User talk:CambridgeBayWeather/Archive38

more advice

Sorry, but your the first active administrator I thought of. I was happily editing "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", to make an (enforced!) change from "drug abuse", when an editor who has previously accused me, with no evidence, but an air of absolute certainty, of being a Sockpuppet, made an empty edit in order to accuse me of habitually making "deceptive" edit summaries. This, and the previous groundless accusation, are the worst sort of personal abuse, far worse than using any of the words that I am sorely tempted to (but I don't want to get banned - which this editor clearly does want). Is there any course of action I can take to prevent this poisonous, malicious slander from continuing? It is now permanently plastered across the new article's edit history for everyone's entertainment and "information". The editor previously told me straight up that they intended to follow me around, and now they have managed successfully to slander me where it can't be removed. This is no doubt some kind of personal triumph for them. I made some really good improvements on the article, but now I daresay I'd better leave it alone, which really annoys me. zzz (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ps. I have only ever (once) been accused of putting "minor" in an edit summary when I shouldn't have. However, the specific edit on that occasion was never pointed out to me, and the accusation had no merit in my opinion. And this editor was not involved in any case (but spying on me, I expect). I only mention all this, in order to sidetrack myself from thoughts of global annihilation and other untoward events. I'm sure it's just a placebo, and there's nothing to be done. But it keeps me amused, anyway. Thanks. (not sarcastically) zzz (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone unfamiliar with my ability to easily spot WP:Sockpuppets, as recently as this case, can check my user page. I never stated that I am going to follow Signedzzz around. There is no need to follow Signedzzz around when he is popping up at Wikipedia articles that I have WP:Watchlisted, including the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article. I even have the CambridgeBayWeather user page WP:Watchlisted, along with various other WP:Administrators' user pages. As shown in Signedzzz's edit history, I asked Signedzzz whether or not he is new to editing Wikipedia, just like I've done with a few WP:Sockpuppets. I noted that I don't believe Signedzzz's claim that he is relatively new to editing Wikipedia; he may not be well-versed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, but a lot of long-term Wikipedia editors, especially sporadic long-term Wikipedia editors, are not. Signedzzz responded with a WP:Personal attack. I left Signedzzz alone, like I stated that I would, until Signedzzz popped up at the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article today and made an edit with an inaccurate edit summary. Either Signedzzz did not know that "motorbike" means "motorcycle" or Signedzzz overlooked the material, or Signedzzz intentionally issued a misleading edit summary. The editor that I suspect Signedzzz of being would also issue misleading edit summaries. And one editor so far, Elizium23, has warned Signedzzz about edit summaries that may be deceptive. Whether it's Elizium23, Jab843, Alan Liefting, or some other editor warning Signedzzz, or the recent WP:Edit warring situation you've warned Signedzzz about, Signedzzz has consistently engaged in WP:Disruptive editing. His talk page history documents part of it. Am I going to try to put a stop to such problematic editing when I see it? Often, yes, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer that we keep this discussion centralized, per WP:TALKCENT. No need to post a reply at my talk page. Again, I have this talk page WP:Watchlisted. Fragmented discussion is not beneficial, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What is it that there is for you to discuss, exactly? As can be seen from my talk page history, when you made your first unprovoked accusation, you stated: "You won't last long under your Signedzzz account with that behavior. And then I won't have to worry about the account any longer." If this isn't a promise to "follow me around", I don't know what is, and your protestation to the contrary is ludicrously disingenuous. I can't even be bothered to argue with any of the rest of the rubbish you state as if it was facts. Sticking personal abuse on an edit summary is bang out of order. End of story. I can't believe you dare to come here and actually try and justify putting libellous abuse about me on an edit summary. You talk like it's something you consider a sensible course of action. And the fact you think you are good at spotting sock puppets doesn't mean you are, it just means you feel the need to compensate for something. And don't try to pretend this admin, and any other admins I care to think of, are your friend. You accused me of something you know to be false, on an edit summary - in order to slander me most effectively. If I have ever been accused of any more than (once) clicking "minor" on an (unidentified) edit summary, then prove it. (Not that that would justify the deliberate use of slander in an undeletable public forum). I've written two good, high-profile articles from scratch in the last 2 months, and essential work on other important articles. What have you done, apart from wind me up and try to get me banned? (Let me guess: "revert vandalism"...) Other editors can revert vandalism perfectly well without starting smear campaigns for their crappy amusement against reliable editors. I still can't believe you are seriously arguing that Wikipedia rules, and administrators, would back you up in your campaign to hound me out of WP! zzz (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And why do you want to get me banned. Oh yes, because I "am" a sockpuppet, because you are always right. Even when you are lying in an edit summary to slander someone - they deserved it, if you say so, so that's fine, then!zzz (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole sockpuppet concept, while sinister and libellous, is fairly ludicrous, at least in my case. Why would I want to hide my identity? My work speaks for itself, none of it has ever been disparaged. What, exactly would I need to be hiding? The mind boggles. I can't really follow your logic at all. You need to accept that your not nearly as smart as you pretend, basically. zzz (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like a guarantee that this editor stays away from me. He is trying to get me banned, by using clearly un-Wikipedian tactics of slander, inspired by some twisted sense of their own infallibility. This is not helpful to Wikipedia (or me). Thanks. zzz (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should my blood pressure have to go thrpough all this. Its bulls***. Again. And no-one can accuse me of disruptive editing. On the Magdalene Asylum page, people were against inclusion of the mass grave incident that was reported worldwide, so I met a lot of resistance. I was never, not once, accused of being disruptive. I was, once accused of being abrasive, which was fair, and I have since then never been accused of anything. So that was just more bullcrap, just then, accusing me of "disruptive editing". Nothing even close. Why do I have to sit here defending myself? I think I've made my point. I want a guarantee, since an apology would be just as disingenuous as the accusations. Thanks. zzz (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Abuse is one thing, but hounding me and sticking libel where it can'y be removed is frankly ridiculous. I hope this is making sense. zzz (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• The libel in question is A LIE
• The other earlier allegation IS A LIE
• No one has ever accused me of DISRUPTIVE EDITING, until just now, above.

