User talk:CambridgeBayWeather

Page protection

@ CambridgeBayWeather. Re your recent ban on certain editors on the Bain family murders page for edit warring, you might want to consider placing a ban on one other editor who was also engaged in this - Akld guy. He conducted a three week edit war over five words I was trying to add to the page here. He has a history of aggressive editing and making personal comments about other editors. See these recent concerns on his Talk page Hey, you need to calm down, bud and Please stop. Histrange (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war Bain article

The problem is that I cite a reliable source and Histrange removes my citing saying it is not a reliable source. He is wrong. The book I cite is Mask of Sanity by James McNeish and the publisher is David Ling Publishing. I have pointed this out to Histrange on the talk page. Hopefully he will not delete my latest edit. He [I am presuming male] is a newcomer to the David Bain talk page and he never gets a consensus to edit that article yet he goes ahead and edits it regardless. I would suggest he should be banned from editing because of his disruptive behaviour.Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to Wikipedia reliable sources on the David Bain talk page yesterday so as to ensure that Histrange is well aware that Mask of Sanity is a reliable source. Should he delete my citing again I suggest he should be banned.

From the Wikipedia reliable source page. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers.

That means that Mask of Sanity is a reliable source as it was published by a respectable publishing house.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

About David Ling, publisher of Mask of Sanity. David Ling was a director of educational and general multinational publishing companies where he worked for nearly twenty years before establishing David Ling Publishing in 1992.

An active member and former long-time councillor of the Publishers Association of New Zealand (PANZ), in 2011 he was awarded Honorary Life Membership for his services to the industry.Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is 100% Histrange. He edits disruptively, obsessively, obtusely, and without consensus, to promote his narrow-minded POV. Given a free hand, he will single-handedly turn the Bain article into a one-sided propaganda piece. He has been warned before, as is visible on his talk page, which he ignores totally, and he is awaiting a behaviour investigation^[1]. His confidence and totalitarian style, out of character for a newcomer, suggests return of a banned editor - most probably turtletop, who has a reputation for returning time and time again under new identities on message boards and blogs to obsessively promote Bain's "innocence". Other editors were simply restoring the status quo until consensus could be established. The correct solution would be to permanently ban Histrange. There is no reasoning with such a person. DiscoStuart (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Histrange, Mr Maggoo and DiscoStuart. I don't really do Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which is what you should be looking at. I protected the page to ensure that none of you ended being blocked and could at least attempt to solve the problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did use the talk page in an attempt to solve the problem Histrange has with me citing Mask of Sanity as a reliable source. Maybe this time he has accepted that he is in the wrong. The problem with Histrange is that he moves the goalposts. First of all he said I should not cite that page because the Crown Prosecutor was only making a throwaway remark. Then he says I should not cite that page in Mask of Sanity because it is not a reliable source. I see DiscoStuart reckons that Histrange might be Turtletop, who has been banned for sockpuppetry. As a matter of interest , I was wondering about that myself. Certainly some of the phrases Histrange uses are very similar to those used by Turtletop.Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Turtletop

A beer for you!

Thank you for cranking through the requests at RFPP: you deserve a break after all that hard work! Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Usually have a go at that page while at work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dred Scott (civil rights activist) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dred Scott (civil rights activist). Since you had some involvement with the Dred Scott (civil rights activist) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly

Dear CambridgeBayWeather, can you please re protect Strictly Come Dancing (series 14), persistent vandilism is occurring yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:7D95:63B6:DA7F:7FAE (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gave it three months. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Video Game Showcase Updating Page

Hello,

I'm contacting you in regards to a page previously that we had up. It was removed and we are recreating it with the content that we previously lacked. If there is any further issues with our new page please let me know. This is our first time creating an article and are looking to comply with the rules.

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

Thanks, Kenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny610610 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the names of places in Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map with hashtags

Someone has added a hashtag "#" in front of link names of various settlements. In other cases, they have just named the links to "#no". The links are for directing a user to the article by that name. When the hashtag is added before any name, it just directs the user back to the template. And if you add "no" without the hashtag it will instead direct you to the article of no, with the hashtag it will just direct you back to the template. In my search, I think I have identified 48 such cases with this problem. According to Wikipedia "#" is used for sections of an article. Using them shows the whole link of the template when clicking on/touching a settlement along with the "#" and the name of the settlement next to the "#" instead of just that settlement's name. And opening it will direct you back to the template. I request you to please correct it as they are creating a problem. I requested the other users but no one seems to care, that is why I have requested you. Thank you. 117.220.19.191 (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any # there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishingly mild block

