User talk:CambridgeBayWeather/Archive46

Thank you for adding the map and making the other enhancements to the Terror Bay article! Dan Conlin (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Dan Conlin. I was looking for the Inuktitut name which I suspect is on this atlas (to the east) but a lot of places don't have the English equivalent. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering about the same thing. That Atlas is very interesting. So if I read it right orange dot, would the Inuktitut name for Terror Bay be "Amitruq"?Dan Conlin (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably. If you got to the map and type in amitruq it leads to the correct area. It gives 68°54′56″N 99°03′09″W / 68.9156163648901°N 99.0525042109555°W / 68.9156163648901; -99.0525042109555 which is in the right area. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I added the Inuktitut name with a footnote trusting in the source.Dan Conlin (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That just reminded me that there is a Franklin display at work that has Inuktitut names for some places. I need to look and get them written down. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your decline on extended confirmed protection for B'Tselem. The general use guidelines are for when semi-protection is ineffective on any topic, but this page is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My understanding of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was that anyone under 500/30 is categorically prohibited from editing pages related to the conflict, regardless of how much vandalism or edit warring there has been on that specific page. If all edits from such users are going to be reverted on sight anyway, then why not put the protection on the page? agtx 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection. I don't really think that reverting a good edit just because it was an IP or didn't meet the 500/30 is a good idea. Right now the regular semi seems to be working. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

But I think ArbCom already decided that semi-protection wasn't working for any page related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we're doing a WP:IAR thing here, that's fine, you can tell me that. But my understanding is that per the ArbCom ruling, 500/30 applies without exception to any edits on pages related to that topic. Do you read it differently? agtx 19:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection it is not clear that the ArbCom ruling still applies. If it does why is it not included in that section. In four months I see only one reverted edit so it looks like semi is working. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Is there anyway you could love the protection on this page just a little, from full protection to extended confirmed protection? I've been working for awhile on getting this article to the highest possible quality that it can be, and now I can't access it. The person who started the edit war has only been on the site for 5 days and has only made 100 edits been banned, so extended confirmed protection should prevent a repeat of what just happened.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reduced to semi. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm kinda questioning your judgment in deciding this case. While I do agree the protection was needed, the defending editor has exhibited a long-term pattern of edit warring, and was already blocked seven times for it, including the two recent blocks that occurred in a span of just two months. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of blocking in cases of edit warring, especially when two editors would have required blocking. My feeling is that if they are blocked then no discussion is going to take place. If the page is protected they at least the possibility for discussion is there. Of course they may not choose to use it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

We have chosen to use it. Electricburst1996 has been hounding me and questions any administrator that doesn't indefinitely block me. Now, he is attempting to forum shop this to WP:ANI. Spshu (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a site for everyone to use, regardless of whether or not they wish to set up an account. Please remove the protection to this article so that the founding principle of wikipedia can be followed by those of us who have relevant (and sourced) content to add. There are many who disrupt wikipedia with bad edits, but they can be undone with a flick of the cursor if they trouble you so much. Wikipedia is not a site simply for the elite or those who believe they own articles. If you don't like my edits, you can always undo them, but everyone should have the opportunity to make them. That's why wikipedia exists. Thank you. 61.220.162.2 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You have not made any edits to the article. I protected it due to a request at WP:RFPP and not because of something I wanted. If you have information to add then make a request at Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 14) using {{Request edit}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I have not made any edits, because the page is protected, so I cannot. I'd have thought that was painfully obvious to the person who locked it. Wikipedia was not set up so that editors wishing to make constructive, sourced edits had to go begging to other editors with superior powers in order to make edits. Perhaps you weren't aware of that. I won't be making any 'requests' to edit an article that should be freely open to anyone to edit; something Wikipedia was specifically created for. Enjoy your power and control. I'm sure it makes you feel very superior.218.161.125.238 (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen Wikipedia:Protection policy or Category:Wikipedia page protection and the subcategories? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I notice my edits/fixes for currency.wiki syntax were removed by Mascarponette here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Exchange_rate and protected by you. My edits has nothing to do with transfermate/tranferwise so my question is, how do I revert/return my changes back? Thanks Tomdavis1 (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Go to Template talk:Exchange rate and use {{Request edit}}. Make sure to explain exactly what you want. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you! I'll try that. Tomdavis1 (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ohh wow, it says "There are currently 143 requests waiting for review." how long is this going to take?