Have I missed any other FABRICATED & MALICIOUS accusations? zzz (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not lie in any edit summaries about you. And the wording "And then I won't have to worry about the account any longer." means exactly what I stated that it means. Once I suspect a Wikipedia editor of WP:Sockpuppetry, that Wikipedia editor will remain a suspect in my mind until cleared by evidence. I knew that I would continue to see you around, since you have an interest in editing some of the types of articles that I have an interest in editing, including medical articles. How do you think I first came across you? Because you popped up at one of the articles I have WP:Watchlisted -- the Spree killer article; and you made a dubious edit there as well. That edit also is not WP:Minor. Your "personal abuse" and "libellous" arguments are silly. I can already tell that you are the type of editor who would make a WP:Legal threat, which is not allowed. As for me thinking that I am good at spotting WP:Sockpuppets? No, I and many others at this site know that I am. I have various cases under my belt regarding that topic; and in this case, I explained to a WP:Sockpuppet just how easy it is to spot WP:Sockpuppets. I'm not trying to pretend that CambridgeBayWeather is my friend. I simply stated that CambridgeBayWeather's user page is on my WP:Watchlist. Am I acquaintances with some WP:Administrators? Yes. Only on Wikipedia for the vast majority of them. And a good number of them watch my user page.

WP:Ban is different from WP:Block. And as for your editing, I agree to generally disagree on that. To me, your edit history speaks for itself...just like you think it speaks for itself regarding your positive contributions to the site. As for whether or not you are relatively new: Like I stated, I likely don't have enough evidence to label you a WP:Sockpuppet, so I have not labeled you that on Wikipedia. Even if you are not the editor I suspect you of being, I'm convinced that you are not fairly new to editing Wikipedia. But that is beside the point. Even a WP:Sockpuppet can return and edit productively. If you edit productively from here on out, I won't have much of an issue with you. Will we continue to see each other on Wikipedia? Yes, because, again, you are interested in some of the types of articles that I'm interested in. My user page, for example, shows that I am interested in editing fiction articles and medical articles (including those relating to psychology), among other things. Seeing me at the same articles you are at likely will not be a case of me having followed you. I am well aware of WP:Hounding. I reiterate that, after our interaction in August, I left you alone until you popped up at the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article. And as for what have I done on Wikipedia... The WP:Barnstars on my user page, and some accompanying comments there, speak for themselves. I don't have much more to state to you, until "I have to," especially given how easily you resort to WP:Personal attacks. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and, as made clear on my user page, I'm not a he. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• You do lie. You stated that I habitually make "deceptive" edit summaries. THIS IS A LIE, as I have repeatedly explained. What part do you not understand? If you stand by the lie that you advertised at Terminator 2, then provide an example of a "deceptive" edit summary. The fact you havent already done so speaks volumes - I'm absolutely sure you would be keeping a list of such mistakes. But you make slanderous accusations on edit summaries that you have no proof of. This is the problem, here.
• "And then I won't have to worry about the account any longer" means exactly what it's intended to imply, in fact, of course. It's really not the point at issue here, but we both know exactly what it means. Why not be honest, about one little thing?
• The edit at Spree killer is not remotely dubious - it puts the article's lead in line with the dictionary definition, which was desirable to me because I was wikilinking to it from Boko Haram. I always check the articles I link to for accuracy. Hence, this is another example of you making a libellous & fictitous allegation to attack me with. A perfectly clear-cut example, in fact.
• "Libellous" doesn't mean I am going to take you to court. That is an idiotic suggestion. But then again, you are just talking complete garbage at this point.
• I'm not interested in your arguments for how useful you are at spotting sockpuppets. I am a good example of just how sadly deluded you are about this.