Does the deletion of editors posts in an AfD discussion, and their replacement by fake posts that make those editors appear to be saying something completely different from what they had actually said [1], merit a block of only 31 hours? This individual should have been blocked for at least a month I think, and banned for life for ever again contributing to an AfD - but instead he is allowed a day later to be back at the same AfD! [2] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to ANI then. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for your reasoning for giving a 31 hour block for what seems to be a very serious offense. If this block is in line with guidelines, what is the point of taking it to ANI? If it is not, should you not amend your initial decision yourself? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a first offence and they stopped. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the seriousness of the offense or end goal of the offense does not matter if it is a first offense? Here is another first time offender, Matreeks [3], who created a sock [4] in order to place fake "keep" posts and comments in an AfD, thus essentially doing the same thing as AManInWikipedia did - yet that editor gets blocked indefinitely (correctly, I think). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield. There is a bit of a difference. Anyway, what is it you want? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AManInWikipedia seems to be a single issue editor, so length of block doesn't really make much difference for such an editor. But I think he should have been indefinitely blocked from participating in AfD discussions, if such a restriction were possible, because the infraction was so serious - worse than Matreeks imo because it was more than just fabricating some "keep" posts using a sock. AManInWikipedia was actually altering the opinions given by other editors to make them fit AManInWikipedia's pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a sock account

Hello CambridgeBayWeather, This user looks like a sock account MKJ6006 who have created the article Sugarboy that was deleted Articles for deletion Sugarboy. Looking at this user contributions i think the editor is here on a particular subject, that is Sugarboy. --Music Boy ^(talk) 20:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly is but the original account was never blocked so there really isn't a problem. The new article is different enough from the original that a speedy isn't possible. It would require a second AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, If you say so. Have a niceday --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oops. I was patrolling on Nigerian musicians, This one was deleted by you Black Magic (musician) under G5. Actually I don"t really know what the subject stands for, but if it turns to be a Nigeria musician. I think he is notable to be on wikipedia --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be but it was created by Jamzy4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a blocked sockpuppet, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coal Press Nation/Archive. It could be created by another user though. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PC protection on Barney's Big Surprise

Why was the PC protection settings reset? Why not simultaneous indef PC protection and temporary semi-protection, which is the sole protection for the article? Well, I see newly registered vandals come and then become blocked. Also, I see some past IP vandalism this year, but the amount is too little. --George Ho (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho. Thanks. I unprotected it and we can see what happens. Good catch. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add back the PC protection then? IP vandals came this year, but temporary semi-protection was deserved due to amount of newly registered vandals. --George Ho (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try it for now. Easy enough to reprotect. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extending PC for Seattle

I saw a few reverts within the past two days. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've extended it for another 10 days. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PC-protection for Kelcy Warren

Reverts still occur. Extend? --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks slow might be worth seeing what happens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seumas Mactalla

User:Seumas Mactalla's block for edit warring has expired, and his first, and only edit so far, was to revert again on Scots language. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD discussion

Hi CambridgeBayWeather, when you have a moment could you please pop by this discussion regarding the mass deletions performed as a result of this MfD? Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2200 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1300 articles in 3 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 11th mfd closures

The bot that manages Miscellany for deletion mis-listed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User MIT Apply as an old discussions because the nominator forgot to leave a signature. As it was listed for less than a day, it needs to be reopened to allow the appropriate amount of time to pass. Secondly, in my opinion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Laptop should have been relisted instead of closed as no consensus. Best Regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the MIT Apply. The other one didn't look as if there would be much interest even if relisted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asami Imai

Hi, sorry to interrupt you at this time but the article voice actress Asami Imai cannot be semi-protected for a period of 1 week it must be indefinitely because the user has been changing the image and added other names unnecessarily but what I say is that we must protect the article at the time of the indefinite. 148.101.47.63 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no need for indefinite. By the way semi-protection will not stop them from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have warn the editor at his or her talk page JL19950317 Talk Page about disruptive edits --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Would you like to provide your input at this discussion regarding references and the Airlines and destinations tables? Thank you! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Goldberg

Um, any particular reason that you protected the article and allowed the self-righteous vandal to have his way, other than an anti-IP agenda? Did you even LOOK at what's happening? WhatCulture isn't even a permitted source, for crying out loud (WP:PW/RS). 195.88.75.75 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to before the pair of you started edit warring. That is not letting anyone have their way. Now you both have to use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for such prompt action! I really don't care what's on Bill Goldberg's article, but the uncivil surprisingly well-versed on Wikipedia new IP surely has an axe to grind at Bill Goldberg [5]--Trepcost (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I sure do. Ghastly, 100% unsupported puffery ain't so good on what's supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia! And all the "uncivil" stuff kicked off with your "vandalism" accusation, champ.[6]

"New"? Never said that, nor would I: I've been editing for almost a year. 195.88.75.62 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little help needed

Thanks for doing the pending changes thing there, can you also do it here as well, where there is lots of incoming vandalism edits ?

