User talk:CambridgeBayWeather

Page Deleted, please help

Hello!

I was attempting to publish a page for a friend, the name was "Ricky Gonzalez". He said he received a notice stating the format was incorrect, then it was deleted. When I attempted to recreate the page for him, it informed me to email you first. What was the reason for the original deletion?

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCancel25 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DCancel25. Are you sure you have the correct name? Ricky Gonzalez has been deleted three times, twice in 2005 and once in 2008 but not by me. The closest thing I could see was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abramx/Abraham Garcia Gonzalez which is from last December. The page waas created in 2011 and had nothing of value other than "Abraham Garcia Gonzalez nacio el 20 de agosto de 1990 en Ensenada, Baja California. Inversos destacado". I checked and other than the edit to my talk page you haven't made any other edits and that includes deleted ones. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please check out Galkacyo article and restore the removed cited content.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.109.105 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Son Nhat International Airport

I was wondering if you could protect this page for a while. Someone keeps adding Newark to United Airlines as they operate a direct flight but there is a plane change at HKG. A hidden note was made to direct them to WP:Airport but it keeps getting altered. There were possible socks that made the edits but they were blocked by a another user. Thanks! 107.77.235.34 (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EWR continues to be added to UA. Please protect a little longer. TravelLover37 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks fortaking care of "Rapid Flow"... Lookling more closely I discovered that it seems to be a promotional /COI situation. The same user made another similarly incomprehensible page, only sourced by medmira.com. I leave it to your judgement.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I htink it might have something salvageable... I'll pass it to DocJames to see if he can decipher it. Thanks and have an nice day.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)HappyValleyEditor. That one looks a bit problematic too. It was heavily sourced to the one company prior to the recent edits. It looks like a valid article but with just the one source. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and tagged it for consideration for CSD as spam. It seems to just promote one company and their products, and would require a scratch rewrite to be anything encyclopedic. For your assessment. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Medmira product page I'll leave it for now and see if DocJames has anything. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the look at it. The CSD tag is still there, so someone will assess it and take whatever action they deem appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I was just about to point out the COIN post but you beat me to it. A happy evening to all.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good example of how "collaboration works" here! - Ahunt (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking the same thing! Thank you both!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to both of you as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD has been declined with an invitation to send it to AfD. I think I will do so, to start a full debate on the subject and come to a more complete decision either way. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flow-through test - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Neill

Winkelvi has been edit warring all day to remove any notice of this actress' death. Multiple editors have added multiple references for various sources (Yahoo, The Hollywood Reporter, etc) and every time this editor removes it claiming it isn't WP:RS and then slaps them with template warnings and threatens them about edit warring. Can you please explain to them that they don't WP:OWN this article? Helper214 (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Yahoo News nor Hollywood Reporter are reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. BLP and RS guidelines must be applied here as well as WP:TRUTH. WP:OWN does not apply, WP:BLP does. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather, I had hoped that Pending changes would take care of the problem, but the issue is still ongoing. Can we up the RPP to full until there is a reliable source reporting her death (if it did, indeed, occur)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi. Is the New York Daily News a reliable source? It's reported here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's akin to the UK's Daily Mail or the National Enquirer. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi revereted that, too. As well as EW and every other source given. Helper214 (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time her death has been reported (other incidence was back in October) and not the first time a hoax death report on her has surfaced. The problem is that only mirror sites and online gossip sites are reporting it, no major news outlets are at this time. And the "news" of it has been out there for more than 24 hours. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patently untrue. This is being reported by multiple news sources and you reverted every single one and refused to engage on the talk page until after you got it protected and the conversation would be redundant. Helper214 (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect?