Thank you! Tomdavis1 (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I linked the wrong template. It should have been {{edit template-protected}}. I changed it to the correct one. As of writing this there are only two templates that are asking for edits. However, what it needs is someone who knows about what the template is doing. I see that Mascarponette hasn't edited since the 27 and they would be able to evaluate it. Someone else may be along in a while. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You can use {{Uw-legal}} next time.   You're welcome! 80.221.159.67 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes and I could have just blocked them but I was hoping a short note might work better. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way. G4 was incorrect for Mid Atlantic Ocean. It was never sent to WP:AfD and only a PROD. So recreation would be the same as a contested PROD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather, informing you I have tagged the redirect page for R3. Please refer to the page log, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Mid+Atlantic+Ocean. The page originally created by JasonEvansBaldwin was PRODed for being an NOR page. It was then recreated by the same user [1] (which really does smells of disruption), which was then tagged for G4 by another user, before you applied a redirect. Understanding the context and history of this page and FWIW, I believe that Mid Atlantic Ocean as a redirect is rather implausible. Regards, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You should also take a look at User talk:JasonEvansBaldwin for what had gone down. Apparently things got stickier than what I knew a few hours ago. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, you already read the talk page. Well, then you know.. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec)I left them a warning for skirting close to legal threats. The G4 was incorrect and as it was a deleted PROD the recreation is the same as contesting it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I understand. I agree with your G4 decline. Thank you for your admin actions. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, pay attention on the time line of article revision history, as well as read the WHOLE discussion (including the previous on same subject filed HERE), following it, in order to not just see who started such edit war, reverting editions without justifications, as to avoid play a double standard at this issue.
Thanks Cybershore (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Cybershore. There was a request at WP:RFPP. It was obvious that an edit war was ongoing. So I protected the page to avoid anybody being blocked and discussion could be had. I didn't look to see who was right or wrong but protected in the version that was there at the time. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I see, so just don't understanding why the article was not temporarily locked back to any edition Prior to edit-war began. Anyway... Cybershore (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Cheers on which I initially responded was made by an editor with whom I'm currently WP:INVOLVED so I probably shouldn't take any action or inaction—if you're still working down the list would you be able to take it over? ‑ Iridescent 09:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent. No problem. Done for three days. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ‑ Iridescent 09:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

rarely get to contribute these days, but i found time to write an article given the indians and red sox are playing a quarterfinal match next week. i love the autumn chill. really love to edit? lets see of you can use wikilinks to solve these:

This hurricane struck puerto rico in the fall of 1989.

fishermans wharf is located in this american city.

--Eddie 12:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

EddieSegoura.

1. What is Hurricane Hugo?
2. What is Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco?

Of course you could have meant Fisherman's Wharf, Monterey, California. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the pages about the Donald Trump taxes. The creators of the pages are discovered to be very related, so I am kindly asking you to check the sockpuppet investigation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman (And thanks to Sro23, The page is now there). NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 13:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, need help with the user Richard0048 who keep on excluding people for nationalism reason. The people he is excluding are what linguists classify as Ethiopian Semitic languages speakers that have been included in the article for over 5 years. During this time the article has been for an ethno-linguistic group of people similar to Bantu peoples, Nilotic peoples, Iranian peoples and Romance peoples. I have tried to explain for him in the articles talkpage here [2] as well as in his user talk page regarding the scope of the article and requested for him to bring sources that defines 'Abyssinian' or 'Habesha' before excluding people and now he keep on reverting while ignoring for this invitation I forwarded to him to solve issues by discussion. —— EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Its not for nationalistic reason, but since you decided to include ethnic groups from Eritrea and labling them as habesha in a Abyssinia article. I do agree that we need to sort out the sourcing part regarding the usage of the term "habesha". You do not have sources that show that the mentioned ethnic groups are referred to as Habesha which was explained in the talk section in the article, just that they are part of the same linguistic groups but not that the identify as habesha. They could indeed share a common article that highlight their linguistic affiliation as you mention. In this source it is mentioned that these groups you are referring not all are habeshas and not identify as such, see ^[1]. Other users have also pointed out that this term "habesha" is a vague term, therfore it would be good to either drop the term "habesha" in the article or rename the article, or exclude the ethnic groups from Eritrea since they are not habesha. Richard0048 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because it has been in the article for years does not make it correct. They need sources. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 

