. you might want to take a brief look. thank you. 77.4.159.5 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Semi for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you give The Blitz extended-confirmed protection? The page had not been protected at the time of the protection, and the protection policy says that extended-confirmed protection should only be used if authorized by the Arbitration Committee or if semi-protection is ineffective. —MRD2014 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MRD2014. It was sockpuppetry, see here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. —MRD2014 (talkcontribs) 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Airlines and destinations tables

Hello, I hope you don't mind my asking this question as you are an admin. I have come to oppose having the Airlines and destinations tables entirely as they are too difficult to maintain, references are an issue, etc. How could we go about having a discussion as to the removal of these tables? For my discussion it took enough time finding and asking active users to contribute. Removing the tables (in place of them, just mentioning the major airlines, noting the international destinations, or something of that nature) would require a big discussion. Would an RfC be appropriate; would that attract frequent editors of airport articles? Feel free to direct me somewhere if I am asking too much. Thanks. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 02:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnya343. I think a full RfC would be the waay to go. I don't know if it would attract a lot of airport editors. However, the important thing is to get other editors involved. That way there is a real consensus rather than a local consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-I have secured copyright permission to use content that is deamed a violation for the article page at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Nakkach

The owner of content pulled from SilviaNakkach.com for this page has granted this content to be used by wikipedia.

How do I now get this site reinstated? Where to I send the copy of this letter. That information was on a talk page which is no longer there.

thanks-Julia Jacksonj1964 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)jacksonj1964[reply]

Jacksonj1964 If you go to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team they will be able to help. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you were the one who revdel'd the copy violation problem. He's back. 7&6=thirteen () 19:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. Thanks, I've RD it again. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. Whoops can't copy and past from your signature. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continent edit warrior

User:Capleri has returned from his block, and is edit warring on Continent again. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has made the same edit as User:Capleri. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another has made the same edits again. Both IPs locate to Mexico City. It's looking like sockpuppetry or meatpuppets. Can you semi-protect Continent? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral College (United States)

I was surprised to see that Electoral College (United States) has been administratively locked down until 6 January 2017; wouldn't 19 December 2016 be preferable, when it actually convenes and votes? Furthermore, consider the subsection United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Electoral_College_lobbying_and_petitions, which at this point could probably be expanded given that Colorado Democratic electors have filed a federal lawsuit and have been lambasted by the Colorado Secretary of State.[1] The grassroots campaigns, the intense lobbying, and the coördination amongst certain of the electors themselves are already unprecedented. This already has a short paragraph in the Aftermath section on the article on the election, and I think it deserves some fuller coverage in the Contemporary Issues section of the article on the Electoral College itself, if not yet an article of its own. There are serious constitutional and political issues in play, and I think it behoves us to have that scaffolding in place. kencf0618 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 6 is preferable, because that is when we find out the Electoral College vote totals. SMP0328. (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the request I was puzzled by that date but after checking I saw that it was correct. As to the expansion that is something that should take place on the talk page. Just curious but is there any particular significance to the 6 January? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Electors vote on December 19, but we won't know for whom they voted before January 6. On that date, per the Twelfth Amendment, a joint session of Congress will count the electoral votes for President and those for Vice President. Then we will know for whom the Electors voted for each office. SMP0328. (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this actually the case? I understand the pro forma process, but is this conduit of secrecy between December 19th and January 6th a given? Then again, the secrecy of the ballot (who voted for whom) doesn't apply to the electoral college, which is in of of itself another interesting wrinkle. All the more reason for expansion given this unique election cycle. kencf0618 (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. what I meant was why did they pick 6 January rather than the 5 or 7 or something else. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There shall be solid reportage long before Congress does the official tallying. kencf0618 (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Was there particular points of contention why this article is under dispute? Looking at the page history, @Alasdair: changed the article while it is under protection.[1] If the edit is controversial or part of the dispute, this admin should not have changed it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zzyzx11. Thanks for pointing that out. It was the reason the page was protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssinian People