CambridgeBayWeather, thank you so much for responding so quickly to what was happening at the Noel Neill article. Rumors had been swirling around the internet for more than 24 hours when the article came alive (as so many do when someone has died or is rumored of dying). Caution taken because the article is a BLP seemed the right course to take. With the unreliable sources only reporting for over 24 hours about the possibility of her death, I just couldn't justify seeing a death date and place being added to a BLP without a major news source that fit Wikipedia's description of a WP:RS, hence my requests for page protection. It would see, at this time, that Noel Neill's death is now being reported by the Houston Chronicle and the Boston Herald. Could you unprotect the article so the content can be added? I do request, however, that you put it back on pending changes status as it's likely a bunch of IPs and brand new accounts will come out of the woodwork to put in their two cents (as always seems to happen in cases such as this). Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets busy then either semi of PC can be applied. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't mean to semi when you added move protection, I apologize - I thought that was the intention. Do you want me to lift? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Semi is fine. Not sure why I put move protection on. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick responses and help today, by the way. If you are American, Happy Fourth to you! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP request for The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism

Hi CambridgeBayWeather, you recently declined a protection request for this page because there was not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It doesn't need that since it falls under WP:ARBPIA3. For that reason, 30/500 protection is warranted. Would you reconsider your decision? --Majora (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One month then. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Islamist terrorist attacks?

The disruption resulting in this full protection was related to an open RfC which is now closed. Any problem with removing the prot early? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can second this request. The cause of the disruption has been settled by a recently closed RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss. I have no problem with that. However I am stuck on mobile and it unreliable. Can you get another admin. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the indef semi that was there before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ((u|NeilN}} I forgot about that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) NeilN CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

I see that you deleted Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal as a copyright infringement. The article has now been re-created, so if it is a copyright infringement then it should be deleted again. Do you know where it was copied from? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson I'm not sure where from but I think it was the official site. The last two sentences of the lead are copied directly. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Page

I'm not sure about that last sentence as it was not written by me. If a source can't be found then perhaps just delete it or make a "citation needed" note. Eureka is definitely one of the driest and coldest locations in Canada, I remember hearing that before. I will see if I can find some kind of reference for that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanbuffett (talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail to you

Sent you an email today on copyright issue. Please check Tom Higgins thiggins@pipeline.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjhigg (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Street College of Education

I notice that a privacy hold has been put on the Bank Street College of Education wiki page because of content that has been repeatedly added and deleted. The articles (NY Post and Fox News) that are cited in the text in question refer to an the Bankstreet School for Children, not the Bank Street College of Education. Is there a way to have this content fact checked before it is locked in place on the incorrect page? Estudiante70 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estudiante70. Go to Talk:Bank Street College of Education and start a discussion there. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive protection requests

Hi, same guy as User_talk:78.225.149.66 and User_talk:82.239.43.182 here. You recently granted two protection requests on GMC and Enterprise output management, but I think these requests were made for no good reason and quite possibly very wrong reasons, see also the discussion on User_talk:FoCuSandLeArN and User_talk:Drchriswilliams#Notability_of_GMC_Software. Would you mind reverting them, and telling their author that his move was abusive? That's for educational purposes, I'm probably not going to jump in and crazily edit them right away anyway.

Cheers, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VonBlinkendenzwoelf No. As you have been told don't add links in list to companies that don't have an article on Wikipedia. So I suggest you draftT an article on the particular company and see if it accepted. Make sure to provide good references. By the way just because the Spanish Wikipedia has an article does not mean that one must be made here. Also don't add unreferenced material. Finally I am not go to tell either Drchriswilliams or FoCuSandLeArN that they are abusive. Though I will say that an edit summary would have been a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This de-facto policy "don't add links in list to companies that don't have an article" is not what is actually documented in Wikipedia:Red_link and does not sound too reasonable either. For your information, the article in English actually existed in the past and was deleted due to "lack of notability" (the real reason probably being lack of activity fixing things on the article and ignorance of the market by those that supported the deletion), the Spanish article is a translation of it so the use of Drafts may help to cut short some nonsensical reverts and discussions, thanks for the suggestion.