Hi. Wish you were attending, but there's always Montreal in August! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I've never been to San Diego but Montreal is pretty good. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I just drafitified the above page (to Draft:India and state-sponsored terrorism) in what was something of an IAR closure of the AfD in question, not seeing that you had protected the article a short while earlier. Would you mind if we relaxed the protection on the draft page to the new 300/50 level now, to allow established editors to rework it again while keeping the socks out? From what I've seen, most of the recent edit-warring seemed to be triggered by socks or newish accounts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I just changed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the page protections. Alas, it seems that more action may be required. The removal of cited content and its replacement with uncited or poorly cited content continues. I'm reluctant to keep reverting, and risking falling foul of 3RR myself, even if I would argue for WP:NOT3RR. Edwardx (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted back to what looks like before the edit war. They are now fully protected so it will need discussion on the talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, CambridgeBayWeather, but both the versions that you've reverted too are problematic. This [3] and this [4] would be better. The criminal conviction for Bebo looks okay, based on Google Translate from the three Hebrew sources (this was added by a Hebrew-speaking editor). I'm waiting for replies from an Israeli editor and Wikimedia Israel to confirm the accuracy of that information. Edwardx (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please leave Bebo Kobo as it is (only change O. D. Kobo). See User_talk:OrenBochman#Bebo_Kobo for more discussion. As it is a BLP, I think we should err on the side of caution and leave out the criminal conviction. Edwardx (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Until the discussion is over it is probably best to leave as is. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The current discussion is only about Bebo Kobo, which I do not want changed. It is O. D. Kobo that needs to be changed, an article about which there is no ongoing discussion, and the article which has been the source of most of the trouble. Thank you. Edwardx (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you please change O. D. Kobo to the version that I have suggested above. The version you have gone back to includes numerous uncited things such as his networth being $135 million, and the references are mostly bare URLs. If you're not going to do this, please let me know, so I can ask to have the page unprotected again. Thanks. Edwardx (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I protected it so discussion could occur on the tlak page but I don't see any. It will expire in a copule of days. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Hi, there is someone who keeps adding these false contents on the Casper the Friendly Ghost in film page. I was hoping that you may be able to lock it so that someone won't keep adding these false sources DonJakes (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I gave it six months. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello @CambridgeBayWeather:, I had previously asked for semi-protection of Desi last week and it was granted by you. I asked for semi-protection for that page because a user continues to disrupt the introduction that was established a while ago, it has been accepted because there are sources to support the information in the introduction. This user, DesiKindInMahMind, continues to remove information despite the sources presented. Could you please revert both edits made by this user? They have not understood anything I have told them. I thought the protection would stop users like this but sadly it hasn't. Thank you. (121.214.40.194 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

Hello, I've noticed that the information has been reverted by Dane2007, so you can ignore the message above. (121.214.40.194 (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC))

Hello i saw you deleted pages zagace inc and zagace limited. i had contested the pages for deletion and the same was done without putting that into conisderation. i have valid reasons for the same that make the same articles valid. kindly undo the same for me to make my case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ierieri. I did consider them before deletion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ierieri. You should start it in the draft space. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather:

Hello i saw you deleted page Wolf Guard. i had contested the pages for deletion. I don't know why you did this. i have valid reasons for the same that make the same articles valid. kindly undo the same for me to make my case. Thanks

It was like an advert. Write in your sandbox or a draft page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You said you saw little back and forth so I thought I list the constant reinstatement of casualties info that is contrary to the cited sources (or is unsourced altogether):
1. [5][6] reverted by 207.236. [7]
2. [8], reverted by me [9]
3. [10], reverted by me [11]
4. [12][13], reverted by Falconet8 [14]
5. [15], reverted by me [16]