• You left me alone, until you noticed that my article had been protected, when you took your opportunity to wind me up and get me to get myself banned, by provoking me as best you can into making a personal attack in return. It's appalling.
• I want action taken against this editor, please. I accept I broke the revert rule, so my page is protected. This editor sees fit to break rules to try & get me banned, and I want it stopped, please, CBWeather

zzz (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You stated, "You left me alone, until you noticed that my article had been protected, when you took your opportunity to wind me up and get me to get myself banned, by provoking me as best you can into making a personal attack in return. It's appalling." Oh goodness. So wrong, as is so much else of what you've stated in this section. Your user page is on my WP:Watchlist; I noted that to you when we interacted in August. And you don't have a Wikipedia article; see WP:Own. Time to ignore you now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

CBWeather, I want action taken against this editor, please. I know he/she will continue to attack me anyway, but at least the principle of not allowing that sort of thing should be upheld, or else editors like this will get the idea they can do whatever they want with impunity. Since there are rules, Can something please be done to enforce them? I wouldn't care, but the editor has made it clear that they regret nothing, and intend to continue their unprovoked harassment, which does indeed wind me up. And, I don't see why rules should be strictly applied against me, but not against people who seem to think they "own" Wikipedia, somehow, apparently. zzz (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of slandering someone in an edit summary. And even if I was tempted to, which I actually haven't been, I wouldn't do it because this editor (or similar, if there are any) would immediately use it to get me banned. It is appalling, as I said, and I am not "so wrong" in the slightest. Apologies for the length of this - I wasn't expecting the editor to continue their lies and personal attacks here. zzz (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, don't bother. It's not really that important, I guess. And I'm sure the editor knows how to use sockpuppets, may be doing so already anyway, in fact. I'll do my best to stay detached if (ie. when) it happens again. I shouldn't let it get to me. Oh, well. zzz (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I could have been doing something useful, but I had to defend myself- as if anyone cares. I wouldnt have bothered only its on the edit history, and then the editor who put it there saw fit to continue attacking me, which is pretty disgusting. What a massive waste of time. zzz (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does anyone bother with Wikipedia? Makes no sense, really. zzz (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: and @Flyer22:. You both need to stop going on at each other. Neither one of you has provided any differences to show the problems with the other. If an editor, like Flyer22, has a particular article on their watchlist and sees an edit that they find curious then it is quite likely they will check other edits by the same editor. I do it all the time and sometimes there is nothing to it but other times there is. At the moment nobody is going to get blocked or banned. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that I have not provided differences to show problems with Signedzzz. For one, Signedzzz has a WP:Personal attacks issue. For another, any very experienced Wikipedia editor who closely examines some of his edits should see that he has some odd interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and these interpretations are detrimental to some of the articles he's edited. For another, he has far too many similarities to a WP:Sockpuppet named on my user page in the section about WP:Sockpuppets; he very recently, some time after his above rants, removed one of the similarities from his user page. And there was also this suspicious edit by an IP (which I noted as suspicious) soon after his above rants. I am not "going at him"; I am expressing a concern regarding his editing Wikipedia, especially any careless editing he engages in, whether it is at the Spree killer article, the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article, or some other article. He is "going at me," and I don't care for it, which is why I left him to rant. If he wants to rant, then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