Still, it makes me sad that you support abusive protection requests such as these ones: "Persistent disruptive editing – 2 IPs spamming links continuously today" for 1 trivial edit (not even "spamming links" ...) and 4 reverts I made because 2 other reverters did not document properly their own reverts for one, or check facts for the other. So much for "don't bite": in my opinion what the guy that requested the protection did is what should actually be considered disruptive, and is clearly incivility/abuse according to policies and common sense. Are you really sure you won't reconsider?

Cheers, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VonBlinkendenzwoelf, I've added our standard guidance for this situation to your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NeilN, I would probably not have found it myself. But don't you think posting this template (or just the link to it in the summary) should have happened right after the original edit today, and that qualifying my edits of "disruptive" and "spamming" given the information I was given at the time is ... abusive? Cheers, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather, as I currently can't edit Enterprise output management because of the protection you granted, could you please the merger template on its talk page to the appropriate place? Thanks, VonBlinkendenzwoelf (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Peewee ORM page

Hey, thank you for stepping in and putting a stop to this endless charade on the wiki page for my project. I'm Charles Leifer, the project's maintainer and creator. For the past month or so this guy Derek Anderson has been on a personal mission to publicly shame me.

The longer you guys want to lock this down the better, I say. This guy is so insane.

I would be fine with you all deleting the page if it made this Derek guy go away.

Charles -- http://charlesleifer.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.154.125 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayuto Correa

Your revert was reverted with the autobio re-added, my revert was then reverted, and I've reverted again. I've put a notice asking for more eyes at ANI here and have left messages with advice on the "two" editors who are tag-teaming. See User talk:Rexiregum and User talk:Umsaco. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the article and deleted the copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Frankly, while some of the past additions were clearly copyvio, I don't think the latest additions were copyvio, but rather "custom written" musings on his life. I ran a lot of distinctive phrases through Google and couldn't find any significant matches. I also cross-checked with the bios on his own website [1], IMDB [2], and AllAboutJazz [3]. Similarities, but not copypaste. Anyhow, we'll see what happens when the semi-protect expires. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore. Looks like you are correct. I restored those revisions. Couldn't do it earlier as I had no access. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter on Eskimo article

Hi there,

I noticed you reverted my edits, which was in fact a reversion to a prior state of the article.  This is OK but there are a few things you need to consider.  First, the reason for my own reversion: the article in current form is impossible to justify logically-- it does not make sense.  No one reading merely the intro to it can actually figure out what the word means, nor where it came from, nor if its use is legitimate, nor anything else.  Perhaps dysfunctional is the best word.

