Jump to content

User talk:CambridgeBayWeather

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.7.90.110 (talk) at 00:27, 7 February 2012 (→‎Talk: Prime Minister of Canada - Ministerial Infoboxes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:MsgEmail

I have two requests for people coming here:

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

Thanks.

Your mother was a hamster

and your father smelt of elderberries! --Shirt58 (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a WP:Very Stern Warning. As has been pointed out to me many times before, and will no doubt be pointed out to me many more times in the future: there is no place for humour in Wikipedia. Especially in "spoofed" signatures, or in edit summaries.Monty Python's "Spanish Inquistion" running joke 58 (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I need to get caught up on MP humor! I owe you a beer, but as it isn't 5PM in your neck of the woods, here's a cookie. And you don't have to share it with Shirt; I gave him one, too. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rankin Inlet

Please be advised that I am not editing the Rankin Inlet with the intention of vandalizing the information. I come originally from the community, and am 100% confident that the Inuktitut way of spelling the name of the community is a complete error (please look further into this before you decide to keep it as kangiqiniq). Rankin Inlet's Inuktitut name is pronounced with a "th" (also, I should point out that the actual syllabic way of writing it is correct in the Rankin Inlet wikipedia site, BUT the roman orthographic way of spelling is completely wrong). There is nobody from the community who will pronounce it is as "Kangiqiniq", nor will they spell it in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous198 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Its a proven fact that 99.9% information found on wikipedia is lies, propganda, and so on Please fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusade8 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to include sources for your claim. Also it's not my day for doing that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Eritrea

Please check the USDoS source before reverting my edits thank you. Tron9698 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks, didn't notice. I'll AfD. All the best --Neutralitytalk 06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Vox Femina Los Angeles

Can you restore this to my userspace please? I didn't notice the PROD. I'm skeptical that this is a slam-dunk delete, but I'd like to take a look at it first. Herostratus (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Progressives article

I note this:

  • "06:58, 17 November 2011 CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) deleted "Scottish Progressives" ‎ (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection)"

What exactly was the problem with this article? I would like to see a copy of the deleted text. Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Now I understand why it was prodded! Might merit a quick AFD, or a Redirect to Progressives (Scotland), but I don't have any strong opinions either way. It seems unlikely to survive an AFD. Thanks anyway.--Mais oui! (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Your recent speedy deletion (11:23, 21 November 2011 CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) deleted "Michelle Obama's arms" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms.) of this article for reason G4 seems inappropriate because the article had and was being improved. For example, I had just cited a scholarly article and was adding more such content. Sufficient time of over a year seems to have elapsed for this topic to have matured and more sources to accumulate. Please restore the topic so that it may be considered more fully and properly. Warden (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather IP

Hello, saw you reverting addition of weather data by 174.117.71.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Helsinki. I have earlier reverted unexplained alterations to weather data by anonymous IP in the same article (can't remember if the same IP though.) This user anyway has multiple warnings on his talk page. Do you have any more information about this pattern? Thank you, hydrox (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably was the same person. The problem is that while they sometimes add material that doesn't match the source or conflicts with the countries weather office, they also add material that wasn't in the article. And they don't respond to anything so far. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be that they are not replying because everyone has only pasted templates on their talk page? If someone actually engaged them in a written dialogue, they might reply. --hydrox (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could well be right. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Dashboard upgrade

Hi CambridgeBayWeather,

Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! I wanted to let you know that the tool just got an important update (see here for details). I also wanted to invite you to the IRC office hours session that Steven and I are going to hold this Sunday, December 4. Hope you can make it and share your experience/questions with us! Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Kingsmen

Thanks for the clarification. So would it be possible for me to create a new page using proper citations and references?

SPAs

Hi CambridgeBayWeather. There seems to be a bit of an edit war over on the Amanda Lindhout page between a group of SPAs. When you have the time, could you please have a look at it and perhaps also add the page to your watchlist. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Wikiproject on Commons?