How the ---- is that not "going at me" zzz (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So, is it fine for her to continue making up reasons that prove me to be a liar and cheat? She can continue telling people what a fraud I am, in edit summaries or wherever else, and its not abuse, it's "evidence", yes? zzz (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I change my user page, and that's "evidence" of me being a fraud. Because she says it is. An IP makes an edit she doesn't like, and that's more "evidence" of my lying, fraudulent, behaviour. That's fine for her to say, am I right? And she can say in the edit summary on Terminator 2 that I "usually" make lying edit summaries. When no one has ever accused me of that. But because she spies on me, she knows that once I was "accused" of clicking minor when it wasn't (never specified). She can call me whatever she wants, in any forum she wants. Right, ok. And she doesn't need to provide evidence, beacause anything I do, she is free to describe as evidence. We've only got my word it isn't. Thats weird. I don't get it, please explain. If I find something possibly wrong with an edit summary, and I do what she did, and say "deceptive edit summary ... as usual" when there has been no such pattern whatsoever, it's fine, even tho I'm calling her a liar in an undeletable public forum? That's what started this whole thing here. So please answer that. Thanks zzz (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's be very clear. I am a trusted editor, and I've done nothing wrong. (See that - I started defending myself again). I came here because of a personal attack in an edit summary. A long argument followed about how much of a fraud I am, and how dishonest. Does that make sense? I just want to know , does she have special powers to abuse those she doesnt like? Because it really seems like it. Terminator II: Judgement Day. "Deceptive... as usual". No evidence of pattern of deceptiveness, just this one small temporary oversight in missing one para in a blog, means she can plaster her personal abuse on edit summaries and everywhere else? It's not evidence of dishonhesty. End of story. If shes allowed to state that Im dishonest, wherever she wants, I obviously dont understand wikipedias policies on personal attacks, and so forth. Ive always been careful not to attack anyone. Clearly I've been doing things wrong.zzz (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And now more evidence of my fraudulence - I changed my user page! Well, that clinches it. Removed a picture, I did. Is this all just a hilarious joke that I'm not in on? Seriously?zzz (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But, your saying it is fine for editors to call each other "deceptive" wherever/whenever they like, if I understand you correctly. This is a surprise to me. How is it worse to say "sod off" rather than "you are a habitual liar, and a fraud, and I am an expert in detecting such things, so people should WATCH OUT FOR THIS LIAR AND FRAUD"? That's absolutely fine, yes? But If I say "go f--- yourself" that would be against the 'rules'? "Your a liar and a fraud" is constructive. Ok, I'll have to try using the "Wiki" approved insult myself in future, sometime. And I'll just direct people to this discussion if they dont like it. zzz (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then. Just so long as I now undesrstanf the rules, now, correctly. Thanks. zzz (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear tho, can I say "Your a complete f------ retard?" or your a "c---"? or does it have to be "your a deceitful editor and a sockpuppet"? = "Your a liar and a fraud". Since these last 2 are fine, I'll certainly use them if anyone annoys me in future. Might as well, since the rules say its absolutely fine, eh? Must be helpful to WP, somehow. Who am I to say - Im just a liar and a fraud, anway! what wd I know. zzz (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny, cos I don't see anyone else being accused of anything around the website. Just me. But I'll remember to use the "your just a liar and a fraud" argument to prove any ppoint I want to make, in future. It seems a lot easier than actually using powers of logic. zzz (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And it's fine, as long as I claim to have incontrovertible evidence. Right. Is that an official, or an unwritten rule? Fascinating, really. zzz (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And, one can say "anyone who looks at the other articles by this editor would see how he/she has edited to the detriment of WP" or any variation. Right. But you cant actually say "this person is a persistent vandal". You have to switch the words up a tiny bit. No problem, I can probably manage that. I'm learning a lot here, right now. Thanks. I really dont think I like WP any more, but whatever.zzz (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