Hi, I see that you have protected Abyssinian people and the protection is on the undiscussed disputed version. Duqsene deleted contents which were sourced with reliable sources that have been added after consensus was achieved with the user Soupforone following a long discussion [2]. Why user keeps deleting them is not clear as he did not open section in the article's talkpage and explain them so that other editors who developed & maintain the article for several years have their say. For these reasons it would be best if it is rolled back to the version that has stayed for several months until consensus is acheived. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever version it was on at the time. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpens

Hi there! I am a relatively new editor and recently tagged an article Lumpens for [WP:A7]] which you deleted. The article has been recreated with the same content and was patrolled and marked reviewed an hour after deletion. I am looking for advice on how to proceed, and just general input on this type of thing from an experienced administrator. This seems similar to an edit war which I don't want to engage in. I have been involved in similar activity on a couple other pages and this seems quite common on new page patrolling. Help me be bold AND correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCrazedBeast (talkcontribs) 14:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheCrazedBeast I would think that your best option would be, if you believe that the article should be deleted, is to send it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Don't worry to much about being correct. You can't be correct all the time. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there CambridgeBayWeather. You recently protected the article Controversial Reddit communities through December 19, for what seem to be excellent reasons - I have no objection to this. In the meantime, there seems to be a consensus at Talk:Violentacrez that the Violentacrez article (formerly titled Michael Brutsch) should be merged there. I will share my own opinion: I do not like negative BLP1E articles like Violentacrez to exist at all. I would perform the merge that other editors appear to be okay with, but I currently cannot due to the protection. If protection was lifted, I could proceed, but that might not be a good idea, since the original protection was well justified. Is it possible that you could look at the Violentacrez article and perform a neutral merge of any content you feel is missing from the parent article? I know it is asking a lot, but as I said I don't like those sort of articles existing for one second longer than they have to. If you're not inclined to do so then I will complete the merge on the 19th, assuming no objections in the meantime. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thanks in advance for your reply. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has only just opened. Should give it a few more days. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Well, you know how I feel about it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Welkom to my house an implausible redirect to the Flo Rida song

Hi. I have noticed you recently deleted Welkom to my house as an implausible redirect to the Flo Rida song My House. Even though the song mentions the word "Welcome" and not "Welkom" and has zero connection with the South African and Dutch/Afrikaans word for welcome, it is still a plausible redirect because if you go on Google search Canada the first thing that pops up when you search Welkom is not the major South African city but Welkom to my house referring to the Flo Rida song. Same thing on Google search U.S.A. Welkom to my house will most likely continue forever to be the first thing that pops when searching Welkom as the song is now over 3 years old. On Youtube Canada Welkom to my house comes in second when searching UK. On Google UK and South Africa the city is the first thing that pops up when searching Welkom, however Welkom to my house is still a thing pops up if you make a deeper search. I will recreate the redirect for now. If you still think that it is an implausible redirect you are more than welcome to nominate the redirect for deletion through a discussion of various Wikipedians and users that can vote in favour of keeping or deleting. But do not speedy dlete. --Special:Contributions/Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violator evading block

Hello. You worked on this report [3] and blocked the IP [4]. The IP had in his last words that he was going to AFD article if he did not have his way [5]. After you have blocked his IP, a new account (created in october with only 130 edits) has come up and AFD the article. Like the IP account accuse others of trolling in revert summary [6] [7], use rv instead of revert in revert summary [8] [9]. Can not be just luck. He is evading block. Can you unroll his AFD [10] it is unauthorized in evasion of his block. --Bejan1 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced enough that they are the same person. If you believe they are then you should open a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

don't protect the page. We are trying to remove the negative false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasheed Z (talkcontribs) 02:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deleting my page

why did you delete my page? Mind your business, what i was doing with my page concerns you. and no one cares about meteoroligists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliagalesi (talkcontribs) 01:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juliagalesi. Your page was deleted because it has nothing to do with contributing to an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:User pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help ; My page text has been deleted.

Hi,

I see that my homepage text has been deleted - presumably as result of a recent review by you.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've a couple of problems with that and hope you can help me with both.