Hey mate, I've had an idea of starting an Aviation WikiProject on Commons. I have created a page at Commons:User talk:Russavia/Proposal where I hope that if other editors think this is a good idea, we can all come up with ideas, etc. Please keep all comments on that page for time being, and if you know of other editors on Commons or on other language projects who might be interested in commenting, coming up with ideas, etc, please let them know of the discussion. Let's see if this could be a workable project. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

List of airports in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links to Hassan, Daman, Shravasti, Along, Bijapur, Sultanpur, Akbarpur and Ghaziabad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting

Hi CambridgeBayWeather,

Please can you stop reverting the article named "Khawaja" to previous edit versions. I have removed the origins passage due to very poor citation. It is better that nothing is posted than something that is unverifiable true or not. Thanks

talk

Please get me into the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.140.88 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Zacharias Kunuk

Hello, and thank you for editing my article. I've been wondering when someone might find the time to improve my work. I most certainly appreciate any "help" or "advice" you might offer me and will do me best to learn as I go. This experience is, obviously, very new to me and I will enjoy checking in from time to time in the future. Now, a question: Zacharias Kunuk personally told me I could use any photo of him I wanted. I am totally naive re: copyright law and will appreciate any education on this topic you can share. Please know, also, I am not very capable when it comes to computers and will need work to find your response.153.90.171.89 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. All images must be released under a Creative Commons License. For the most part images on websites are copyright of the sites owner. This includes sites that don't have a copyright notice. The site must state that the image has been released under licence compatible with Wikipedia. Now if you are in contact with Zacharias Kunuk then it might be easiest to ask him for a picture. There is some good information about that at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. You would need to explain that the image would be available not only on Wikipedia but anywhere on or off the internet including places that want to make money. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries...

No worries, happy to help out. Calistemon (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Very persistent IP-hopping vandal

Greetings. If you have time, could you take a look at:

89.148.5.173 ( current )

89.148.27.194

89.148.52.85

89.148.26.229

89.148.25.101

89.148.27.194

89.148.5.118

84.255.157.2

84.255.185.84

84.255.129.99

Notice how nearly all the edits and edit summaries are similar, as well as the repeated edit-warring on Qizilbash, Ismail I, Safavid dynasty, Muhammad al-Bukhari articles.

I strongly believe that they are all the same person. While I try to revert the vandalism, keeping up is difficult, and I am not sure if it is wise to ask for all the pages they edit to be protected/semi-protected. What would be the appropriate next step ?! I have added a few warning to the user pages, but they are ignored, or the warnings are simply blanked. Thank you for your time. Unflavoured (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unflavoured

unflavoured is moaning because he cant put an independent source to prove that the Safavids were ghulat and Bukhari wasnt heterodox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.5.173 (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Employee

Hello Sir/Ma'am. I work for ProjectorGames and you have deleted my webpage I just made for my company. I was wondering if you could delete it as I work for them.

Thank you very much.

Curtis Hale - ProjectorGames Community Manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumhead195 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No.

No, What i mean is, my page i made (ProjectorGames) is the company I work for. I don't believe it should have been deleted as there is no promotion, purely to let people know who the company are. I would appreciate it if you could un-delete my article.


Thank you for your time.

Curtis Hale - ProjectorGames Community Manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumhead195 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

official page

But it's on the official ProjectorGames website? Is that not reliable?

Curtis Hale - ProjectorGames Community Manager.

--Plumhead195 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 2012!

Happy New Year!
CBW, wishing you all the best! Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I replied on my talk page. Stormbay (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please i need the details in my page back... i dont have my back-up

I used to create an article of our Organization in order to promote the name of it... It was entitled

CPAGS PUP (Circle of Public Administration and Governance Students)

and the second article is

KILOS! PUP (Organization)

I really need this information and hope u could send it to me and together with the format i used to do with it... thanks

Jay Nicolas 14:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecara09 (talk • contribs)

"_____ in popular culture"

Are you aware of any "_____ in popular culture" articles that have been singled out as being of particularly good quality? For the most part, at least in my experience, such articles are generally a mess of un- or poorly-referenced material, trivia, and speculation. But, this is not necessarily so in all cases. Has any such article ever made it to FA or GA status? I ask not out of mere curiosity, but because I am working on such an article, and I am looking for some good examples to use as a guide. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great help. Thank you! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mizen Potato

Hi CambridgeBayWeather,

I understand your concerns, no harm done. I'm quite proud of my first Wikipedia page on the Mizen potato! I hope to contribute more to Wikipedia when I can. Actually this editing Wikipedia is all new to me, please let me know if this correspondence is the correct way to communicate with people.