She can think what she like. I came here to fins out if its fine for her to stick her opinions of me in edit summaries, stated as fact. And the answers yes, which surprises me. Ok, then. I'll have to try it if I decide I hate someones guts. Must feel satisfying to know youve made someone look like a fraud - "no smoke without fire", after all. zzz (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What other lies and abuse are ok to put in edit summaries? Is it just "deceptive edit summary... as usual", as on Terminator 2, (and variants, of course), or what other lies can you state while attacking editors in edit summaries, please? Then I'll know not to complain when this editor uses them, which will save everyones time. Thankszzz (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And, now, I seem to be repeating myself. Just cant believe what's going on, that's all.zzz (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, her last comment says that Im a sockpuppet again. Not Wiki-abuse. She "provides evidence". Not actual evidence - doesn't need to be. Anyone reading it will just assume it is pretty damning evidence, because they dont understand these little wiki-rules like she does. Well, I'm learning a lot about how to abuse the system to make personal attacks. Its been a massive incredibly unpleasant waste of time, but at least I've learnt something. If I ever choose to act like a complete certifiable sociopath, which could happen quite easily no doubt, I just will, now I know these simple ways of doing it. And using edit summaries is a good tip. Personally, I dont edit to abuse people. But I might decide I want to in the future, I suppose - who knows? zzz (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Anyone who looks at the other articles this editor has done will see ..." etc.
• "... has a personal attacks issue"
• "... is a sockpuppet. Just yesterday, this [any page will do] happened, proving it"
• Those are just a few from her last comment. I'll have to use this discussion as a reference for recommended Wiki-abuse. zzz (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Abusive use of multiple accounts. That is a very serious charge. I demand a full investigation. I should be dealt with (or shown to be totally innocent - but no one whatsoever would think that. No smoke etc.) No, I should be dealt with "if" Im using multiple accounts. Why am I not being dealt with? I only edit a handful of pages. It must be very simple to show some of the edits made by these abusive accounts. It should be extremely simple. Why on earth am I allowed to continue? I must be causing enormous damage! It needs to be stopped. It is a major priority, since I have written two high profile articles in the last couple of months already. I need to be stopped, urgently, I would have thought.zzz (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• "...has a history of disruptive editing". Thats a good one to annoy people with, assuming its not true. zzz (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are for winning arguments basically, yes? Ive only had a couple of them. And no one ever backed me up. But that's just me saying that. Ive only edited for 2-3 months, so it should be very obvious that I'm lying. Does WP not actually care about sockpuppets? I thought it did. Another misconception. zzz (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess this kind of "discussion" is why hardly anyone wants to edit pre-existing pages. Which is why they are all in such a poor state. Because of people like her. Now I get it. I always wondered about that. zzz (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If I continue to use WP (which I may do for a bit, just not very much any more), I'll obviously remember, that personal attacks (listed above) in edit summaries or wherever else, are fine, and you just have to ignore them. The WP "rules" are an in-joke. What a n idiot I am for not realising that. How embarrassing. Why does anyone bother editing? Oh, yes... they don'tzzz (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• "...has some odd interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and these interpretations are detrimental to articles" another, clever-sounding one from her last comment. zzz (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• "...has far too many similarities to a WP:Sockpuppet named on my user page in the section about WP:Sockpuppets" - requires a section on user page entitled "Sockpuppets". Note use of "WP:", thought by some to make you look important. zzz (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• "This user makes deceptive edit summaries" - what started this. Place in an edit summary for full effect. Excellent for general annoyance, and also provocation (and failing that, at least you've "warned" other users, which si what makes it so much fun). zzz (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So anyone can announce that anyone is a sockpuppet, is detrimental to articles, makes deceptive edit summaries, has a history of diruptive editing, has a personal attacks issue, etc. These and more can all be used anywhere, at any time, and no evidence is required, as long as no 'bleep' words are used. That is the actual, unwritten, WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS rule. Well, I've written it now, so that's an improvement. zzz (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, some times I get things confused. If this is the case, please let me know. Otherwise I just might try some of this Wiki-abusing myself just for the hell of it. Just need to phrase the abuse like your reading from a legal document, and it's all good. What a joke. zzz (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, she made a personal attack in an edit summary. I thought that was going too far. If that is actually fine, then so be it. And if I ever get criticised for doing so, I (or indeed any other editor) can reference this discussion to demonstrate that its actually no problem whatsoever. No justification is necessary, any attack on the character of the editor is good, so long as legalese is used rather than 'bleep' words. And it is also fine to accuse any one, regardless of evidence, of being a sockpuppet. I am collecting these little unwritten rules on my user page for reference. Thank you. zzz (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It turns out, I'm the one at fault, for being a suspected sockpuppet. that was a productive discussion, thenzzz (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz there usually is no reason to be so defensive and the long multi-edited posts are really difficult to read. Try to be more concise. The only possible thing that I saw that could be considered an attack by User:Flyer22 was in the edit summary. And I see that she has apologised for that. Asking if you had edited before is not an attack but just a question. There is no need to blow it out of proportion. You have accused Flyer22 of hounding you but at this moment with all the talk page posts you look as if you are harassing her. If you keep that sort of thing up you will end up being blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree I shouldn't have got so upset, and I apologise unreservedly for doing that on your page. She only apologised for the edit summary after I tried to remove a paragraph from her user page that is specifying me as a sock puppet [1] (every statement, from Boko Haram on, is specifically about me, without mentioning my name). A couple of admins have had some amusement pretending it's not about me, which surprises me, so I have followed another admin's advice and taken my complaint to ANI. Sorry again for going mental all over your talk page. I don't see what her apology has to do with it, though, since she had ample opportunity to apologise while she was commenting here. My talk page posts are all very polite, I thought (after the first one). I dont understand why you say I could be blocked for them. Did you just assume they were rude? This whole sockpuppet thing is such a huge waste of time. The sock cannot spell or use grammar. There was no reason to think it was me. She now admits it wasn't me. But she has kept the attack piece spelling out that it is me anyway. zzz (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Palmerston Park