The first is that I don't understand what the the decision meant. i.e I didn't understand what it is that I'm expected to do. If you could explain it in simple terms I'd be happy to comply pro tem.

The second point is that I'd like to appeal the decision because:

It was a believe quite contrary to natural justice for Editor Mutt Lunker to be permitted to participate in the decision making process. Mutt was the complainant.

Mutt and I have been engaged in a four year long dispute about Wikipedia's 'Scots language'. For all of that time Mutt has engaged in constant malicious and vexacious personal attacks on me as well as edit warring ( I never delete his material or anyone else's).

Our long dispute centres on the historical veracity of the history sections on the Scots language page.

I've spent a huge ammount of time checking original sources and alternative sources. There is no doubt whatsoever that the currently reported 'history' is most often little more than political and romantic myth. I've no axe to grind, I just like my history to be factual.

Though I very early suggested to page editor M Lunker that at the very least some sort of 'criticism' section be added to direct wiki users to the overwhelming evidence that the 'history' is anything but real history, but he has rejected my every attempt to inject some reality into the page(s) claiming that I'm simply pushing a POV.

Not only has Mutt rejected such a suggestion, but he also took to attacking me personally, not least making silly claims that I was a sock puppet, as well as following me around Wikipedia deleting my always helpful and informative comments.

Mutt's behaviour is that of a 'Cybernat' i.e. a Scottish Nationalist and political activist dedicated to on-line harassing anyone seen to oppose the cause of Scottish Independence.

The problem at the moment is of course that my personal Wiki page is (was!) the only place that anyone with a serious interest in the history of this subject can read the evidence that Mutt Lunker, through his enforced censorship, ensures cannot be accessed anywhere else on Wikipedia.

Mutt is in my view just a sad politically-motivated saboteur. My observations on the Scots language are I should emphasise not in the least eccentric - indeed they are virtually the same as those expressed by James Murray founding editor of the OED.

All help and advice appreciated.

Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandrathesceptic. Sorry it was moved to User:Cassandrathesceptic/Scots Language rather than deleted. I forgot to post the link on your talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ANI thread, you would think it is well established that Cassandrathesceptic has been using multiple IPs since 2012 besides her registered account. (Using various IPs, she signed her name as 'Cassandra' in plain text on various Scots language issues). Her IP-hopping caused range blocks to be necessary. I am willing to led sleeping dogs lie, but Cassandra seems to be engaging in new abuse (above) against Mutt Lunker here on an administrator's talk page. She accuses User:Mutt Lunker without evidence of being a "Scottish Nationalist and political activist dedicated to on-line harassing anyone seen to oppose the cause of Scottish Independence." She illogically denies any sockpuppetry. If this abuse is going to continue, I think a block of Cassandrathesceptic for the personal attacks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I agree and I've hidden the attacks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physicist

First of all, Hi.

I guess you are an administrator seeing Admins section at the top. Usually admins have this I am administrator flag and it might confuse people. (It confused me)

I am here to talk to you about the action that you made by protecting Physicist, this page is currently in a problematic state on reasons that doesn't hold any value to wikipedia and that too persistently. You may see an edit that I made in an updated form by others are currently being reverted by 1-3 people in general. Everything was proceeded by the rules but when things went to go smoothly two of them started to halt and disrupt anything newly contributed. You may see the current reverted edit and find everything to be in good order and it answers everything in the talk page before diverting to show ownership. Links like engineergirl.com and science.iit.edu were removed because they were promotional in nature and didnt have any valid statement just some words, the current introduction is also wrongly stated per sources...etc. I hope you would see the matter neutrally and can revert or revert what requires to be reverted. I am not going to talk further with the one who asked for the block or the one who now keeps reverting without a reasonable summary.