Thanks, --Rorywales (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello. my company wikipedia you deleted. I want have created elsaofis.com wikipedia page. please help me. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackstark (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply to your question at the Help desk

(In case you have stopped looking for replies) To tag a photo with questionable permission I would use {{subst:npd}} (which substs to {{di-no permission}}). —teb728 t c 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Damien Roberts

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Damien Roberts. 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. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Service

Thanks for the clean up. Span (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Forces Base North Bay

Thanks for the remarks. Please note: our page was put together and being amended by people who (a) had never served at our base, and (b) who couldn't be bothered contacting us either for information or to confirm the accuracy of what they were writing. Consequently it was a dog's breakfast of omissions and inaccurate data, that reflected badly on our base. Our command and senior staff were unhappy, to say the least. In 2011 we began a wholesale re-write of the page. It has taken time primarily because we have had other military duties and tasks that demanded our attention, but we have almost finished the text. Meantime, regarding images, we have been gathering and sorting photos and graphics for the page from our archives, and shall be inserting them as soon as possible.

The Underground Complex section is lengthy because of its unique status, the only facility of its type in Canada and NORAD. The so-called "Diefenbunkers" pale in comparison, and were never used by the politicians they were meant to protect. In contrast, the Underground Complex was used 24/7 for air defence from the moment it officially opened, and is 15 times deeper underground, designed to survive a nuclear blast approximately 270 times the destructive force of the bomb that flattened Hiroshima -- a blast that would destroy a "Diefenbunker". The Cheyenne Mountain Complex, NORAD's other sub-surface facility, functioned as nerve center for all of the command; our Underground Complex was the only subterranean regional air defence centre in NORAD. Even Alaska's air defence centre, across from the Soviet Union, was situated above ground. Despite this uniqueness, the Underground Complex is not described in any public book or similar publication, Canadian or foreign, and descriptions on Internet sites are haphazard and incomplete. (For example, the book "Cold War Secret Nuclear Bunkers", by N.J. McCamley, purporting to be the most quote comprehensive description unquote of British and North America subterranean sites, excludes the complex.) Therefore, since we get numerous requests for information about the complex, from school kids to the media, we have provided more detail than usual on a Wikipedia page about the Underground Complex.

Incidentally, you de-capitalized Main Installation on our page -- this is the correct title for the air defence operations half of the complex, thus its initials are capitalized. Just as Power Cavern is the title for the life support half. We appreciate your input -- with regards to specific and technical aspects on our page such as this we request that you contact us before making a change, to confirm. If we are, indeed, in error we are glad to have the 'heads up'.

Best wishes.

22WHERO (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CFB North Bay follow on to your remarks

Hello. Regarding "we": I am the person writing the page, on behalf of the base, as its Wing Heritage Officer. Since 1998 all of Canada's air force bases have a Wing Heritage Officer on their staffs, a person with a background in each base's field of operations. Mine is NORAD and Canadian air defence (over 25 years' experience). The Wing Heritage Officer at CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia, has a background in maritime patrol. Et cetera. Our assignment is to represent our respective air force history and heritage to the public, media and the military. Ergo the Wikipedia page fell under my purview. "We" comes into play, because I also use the resources and consult/coordinate with the staff of our base museum, a separate entity from the Wing Heritage Office. However, I am the guy doing the writing. The advantages to this procedure for re-writing are the information provided on the page is correct; I have access to references, files and publications that the public is not aware of, for data for the page; and I have vast personal experience in the subject matter, meaning I understand the subject matter in explicit detail, thus ensure its accuracy. This procedure also ensures the Wikipedia page is correct in accordance with Wikipedia standards. As stated in my original comments, our base's command and senior staff had finally had enough of our base's history and description being presented to the public via Wikipedia by people who had no knowledge of the base. So we -- in this case the base -- shall do whatever is necessary, in accordance with Wikipedia rules and regs, making adjustments wherever necessary upon advice from people like yourself, to produce a proper, factual page.

Regarding the images I intend to use, they are all CFB North Bay, Department of National Defence and Library & Archives of Canada photos. Each image will be annotated with a property caption. An example strictly to illustrate: "Tunnel entrance from the City of North Bay into the NORAD Underground Complex, Department of National Defence photo PCN4728". Therefore copyright in these circumstances is not a problem, since the images are in the public domain. The only outside sources I might elect to use are the city newspaper, The North Bay Nugget, and the city's museum, if their archives have something of value. In this case, the base would obtain permission before inserting their image(s) on our Wikipedia page.

As for IFSS CZNB, yes they do indeed work out of our site, as Arctic Radio. I have made a note to include them on our page.

Cheers.