Hope this helps. EkoGraf (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

EkoGraf. Thanks that makes it easier. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Looking at the history of the Buffie Carruth article the vandalizing user might be using several sock puppets are the edit summaries are all similar in wording. I have no idea how to move further with that so I'd thought I'd mention it to you as you protected the page. ronaz^Talk! 11:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ronaz. Thanks. I noticed that too after I protected. After looking at the two main ones I noticed the first was already blocked. I blocked the second because WP:SPI is always backlogged and reduced the protection to semi. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

About this move: when I search (with restriction for Canada) for "seal oil lamp" I get 259 000 results, "qulliq" gets 13,500 results, "kudlik" only 3,030 results. Shouldn't the article stay under the most common term instead of the least used one? Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Pavel Vozenilek. A Google search is not always that accurate. I clicked on the link you gave and got 82,700 results. If the results are the same for you and me look at the third one down titled "Ron Wassink: The Inuit Kudlik (Oil Lamp)". It has the phrase "oil lamp" and seal but not "seal oil lamp". Also some of the entries are "kudlik (seal oil lamp)" types. I tried "seal oil lamp" and got 8,970 results and again some are "kudlik (seal oil lamp)" types. Take a look at kudlik (149,000), qulliq (33,500) and "seal oil lamp" site:ca (2,240). Those are the sort of results that makes Google difficult to use to get actual numbers. It's also why I suggested it be sent to requested move. I've lived up here for 40+ years and never heard it called a seal oil lamp but that really has no bearing on it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello CambridgeBayWeather, Thank for deleting this page Black Magic (musician). I am so happy, The result was a clear Keep by the census but i was afraid that it would be keep on wikipedia because of what Jamie Tubers said on the Discussion. I hate the creator of the article User:Jamzy4. Thank once again for your delete and i hope you won"t recover it again. My first victim is for this User:Yung miraboi mark to be blocked. lol my plans are going well. Thank once again dude.--Oluwa2prince (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi CBW - long time no see! Hope things are ok with you in the frozen north!

I re-added an item to List of people who disappeared mysteriously and noticed when I did so that it had been made admin-only edits (I later discovered that you were responsible for that). I think the claim of edit warring is a little premature. I added a mysterious disappearance, Dmol removed it, and by his edit summary clearly wasn't au fait with the particular case (which is regarded as New Zealand's most famous mysterious disappearance - strange enough to have warranted some half a dozen books and two full length television documentaries over the last 15 years). I added it back and opened discussion on the talk page explaining why and making a case for it staying. User:Jack Sebastian then removed it again - noting at the time that I had explained my reasoning on the talk page. He had commented on my talk page comments, but failed to address any of the reasons I had given for the item staying on the page. I'd hardly call that an edit war. The item I re-added after your soft-protect was an unrelated item which Jack Sebastian had also decided to remove (calling it "bold, multiple additions"), even though it clearly fit all the criteria on the page. The main niggle I have is that this seems to be standard behaviour for Jack Sebastian on this particular page - rather than waiting for consensus on the talk page he automatically seems to remove entries. Earlier this month, he - understandably - removed a lot of uncited cases (though he did not move them to the talk page, as would be normal practice). In the last week, however, he has removed several cited disappearances, most notably that of Lord Lucan, one of the world's most famous mysterious disappearance cases. I suspect he may have difficulty with the concept of WP:OWN.

Anyhow - just wanted to let you know the situation over there and to stop any raised eyebrows if you notice any changes since your editing restrictions were put in place. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 13:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

All good here. Hope it's fine with you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And you, know, thanks for suggesting that I'm trying to OWN the page and all the rest of the nifty characterizations. I agree; it isn't an edit-war. I did indeed remove a lot of uncited entries to the article, and this was after at least a month of warning of impending removals if citations didn't start appearing. The failure to do one thing caused another thing to happen.