Discussion is not a option anymore, reasons for this could be seen by going through the talk page reasons. They are dragging and wikilawyering. But if you could take a look at it and offer a solution or evaluate per policies and recommend appropriate actions without gravely neglecting everyone involved, it would be very effective and might reduce this continuous disruptions.59.96.166.70 (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should take it WP:Dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy

Hi. Please can you explain how this userbox was an attack page? And was there a discussion for its deletion? JAGUAR  14:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar. It was deleted as a speedy under WP:G10. Take a look and comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 December 13. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I couldn't find the discussion anywhere! JAGUAR  15:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embed

Greetings! There's a bit of a problem here with a mobile phone user, who keeps appending a redirect contra WP:WTAF and WP:EMBED. Could you please keep an eye on the page? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So an editor -- an administrator, no less -- edit-wars to include irrelevant content, breaking 3RR against two different editors, and your response is to protect the page on the edit-warrior's version? You know, there's "the wrong version" and then there's just plain wrong. --Calton | Talk 08:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calton. You should have given me a few minutes to finish. I was dealing with another request, a vandal IP, a break for coffee and a smoke, and off Wikipedia stuff. The wrong version for 30 minutes is not a problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I am a little curious about your statement, "should have blocked". Could you perhaps tell me what you were referring to there? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Sebastian. They were edit warring and as experienced editors they should have been blocked. However, my feeling is that if it is confined to one article blocking is of little use. Blocked editors can't discuss the problem on the articles talk page but they can if the page is locked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case is an administrator and shouldn't have been even CLOSE to breaking the 3RR (especially considering he warned Jack Sebastian over the very issue), nor Wikilawyering over content. But I've reported him at the Edit-Warring noticeboard for a second opinion. --Calton | Talk 09:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just noticed.
(ec) The wrong version for 30 minutes is not a problem I'm not a mind-reader or prophet, so I'm not sure how, exactly, I'm supposed to have known that. Next time, I'll just have a drone deployed from the (CIA/NSA/MI5/MI6/CSIS/DGSE/Amazon Prime [please select as appropriate]) to track your movement. But thank you for reverting to the status quo. --Calton | Talk 09:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay. I'd like to point out that while Daniel is an admin, he's jsut a human editor like you or I. Everyone makes mistakes, and while I think he's taking the long road to arrive at this realization, I think this more a case of Daniel not fully understanding our concerns, though the canvassing for his viewpoint is certainly cause for concern. Thanks for explaining the side comment, CBW. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Greetings

Season's greetings and thanks for all your hard work here. I would like to politely suggest that you use your blocking tool a bit more often and decline to protect articles which are disrupted by just one or two editors. Consider this editor for example, who really should have been blocked for edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ You are probably right. That one came from the WP:RFPP page. My feeling is that both would have required blocking as they were both edit warring. I tend to feel that blocking them stops them from any opportunity to discuss the matter. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

odd

somehow i reverted something of yours totally unintentionally. apologies, have reversed it. have a good christmas anyways - cheers JarrahTree 07:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JarrahTree. No problem these things happen. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral College (United States)

Hi,

I was just wondering why the Electoral College (United States) page is protected?

Is there a particular reason?

Take Care. Thanks. JLOPO (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JLOPO If you look a few sections up there is more information. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Thanks I did not see that. Happy Holidays I have been planing my trip to Iqaluit for sometime. Thanks Again. JLOPO (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hope you enjoy Iqaluit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, CambridgeBayWeather!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas CambridgeBayWeather!!
Hi CambridgeBayWeather, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Need page protection

Greetings, Sir. You have protected this page after an edit war caused by Maleagant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the same troublesome user has also been involved in an edit war here, on another page. His edits have been reverted, so the page is OK now, but it needs to be protected from his further edit-warring. Dolchstoß (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dolchstoß. I've semi protected for a week as the IP looked disruptive. If Maleagant resumes the edit war they will be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. Dolchstoß (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi :) A note I've left for you at Rfpp. Thanks. Lourdes 02:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello CambridgeBayWeather, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing,
CAPTAIN RAJU () 21:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

What about the above pages? Can you change time to indef? George Ho (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho. I think Ingot them all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not sure whether you want to change the ECP protection time for Benjamin Netanyahu to indef and reset PC. Would you do that. George Ho (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho. Got it as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And reset the PC setting? George Ho (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot about that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

22:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Happy times to you, too

Holiday Greetings! CBW

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen () 02:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CambridgeBayWeather,

I am unsure where the discussion about this disambiguation page should go. What would you suggest ? Inwind (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at Talk:Lake (disambiguation). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMW does make flash drives.