Second, the discrepancy between the U.S. and Canadian legal systems no longer exists at a federal level. This has been changed as of this year. It's worth noting too the distinction between U.S. law and Alaskan law. Under the U.S. constitution, the USA is very much governed according to a federal system. That is, it has powerful checks on the power of the national government (vs. the States). Therefore the distinction between federal law of the U.S. and the laws of the State of Alaska is not a trivial or academic one. Third, the discrepancy between the "politically correct" and "scientifically accurate", as well as the discrepancy in usage between " 'well-educated' speakers of the English language" and "everyone else" still exist and are quite glaring. They have to somehow be objectively addressed. It is not really possible to objectively address anything when the state of the intro looks like a lot of garbled facts (some of them misleading/inaccurate) thrown together. I appreciate that people's feelings are often non-linear, but the definition of a term and a concept in a Wikipedia, in the introduction at least, needs to be fairly linear and objective. That is, there needs to be clear and objective reference to both the problematic usage of the word, and to the scientific reason for which it has historically been used and indeed continues to be used in academic papers, though in the modern literature, no currently existing people is typically referred to. Fourth, the introduction of an objective article should be brief and clear. They say that brevity is the soul of wit. Well, for an encyclopedia, it is also the soul of objectivity. Fifth, when a very widespread term is also billed as a potentially offensive one, it needs to be made clear in what situations / for what reasons its use can be offensive, and in what situations / for what reasons its use might be justified, or at least understandable/forgivable. Sixth, in the above dialogue, I keep using the word "term". This is because "Eskimo" is really a word, not a concept to be fully explained. Even if one fully accepts that genetics and archaeology are truly sciences, which I do, it must be stated that the exact genetic, historical, and cultural descent of the Inuit(various)/Inupiaq and Yupik/Southern Yupik/Alutiq/Siberian-Yupik peoples, and even their relation to the Aleut or even the "indigenous" Native Americans, is not "well understood". However, as anyone very familiar with the science of climate change can tell you, just because something is not "well understood" and is rather politicized is not a good reason for ignoring the objective facts of the matter. If there is a debate over the "politcal correctness" of the Eskimo article, it is a debate over the term and its usage, not over the concept, which is very well summed up by the compound if slightly messy and misleading phrase "Inuit-Yupik". The main problem with retitling the article "Inuit-Yupik" is that it violates Wikipedia guidelines prohibiting original research, i.e. it essentially represents activism on the part of an arguably superior phrase. A strong argument can also be made against the utility of changing the name of the article to exclusively "Inuit-Yupik" without cross-referencing the word "Eskimo": that is, when some unsuspecting person uses google in the attempt to learn more about this very real group, as the premiere encyclopedia in the world, Wikipedia should still be the first hit and go-to place for people to learn about a fundamentally neutral concept, grouping, and scientific reference. I am copying this note to the "Talk" page, and reverting the article to the last form I had it in for now, please read through that version thoroughly before making changes. Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.122.132 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Patani DOB

Hi,

Disha Patani participated in Miss Indore 2013 contest where every contestant has to reveal their age. She turned 20 in 2012. Her official facebook page has a video of HERSELF on her Birthday thanking fans (13 June, 2016). https://www.facebook.com/DishaToabh/videos/604453726391043/

This is her video where she won Pantaloon Fresh Face in 2012 and she HERSELF confirms she is from Bareilly and a student of BTech in Lucknow University - 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1iQ2o1ilk8

What more can be reliable than the actor herself confirming details in videos? She made a special video to thank fans on her birthday and her fans know 13 June is her birthday. Her d.ob is 100% confirmed as 13 June, 1992.

As for birth year, I dont why her fans on wikipedia are ashamed of revealing it but here is the video from 2012 where she was the first runner up confirming her as 19 and she turned 20 the same year. All her interviews given since 2012, confirm her birth year as 1992.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXNi7RDe8ys

http://www.mazale.in/disha-patani-height-age-career-personal-life-biography/ http://www.bollywoodpapa.com/bollywood-actors/tiger-shroff/8-amazing-facts-about-tiger-shroffs-secret-girlfriend-disha-patani https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1588976084755945&id=1584276958559191 http://celebsbikini.pictures/disha-patani-latest-bikini-pics-hot-images-hd-bikini-wallpapers/

If there is still hesitation, she can be contacted on her official facebook page to confirm 1992 as her birth year. It was visible for a long time till Dec 2015 when her birth year started going missing. I don't understand the references used are also from internet pages then why are these not considered valid? References calling her "Tiger Shroff's girlfriend" are not reliable as Tiger Shroff and Disha Patani have NEVER confirmed their relationship. These need to be removed if internet pages are unreliable! "MS Dhoni - The Untold Story: Tiger Shroff's girlfriend Disha Patani bags a role in the biopic". indiatoday.com. 6 January 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2016. "MS Dhoni - The Untold Story: Tiger Shroff's girlfriend Disha Patani bags a role in the biopic : Bollywood, News - India Today". indiatoday.intoday.in. Retrieved 2016-01-06. MS Dhoni - The Untold Story: Tiger Shroff's girlfriend Disha Patani bags a role in the biopic Disha Patani to romance Jackie Chan in Kung Fu Yoga