Anyhoo, I'm glad you protected the page (at the request of someone wikihounding me, but that's another story). Please feel free to weigh in on the article's discussion page, if you want. More eyes are always going to be better than fewer. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian. Are you referring to this editor? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I absolutely am. I was blocked over an edit-warring scenario in which he was involved (mea culpa, but we all know that edit-warring usually takes at least two parties). Since then, he tends to 'magically' appear where I am editing and 'contribute' - usually in the form of a revert of something I've edited, despite having little or no previous involvement. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was far more than two parties, and you were the only one against them all. Want to tell the story again? Don't accuse me of hounding if you're going to spit lies behind my back. Enjoy your day! :) Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Alex knew I posted here kinda proves my point . Anyhoo, I didn't come here to add dramah to your page, CBW. I'll sort out my wikistalker if it becomes more of an issue. Have a great weekend! :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Contributions that are available to view by the public and a hunch that I knew that you'd be talking shit about me. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I had put a comment here on Talk:Brian Tracy International yesterday. But you deleted the talk page without any discussion. You should have kept the talk page and left a comment why you deleted the page. - Mar11 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It was tagged as Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and that's why I deleted the page. The talk page as G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I had removed the speed tag and added a reason to keep and move the page to Brian Tracy. I could not do it myself as the page was creation protected. This guy seem to be notable as he has Wikipedia pages in 9 other languages, but the company is not notable. Did you read my comment on the deleted talk page? - Mar11 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Which one is it that you want? Both have been deleted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to create the Brian Tracy page. How can I do that? Should I request an admin to remove the protection and directly create the page when they have removed the protection ? - Mar11 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can you move This page to Brian Tracy? And also please add the Authority control data and the links to other languages as well to the article after you have published it. Thanks. - Mar11 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think it is ready move it into draft space and add the {{AFC submission}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Good day CambridgeBayWeather, Please review my block on my talk page User:Yung miraboi mark.--105.112.24.27 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Good day Cambridgebayweather, I have answered the question on my talk page regarding my block. User talk:Yung miraboi mark --105.112.16.96 (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello CambridgeBayWeather, I would like your request to help get permanent protection and constant monitoring for Iraqi insurgency module. The module has been a constant scene of edit-warring, asides from poorly sourced or even unsourced content. Just today, multiple edit-wars have taken place. I request that you permanently protect it and help get admins to constantly monitor it like the Syrian civil war module even though I myself might not be able to edit it. It will greatly prevent the edit wars and maintain its quality. There's no reason to leave it unprotected anymore. 59.89.42.30 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a lot of back and forth. I've given it a year. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I asked permanently, like the Syrian module. What if the conflict is still going on after one year? 59.89.102.146 (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Then it can be protected. I'm not a fan of indefinite as they get forgotten about or someone has to chase down the protecting admin to undo it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The article has again erupted into edit-warring, please see the history. There have been conflicting reports, such conflicting reports usually cause edit-warring. I requested them to stop edit-warring and wait for situation to be clear, but I doubt that'll happen because they already know the rules, but still don't bother. Please temporarily semi-protect the article, so it is edited when the situation becomes clear and users have talked it out.

Some of the users, registered or unregistered, have been edit-warring for a long time. This isn't the first time or the 20th time. I think they need to be either sanctioned or blocked, especially seeing they haven't stopped this behaviour despite being warned in the past and already knowing the rules as is already visible from their talk pages. What do you think? 117.199.83.117 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. It was semi-protected. I have upped it to template protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Say whoever that person is still adding these false contect on the Casper (film), if there is a way, and you block anything Casper related permanently to avoid un logged in users. DonJakes (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have semi-protected it for a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider lifting your full protection? The editors who were edit warring have been blocked under the applicable discretionary sanctions, and having the election page fully protected is not feasible two weeks out from the general. Admins won't be able to properly keep up with edit requests. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Strange I went for two weeks. Usually if I use full it is only a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you've fully protected Graph database but the request was for temporary semi-protection. Can you change so that it is protected from IP addresses only but to allow others to edit please? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Reduced. Strange there must be an article that is semi and should be full. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Recently you changed the Graph Database page to be protected, which is a good thing. However I believe you did it per request, and I have some complaints of the users who did as abusing their power:

Many of the members (like Michaelmalak for example) are employees of proprietary databases (like Oracle) or have associations with colleagues at other vendors or strong biases. Some of them are actively trying to prevent specifically Open Source (MIT, Apache) database solutions from being listed.