BMW makes flash drives that resemble their key fobs. These flash drives are available at the local BMW dealer. Therefore, please unprotect the page so I can say that BMW makes flash drives.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B128:3B4A:50B9:ECC6:8A5B:4C5C (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to go to the talk page and bring it up for discussion there. You also need a reference that BMW actually makes them. The reference says that BMW sells them, not that they make them and, aside from the headline, does not even say it is a real key fob. Many companies have branded merchandise but don't make it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is now being used for vandalism on Airbus A380, and will probably be blocked shortly. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Protected and blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1337gamer

He wasn't explaining his reason to me of why he removed them from the article, He did it without explaining it at all. Also, filmographys don't needs sources like I said. 2600:1000:B01D:3B66:CCE0:D806:B40:57D0 (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted module testcases page

The logs say that you have deleted Module:Autotaxobox/testcases to "make way for move from Autotaxobox/testcases", answering User talk:Peter coxhead#Testcases page in mainspace, but the page was not actually moved because of inconsistent page content models. Can you please check to see what else went wrong, and undelete Module:Autotaxobox/testcases? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed it and left a message at Wikipedia talk:Lua#Moving. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your full protection of Serbian Air Force and Air Defence

Hello. I noticed that you full-protected the article, as if it was a simple content dispute, but it isn't a content dispute. I updated the list of aircraft in the article to what the definitive source on these things, the International Institute for Strategic Studies' "World Air Forces 2016" says, but it didn't take long until a steady stream of IPs and new accounts attacked it, some (like the IP who posted af WP:RFPP) reverting to what older versions of WAF, with higher numbers, say, some (also including that IP) making changes "sourced" to blogs, forums and other non-RS sources (the second source of that IP is a Serbian blog/aggregator site that doesn't say where it gets its information from), and some (also including that IP) just inflating the numbers, without providing any source at all for it. I intended to use the moment of calm a semi-protection would offer to restore the numbers to what WAF2016 says, but since the article is now full-protected I can't, so I've unwatched it instead, and won't bother with it any more, because if I can't get support when I need it, I see no point in wasting time and effort on it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W. Would you like the protection level reduced? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy happy!

Happy New Year!
North America1000 01:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, CambridgeBayWeather!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, CambridgeBayWeather!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Hello CambridgeBayWeather: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU () 21:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, CambridgeBayWeather!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, CambridgeBayWeather

Just checking

Happy New Year (a few days late) CBW. The Guns N' Roses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article showed up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I think it is due to the fact that, when you changed the protection on the first, you altered the "page move" part of the protection from "indef" to "expires Jan 8" - I think that all I have to do to get it out of the category is to add the expiry time to the "pp-move" template. But, I thought it was worth checking to see if the move protection should be changed back to indef. I looked at the logs and couldn't decide whether indef move protection was merited or not. I know this message is kinda long winded so my apologies if it is confusing. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD. I'm not sure if it needs indefinite page move protection. There doesn't appear to have been any problems but it you won't to change it I don't mind. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Thanks for taking a look. I'm not an admin so I can't alter the protection. I agree with you that it doesn't look like indef move protection is needed so I just added the expiry time to the template. Just to be safe it might be worth adding the page to your watchlist (if it isn't there already) on the off chance that things go haywire after the seventh. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see there was a discrepancy between the protection template and the actual move protection. But the move=sysop protection was there almost continuously since 2008 and I think its last change might have been inadvertent. There is a long-running dispute about the spelling of this band's name that goes back to 2004, if you check the talk archive. (Guns N' Roses versus Guns n' Roses and sometimes Guns and Roses). I'd favor restoring the indefinite move protection. It is not much of a hardship to expect people to open up a WP:RM. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding your input EdJohnston. I was unaware of the previous problems. Based on this and another edit to the article I have struck part of my earlier post and would agree that "move protect indef" is the way to go. MarnetteD|Talk 21:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston and MarnetteD. I restored the indefinite move protection. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CBW. MarnetteD|Talk 19:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Masood

Hi Admin! Please see this also, Thanks! M. Billoo 15:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous edits and reverts to add biased content

There have been numerous attempts to introduce biased content on this page. The page has been protected and thus biased content cannot removed.