Thanks for your help ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest both pages go up to semi-protection, lots of incoming problems. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SBS 2 page protection

Hi. You completed my request for temporary full protection for the article SBS 2 due to edit warring and content disputes. However, you have enabled the protection for far too long. The rebrand of the article's subject occurs today in about an hour's time, so could you please remove the full protection within the next hour? Regards. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mitchell 98. Unprotected now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 05:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make the page semi-protected as opposed to unprotected to protect from further IP unconstructive edits (some have started already). Regards. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deleted

Hello,

I just had a page that I created o (Moses Inwang) deleted. May I know the reason why?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickRick1010 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlickRick1010 It was a copyright violation from Facebook. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi CambridgeBayWeather.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Disputed factual accuracy and POV templates

Hello!
May I ask you to keep an eye on the following pages: PFC CSKA Sofia, FC CSKA 1948 Sofia and PFC Litex Lovech. There is an ongoing dispute which is unlikely to get resolved without outside help because the two main viewpoints are mutually exclusive and neither party is willing to accept the arguments of the other. That's why I'm going to ask for formal mediation, as another admin advised me. Until then, I think that the most civilized solution is everybody involved in the discussion to refrain from edits that will cause further controversy and use templates to express opinion. However, one of the users seems is unhappy with the mediation and is trying to cause a new series of edit wars. Even though I disagree with big parts of the articles and I think there is a strong bias, I'm ready to accept the current versions to stay until the mediation process is over but I don't think that relevant templates should be removed just because someone doesn't like them. Also, I'm continuously harassed, threatened and hounded by another user who reverted almost all my edits in the last 2 months. Who should I ask for assistance? --Ivo (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BG89. There is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. In this case it sounds like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might be the one. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explaned the user to either discuss it on the talk page, or start a Dispute resolution. I won't start it myself simply because I am trying to keep the current versions of the articles from getting them disrupted with controversial and false information, he is the one who should have started the discussion. Also I am removing the templates, because the user tries to make as if something is wrong with the information overall, which is not the case, he is the one who is unhappy on how the information is written, which is his personal opinion only. I tried to explane him why the information he tries to insert is unacceptsable, but he simply refuses to make any progression on the topic, for reasons known, and accuses me for "harassing" him when I tell him why. I am really tired of following BG89 and preventing him from re-enteting the controversial information as he is being extremely aggressive over the topic and constantly tries to manipulate and invert my words and actions so that they can support his oppinion. This is why I gave up trying to solve the matter on the talk page - simply no progression can be made over it.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 04:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Boy, Five users took part in the discussion and three of them, one of whom it's me, think that there are many things wrong. The same is valid for the Bulgarian Wikipedia where 11 users took part in the discussion. You who support the current version and Laveol who supports changes are writing on the English talk page as well. Among the remaining 9 users, 6 support my view: Миньор, Атанас Димов, Abvvba, Станислав Николаев, GOOR, Arise13 and 3 support yours: Скроч, Rebelheartous, Dino Rediferro. When there are two mutually exclusive views and only one of them is presented in the article which in fact isn't the generally accepted one but quite the contrary and when the the majority of the users involved in the discussion think there is bias and the article lacks neutrality, the templates indicating that there is a serious disagreement is the least that can be done. Of course, you are not expected to ask for mediation. It's me who is calling for that. What I invited you to do is to summarize your position because I'm expected to present both views.

@CambridgeBayWeather, IMO, we need a case specific approach because some articles are relatively fine and usually just one paragraph is controversial. The events that caused the discussion are described but their interpretation is one-sided. What is in common between these articles is that they are indirectly-related to the issue. The main article has problematic accuracy and neutrality. Could you please tell me which template is appropriate for every article? Here are the articles one by one:

PFC CSKA Sofia is in the center of the discussion. Both its neutrality and accuracy are disputed. One of the parties think that the article should be split into two separate articles. The most controversial part is The Age of Grisha Ganchev which I and the rest who support my view perceive as personal opinion. Also, questionable and self-citing sources.
In 2016–17 PFC CSKA Sofia season is written that the article is about the 68th season of PFC CSKA, a very disputable statement because many(most) think this is not true.
PFC Litex Lovech has one controversial paragraph: Relegation and Merging (2015-). Both the neutrality and the accuracy are disputed. There is a strong contradiction between the text and the sources.
FC CSKA 1948 Sofia is indirectly related to the discussion. 19 July 2016: Foundation is the problematic paragraph. It is misleading and contains unsourced and IMO wrong information.
Eternal derby of Bulgarian football's only problem is result of the assumption that CSKA-Sofia is the successor of CSKA which is the essence of the discussion.

--Ivo (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your last reply was read by:--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For protecting articles from persistent promotional and disruptive edits. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

Hello,

Thank you for explaining why my article was deleted. Is it possible that you highlight which particular part(s) constitute an infringement on wikipedia's copyright rules so I can make the necessary adjustments? Thank you!

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Turtletop

[1]