22WHERO (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

I was about to request to create those categories. Could you help undo your reverts? And if possible, could you help create those categories? Thanks. 116.48.84.248 (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CAVOK

I couldn't find the ICAO standards anywhere online - that ref seems to be a Norwegian one, which may or may not be in line with ICAO. In any case, the CAVOK in the METAR section (that says "Clouds And Visibility") references a wiktionary entry that says "Ceiling And Visibility" - a direct contradiction. One or t'other should be changed. With regards to use in a METAR, I can't recall (seems like ages since we've actually had CAVOK weather)
P.S. Cumulonimbi? May be technically correct, but it's not like anyone actually uses it - how about cumulonimbus clouds...?
HiFlyChick (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I ever clued in to CAVOK being only in verbal comms - BTW, found the same ref in the AIM HiFlyChick (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut

I miss read I am sorry. If you go back to the article, the time conversions are written out in a well organized manner. Sorry. Cali4529 (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for mis reading your text. Cali4529 (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would appreciate it if you voted, once more then one person votes, the votes just start flying in. Cali4529 (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the page. You are using a source to cite Ahmadi beliefs, a source which has no mention of Ahmadis. I am introducing a source from the prelimnary website of the Ahmadiyya Community to go along with the rel belief of Ahmadis on the subject matter. Also your comment on what the Orthodox Muslim community thinks ab out he Ahmadiyya Community is highly unnecessary and introduces unnecessary bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaetornc (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Prime Minister of Canada - Ministerial Infoboxes

Hi CambridgeBayWeather. I am the user who changed the infoboxes on various political articles to the standardized template. I would like to know if you support or oppose this move, because on the talk page, there are four people (including me) who do support it, and one (Miesianiacal) who does not. If you have the time, you may want to read the talk page discussion, but it is long so I will also provide my reasons (and the reasons of others) to implement the change here.

Here they are (my reasons):

Here are my reasons why I think we should change the infobox:

1. Every political infobox on the English Wikipedia uses it

2. They look outdated, and the one I want to replace it with looks (in my opinion) much cleaner

3. It is the standard infobox for all politicians, why does Canada have to be different?

Here are some examples of the infoboxes used across the English Wikipedia:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Foreign_Affairs_%28Australia%29

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_of_India

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Defense

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France

And those are just some. Every political infobox is the same.

I am certain that the most used infobox template is the one I am proposing. If you look at various world leaders, (not monarchs) they all use the new template except Australia, New Zealand and Canada (I did change Australia and New Zealand and so far they seem to be okay with it). You can see what I am saying by looking at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government. The monarchs are the only one with the old template.

And here are other peoples' reasons:

1. "I might be commenting too late, but I think Infobox Political post is better. I see no need to colour code the ministries, and it does produce a CONTRAST issue. Infobox Political post looks more how an infobox should look, and includes fields for an emblem, and incumbent since. I think we should move to this to be consistent, and get rid of these silly colours." -117Avenue

2. "I think that being standardized provides more atheistic benefit than looking nicer.. In my opinion, the default should be standardized infoboxes and that we should only use a different one if (1) the standardized one lacks a feature that would provide important encyclopedic information for Canada, and (2) that feature cannot be or won't be implemented in the standardized template." —Arctic Gnome

3. I do like the new layout, because I am not a fan of the to color lines under the title "Prime Minister of Canada", as the contrast does not meet our basic standers for color contrasts (My wife is color blind and she say's she sees no words in the 2 colored strips (see WP:CONTRAST). -Moxy

MY MAIN ARGUMENT: CONSISTENCY

I've already changed the infoboxes for the Australian prime minister and the New Zealand prime minister, and people seem to be fine with the change. The Cabinet of Australia already has been updated to the new infobox by someone else a long time ago, and the New Zealand Cabinet doesn't have any infoboxes. The rest of the heads of state and government ALL accross Wikipedia (not including the monarchs, which I DO NOT want to change because they are not political figures), already have the same infobox, which is the new one I am proposing. The only infoboxes that need to be changed are that of the Cabinet of Canada and the prime minister of Canada. So, the only changes that would be made would be to Canadian political offices, so they match the political offices all across Wikipedia. The change ONLY applies to Canada, no one else.


NOTE: Everything said here (besides the introduction) was from the talk page at Talk: Prime Minister of Canada.

So, I would like to know, do you support or oppose my proposition? Thanks for taking the time to consider this, 174.7.90.110 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather&oldid=475489543"