Alw1216 (talk Alw1216 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Draft:Sukuma Calendar

@CambridgeBayWeather:, ==Deletion review for Draft:Sukuma Calendar== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Sukuma Calendar. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nghwaya (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider re-applying the expired semi-protection to this article? I think I have it on my watch list from a fairly recent ANI thread or something. In any case, it was a shrine of puffery and unwarranted c-quotes, plus overly detailed (and privacy-violating) information on her one child. It's IPs that are always adding and edit-warring over this stuff, and they are doing it now after my (relatively small) cleanup. If you would semi it again, then thanks. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender. Semied for a month. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I appreciate it. Softlavender (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you protected the main page, I have come to you to say that I think it might be time to protect the talk page now; the disruptive IP is back and removing the same section again. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JudgeRM. I protected for a week. Let me know if it needs longer. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary, you closed the MfD as keep but on the actual page, it's closed as a delete. Oversight? JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JudgeRM Thanks. It appears that I can't type. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what?

Closed keep according to the edit summary, but "The result of the discussion was: Delete". Would be good to have reasons either way as a close debate with various outcomes suggested.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JohnBlackburne. Thanks. That's two in one evening. See the section above. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting this template! However, your edit broke the template -- see, for example, Musicology. It should work if you put the template after the redirect code. Thanks:Jay8g [VTE] 04:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay8g Thanks for catching that. It's a problem with TWINKLE. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten these edits. For redirects, we never use the {{pp}} family - a different set of templates are used: {{R semi-protected}}; {{R template-protected}}; {{R fully protected}}, and these always go after the #REDIRECT [[...]], on a new line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64. I did remember that after Jay8g left the message. I wish there was a warning that TWINKLE gave that the protection template was going to be in the wrong place or just disable the adding of templates for those cases. Anyway not an excuse and entirely my fault. I need to remember not to use TWINKLE when protecting templates. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I see that you were the one that protected the article about the Keddie murders per my request. Could you please take a look at the articles aboutKeddie murders again and Roger Kibbe. Editor, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has removed the infobox at Keddie murders[11] which was really helpful with sketches of the suspect and other information. I find it also weird that the editor in question and another editor simply ignored the request that no controversial edits should be made without consensus that was placed at the articles talk page[12]. A discussion did not even start before the infobox was removed again. So I simply gave up. Then the next day Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi basically stalked me to the article Roger Kibbe and again removed information that was disputed without joining the discussion at the talk page. He left a note after removing the info and had reverted my edit with the reasoning Rm unsourced trivia.), while in fact the section was sourced[13]. I just find it a bit weird that one user follows my edits. I might be completely wrong and then I will drop it, but I prefer if another editor takes at least a look at this. (User Motthoop was also involved this time, this user was the instigator for the last edit war which led to the protection of the article). Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried WP:Dispute resolution? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request undelete of: James Satloff

Hi - this is our first time checking out Wikipedia. The subject of the captioned article sits on our board of directors, and we were trying to add in this fact to all of our board members, with appropriate news citations. It would be helpful to us if you would undelete this article. Had we seen the PROD tag (again, this is the first time we are attempting to add in content to Wikipedia, so it's new to us) we would have asked at that time.


Thanks for all the hard work you do for Wikipedia - it's impressive!