Other members (like High King) keep reverting changes and have only given "my way or the high way" reasons on the talk page. In particular they reject community peer review as a notable source but won't explain why other than "must be sponsored by trade journals" (which naturally favor corporate proprietary databases compared to Open Source ones). Meanwhile I have engaged in the talk page with many reasoned arguments, yet they keep on reverting first.

Finally, they recently started using intimidating, false, and threatening language like "we will ban you" and "you are advertising spamming" rather than justifying their view and proving their points. All of this indicates an abuse of power and a disregard for community discussion and negativity towards diversity (open source compared to proprietary) and very discriminatory.

I hope you will hear my voice and act in your best judgment. Thank you for your time, contribution, and support of the community. Tmobii (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking a side in a content dispute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you prevent everyone but moderators from editing that page for 1 whole year? Such an action is a blatant abuse and prevents Wikipedians from doing their jobs. This is unprecedented in the history of that page. Now, at a time where a critical battle is taking place at the city of Mosul, we cannot edit anything! We cannot show any advance, or any change control! The town of Khorsabad has been captured by Peshmerga forces, but we are unable to show this because the page has been locked. Doubtless dozens of other locations will change hands in the next weeks and months, but we will be unable to show this. While edit warring is a significant problem at ISIL-related pages, this should be dealt with in other fashions, rather than a brute force page ban. Please remove the ban. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There are two ways to stop edit warring. Block users or protect the page. If I block users then they can't discuss the necessary changes. I looked at the talk page and see no agreement on what edits are needed. As is any template editor or admin can make changes if requested. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, you literally protected the page from being editing by anyone (who isn't an admin), for a YEAR. You really don't think this is excessive? Why not just leave it at autoconfirmed status and actually deal with the problem editors by warning and blocking them? That's been working alright with the Syrian equivalent of that map. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

OK I'll just block everybody who edit wars. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

On Iraqi insurgency module, two IP editors (one whose IP starts with 95 and the other whose IP starts with 2a02) have been repeatedly edit-warring and making changes to control of a village with suspended or biased and unreliable Twitter users or Twitter users whose information is derived from those kind of sources. They even used an ISIL claim to change the control of the village which is not allowed. This even despite there being a reliable news source published much later than any of their sources, contradicted the claima of their unreliable sources. I had to repeatedly stop them and tell them not to use such sources which they never stopped doing. I got myself dragged in an edit-war as well. They have done this behaviour in the past many times also. Not just that, some unregistered user sometimes changes control of villages under ISIL to Iraqi Army by simply saying in his edit summary: "These villages are in rear Iraqi Army" or something like that. He provides no source at all. If their IP ranges are just blocked, they'll be able to come back and repeat this behaviour. Therefore, I request it is semi-protected again for a year just like Syrian civil war module. It might take my editing ability away but this way if any unregistered user wants to edit, they'll have to create an account and no one will be able to get away from violating the rules. 61.1.58.184 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This will prevent anyone, even me, getting dragged in an edit war since they'll know the consequences of doing it and won't be able to escape for breaking the rules. 61.1.58.184 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for getting involved in the article. We currently have a problem. The consensus established that the infobox before the election will show the candidates that have access to more than 270 votes, electoral + write ins. There are two candidates missing that have access to more than 270, if you check the history of the article you will be able to see what I am talking about.

Some users have been removing them every time someone adds them. They are aware of the consensus and they still do it. Please if you can check it out.

The next President of USA is going to be the same person, it doesn't matter if he or she wins by ballot presence or by write in votes. Mc Mullin is a write-in and is great that he is part of the infobox, other two candidates are able to do so.

I know that this must be exhausting but today the article is the most important source of information about a future event so it should be as inclusive as it can get. After the elections the article is a whole different thing, is a record of what happened. Thank you. Clarinetcousin — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarinetcousin. I don't take a side in this. If there is a consensus then you need to point to the section on the talk page. You also need to show where editors are edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the quick answer. At the beginning of the talk page on the 5th yellow box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Says: ¨Infobox inclusion: It has been agreed by previous consensus from the article United States presidential election, 2016 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox: The candidates will have ballot access or write‐in access in enough states (to have a mathematical possibility) to actually win the election (270 electoral votes).¨

The warring has been between a lot of people in the last few days but apparently it stopped today.

Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello @CambridgeBayWeather:,

I would like to discuss the protection of Eternal derby of Bulgarian football. Earlier today TV Boy accused me of removing sourced content from the page and therefore I want to explain the situation. As a matter of fact, he is the one removing sourced content from several pages. He claims that the newly founded football club CSKA-Sofia and the old CSKA which went bankrupt are in fact the same club. So far he hasn't provided a single source, despite claiming he did and actually he can't provide any sources because all institutions that have a say such as UEFA, FIFA, Bulgarian Football Union, Bulgarian judicial system are unanimous that CSKA-Sofia which was known as PFC Litex Lovech until the middle of the year is indeed a new club and is not related to CSKA. On CSKA-Sofia's profile on UEFA.com you can read No record in UEFA competition. Since CSKA which went bankrupt had played many times in European tournaments it's evident that UEFA, the supreme administrative body of European football, considers CSKA-Sofia as a new club. Bulgarian Football Union also denied any connection between the two clubs, reiterating that CSKA-Sofia has no right to claim the history of CSKA. Those interviews and declarations are in Bulgarian but I can translate them for you if you want. I completely agree that Eternal derby of Bulgarian football should be protected but I would like to ask you to revert the last edit ot TV Boy because the current version doesn't reflect the generally accepted view(that CSKA-Sofia and CSKA aren't the same club) but a rather controversial personal opinion which isn't supported by a single reliable source. --Ivo (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You and TV Boy need to discuss on the talk page. I protect not take a side in the dispute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BG89 has been urged to discuss many times, because his edits are highly controversial, he has been accused of sockpuppeting and faking sources in order to support his opinion on the subject, but he continuously edits various articles with his controversial information. Again I urged him to stop entering that information, but if he does not, I will be reporting him again.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather, There's been many times where I'e requested indef protection and it's usually only been protected for a year and as the year goes so do the vandals (I have no issues with them not being indef protected) .... However with List of Friday Download episodes the IPs simply wait a year and then return when the protection expires,
They've been playing this game since December last year (I think I started reverting them roughly in August 2015),
But anyway I've come to ask if this article could be indef protected because this year alone it's been protected 3 times and there's no sign of these vandals stopping (I would be more than happy to add a note on the TP explaining that edits should be done with the edit request template),
Most if not all edits are done by new accounts so no new editors would be lost,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've changed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 

Oh brilliant thank you, Here have a beer on me! :), Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 01:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

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)

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

 

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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 [17], 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! [18] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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 [19], who created a sock [20] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [21]--Trepcost (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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.[22]

"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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)

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

Hello,

Thank you for explaining why my article was deleted. Is it possible that you highlight which particular part(s) of my article constitute an infringement on wikipedia's copyright rules so I can make the necessary adjustments? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlickRick1010 (talk • contribs)

SlickRick1010 It appears that it was copied from the biography section here. It needs to be your own words. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the editing conflicts at the South Dakota Senate election 2016 article.. The thread is Disruptive editing and BLP accusations with United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016. Thank you.

Hey CambridgeBayWeather, I see your protection on the article in question, United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 is set to expire shortly. As this ANI is ongoing, would you mind extending it a little longer until a decision is made on whether or not the section should be included and whether indefinite semi-protection should be granted? -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007. I have given it another week. Probably overkill but it can be reduced at any time by any admin. Other than for templates I'm not a fan of indefinite semi. I'd rather try up to a year and see what happens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&type=revision&diff=751705934&oldid=751705848

You have removed a number of official government media sources. Why? More precisely you try to hide terorizma facts banditry and blockade against millions of people. It will be publicly used. In most media collecting one hundred million page views per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.114 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not removed anything. That link is to another editor. I protected the page. You should get your facts straight. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This user continues another edit war at Ariana Grande. I left another warning on his/her talk page, but isn't it time for a block? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Able to decline 10 requests for page protections without blinking .... not unfazed at having to reply to an avalanche of location map templates wanting protecting ... able to knock down backlogs in a single bound .... it's SUPER ADMIN! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I protected a few before I remembered that I was not supposed to protect templates with only 100-200 uses. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)