Best regards

locksmith10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksmith10 (talkcontribs) 14:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locksmith10. No problem. It is back at James Satloff. Enjoy editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks so much for your help. It is great to have someone like you to show and teach. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksmith10 (talkcontribs) 15:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah Discography

Can you help on Aaliyah discography with this user reverting my edits? I only add the sales from BMG club, with a reliable source. The user Mulaj acts like he owns Aaliyah's articles. 88marcus did help me but now Mulaj is reverting and insulting me.--PassenzaT (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Aurora Helicopters

Deletion discussion about Aurora Helicopters

Hello, CambridgeBayWeather,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Aurora Helicopters should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Helicopters .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onam

Hope these two edits [14] will give you some idea about the word Hindu and how it is wrongly used by so many ignorant people. Hindu is a Persian word. One has to look at how and when this non-Indian word was used for the first time in various regions of modern-day India. In the article Onam, the use of the word Hindu in historical context is terribly wrong and misplaced. Onam is a very ancient rice harvest festival, it is not a religious festival, but some people try to hijack it and want to project it as their own religious festival and even use Wikipedia to achieve their goal.42.109.203.204 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are in the wrong place. You want Talk:Onam. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Simply Gluten Free Magazine

Hi there, This page I was working on was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Simply_Gluten_Free_Magazine&action=edit&redlink=1 I had posted a question and a request for some assitance on the last reviewer's page, SwisterTwister (or at least I thought I did, but can't seem to find where the post is now) and I was waiting on a response but never got one and anyway, I just noticed the page was deleted. I was trying to get some issues resolved with the sources, so if you could undelete the page and let me work on it some more that would be great. Thank you! M.Renae (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M.Renae. Restored to Draft:Simply Gluten Free Magazine. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing deletion of Credible draft AfC

Hello CambridgeBayWeather. I am contacting you as the administrator who deleted the draft AfC on Credible[1]. I will be requesting a deletion review, and am contacting you first, as instructed. I will be appealing that "significant new information has come to light" and that this page was "wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted," and that there were "substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion."

The editor who nominated the article for deletion, SwisterTwister[2], and the reviewer who rejected the article on Dec. 17, Zppix[3], were unresponsive to requests for specifics after substantial edits had been made to the article at the direction of previous reviewers.[4] [5]

I am wondering why SwisterTwister felt it was worth the time and effort to help improve the article "Hoss's Steak and Sea House" [6]but could not provide helpful input to the draft article on Credible or at least notify me that it had been nominated for deletion.

The article on Credible was extensively sourced, citing media reports from The New York Times, U.S. News & Word Report, CNBC, CNN Money, The Wall Street Journal and NBC Nightly News [7].

Most recently, on Jan. 18 Bloomberg reported that Credible has raised $10 million in additional funding and "participates in just under $1 billion in lending a year, including new student loans, refinancings and personal loans." [8]

This is a legitimate article about a commercial entity, written in a neutral tone. There are no opinions expressed in this article, and it is written in a tone that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." [9]

Wikipedia editors are instructed that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." [10]

I am concerned that Wikipedia readers are being denied access to important information because Wikipedia editors are being overzealous in pursuing the admirable goal of keeping the site free of spam. 162.245.21.61 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to Draft:Credible. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CambridgeBayWeather, appreciate the opportunity to update and resubmit the article. 162.245.21.61 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Bigg Boss Kannada 4

As this page has always been a victim to persistent disruptive editing, I request you to please block the IP edits by semi protecting the page once again. Would be helpful if the protection duration is a month. Thanks! AkshayAnandTalk! 05:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AkshayAnand. I see it got protected while I was sleeping. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objection

You just deleted the page of a Prominint Yemeni female activist.. why is that? Rashaahmed78 (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashaahmed78. Did you read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hind Al Eryani?

Crayfish

Thank you for your help, but the changes that are in dispute are being added by Catholic Laitinen, an established user who will have no problems continuing his disruption, adding admitted personal opinions to a scientific article. My request was for full protection, in hopes he seeks consensus for his opinions. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc. Sorry I must have misread it. Full protection now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx . Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlpearc: This is a tempest in a teapot if I have ever seen one! I have no intention of waging a war over such a minor issue, and I have no intention of going to the trouble of opening a discussion over a minor vocabulary change. I know what "hardier" means and I suppose that is all that matters. It is disconcerting that you make me out to be some contentious psychopath who is going to put his opinions before the project, especially since you are the one who undid my edit, which did absolutely no harm to the article, perhaps even improving it! Without personal opinions having at least some part, how could Wikipedia ever improve? Don't ever accuse me of being disruptive again. (Sorry about placing this stern, yet perfectly licit defense of my edit on your talk page; I wanted to make sure that I was replying to particular comments made by Mlpearc. There is no need to "protect" any article from me. God bless you!) ☧Catholic Laitinen☧ (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Boggis

Hi CambridgeBayWeather. I've only just noticed that on 14 November 2015 you deleted the page Andrew Boggis with the comment "Expired PROD, concern was: does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC."

A note on my talk page would have been welcome. I can remember nothing at all about Boggis or why I created the page, but I must have believed he met the GNG, and I'm not sure he's an academic. WP:ACADEMIC says this: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant."

Would you mind reinstating the page and starting an AfD? Moonraker (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker. No problem. Restored now and PROD removed. You would need to as Risker as to why you didn't get a notification. I won't start an AfD. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there is consensus for keep. At the very least, you should explain your rationale as the closer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus. I believed that the editors requesting keep had better arguments. It could be moved though. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion close

Hey, I was just wondering if you could add some clarification to your stance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup which you closed. Obviously its not about the vote, its about the argument made. Quiet a number of people suggested that would should happen is the individual years should be deleted and merge them into the main tournament. Additionally a lot of the people votes based on WP:NOTSTATS, however I think that its clear whoever voted that way did not take the time to look through the exhaustive list that is impossible to group together. For example, if you look at Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic you will see there was a ton more than just stats there, all of which would now be lost, based on a nomination that could not realistic be grouped together. Can you perhaps take a closer look into this, since a lot of legitimate pages were also deleted, that probably shouldn't have been. Another example, with Israel at the FIFA World Cup being deleted here, they are now the only country ever to compete in the world cup not to have a dedicated page. Thanks - GalatzTalk 00:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz do you have a full list of the ones that you think should have been merged? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately because of the exhaustive list, it would take a while to put together an exact list, but as an example
Also based on those criteria, ones that didn't have separate years, such as Israel at the UEFA European Championship and Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship would have survived.
If you would be willing to reconsider I would be happy put together a comprehensive list for you. Thanks - GalatzTalk 18:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me a list I can restore the ones you need. Move them to your user space so you can merge the material and then move back to mainspace as redirects. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the ones that I would say should be restored, that would survive would be Israel at the UEFA European Championship, Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship, Israel at the EuroBasket, Israel at the EuroBasket Women, Israel at the FIFA World Cup, Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup, Israel at the European Championship of American football, Israel at the European Lacrosse Championships, Israel at the Women's European Lacrosse Championships, Israel at the World Lacrosse Championships, Israel at the Women's Lacrosse World Cup, Israel at the IIHF World Championship.
The ones that don't have content anywhere else on WP, that it would be helpful if you could restore and I will merge the content into the main article from would be Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships, Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships, Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship, Israel at the 2012 European Baseball Championship, Israel at the 2010 European Baseball Championship, Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic, Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic. I will then redirect them after merging the content, or I could let you know and you can delete them again. Thanks - GalatzTalk 21:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup should not be created for now. The country has never qualified for the event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz. I have restored the second group (User:Galatz/Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2012 European Baseball Championship, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2010 European Baseball Championship, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic) but the first will require a discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cloud28+ draft

Hi. You deleted the page Draft:Cloud28+, which I was still working on. The response from the last reviewer said I was able to keep improving it. Please explain this action. Holynightfever (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holynightfever. It is restored now at Draft:Cloud28+. The reviewer notice is just a general thing. It was deleted because of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cloud28+. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hi there, You semi-protected a page earlier today David Davies (Welsh politician) after several paragraphs kept being deleted by another editor. When protection was applied, these deleted paragraphs were not restored. Is the problem with the paragraphs themselves or was this a mistake? RightSaidFred (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]