One of the Scottish league grounds has already (!) changed capacity [2]. How do you edit the template(s) you have created? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Lee Zeldin

Hi, can you replace Category:People from Suffolk County, New York with Category:People from Shirley, New York on this article, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reflection (Fifth Harmony album)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson

You were the administrator that locked Neil deGrasse Tyson. The article Thefederalist.com appears to be attracting the same edits as originally caused that article to be locked (edits of controversial material followed by reverts). I'd suggest looking at whether it should be locked as well for the duration of the AfD. I'm also going to ping the other administrator that removed the BLP violations which had been boldly inserted @MastCell:, Second Quantization (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Thefederalist.com

I would like to know if there is a policy which would justify the full protection of this page from editing while it is under AfD. The problem with doing so, in my opinion, is that it restricts most editors from improving the article during the deletion discussion. I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Protection policy which addresses this issue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Srda Popovic (activist)

Hello, I would like to ask you to reconsider protection of Srda Popovic given that there is a new wave of vandalism as of 12:00, 30 September 2014. Please see < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sr%C4%91a_Popovi%C4%87_(activist)&diff=prev&oldid=627669526 > GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Three new repeated targets of the Philippine Airport Vandal

Hong Kong International Airport, Qatar Airways destinations, Hamad International Airport. Thanks! HkCaGu (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Much thanks. GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

List of anime conventions

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

MMA FIghtnight brew-ha-ha

There's also a request at DRV; I didn't close the AfD, so I don't want to unilaterally overturn it (which is effectively what a unprotection would be). This is beginning to become a bit of a fuck-up (but I'm also starting to feel a bit involved/reviewed, and my gut is it'd be better if some else closed the discussion(s)). WilyD 07:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Bracket Errors on 6 October

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Canadian airports by location indicator: CE may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Alberta Hospital|Edmonton/University of Alberta]] ([[Stollery Children's Hospital]]) Heliport]]||[[Edmonton]], [[Alberta]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2 Canadian Forces Flying Training School may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{coord|50|19|49|N|105|33|33|W|type:airport_region:CA-SK|display=title}}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus page protection

Just an fyi that at WP:RFPPA you agreed to temporarily semi-protect Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa‎ for a period of one week, but on the protection log you've set the expiry to October 2015. (Not sure if it was intentional.) CR4ZE (t • c) 02:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Page protection for Parade (Prince album)

The article you recently page-protected, Parade (Prince album), prevented the IP who was disrupting the article from editing it, but the same editor restored their addition under their account. Could you increase it to prevent newly registered users from editing the article? Dan56 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:JimboWalesIsGodOnWikipedia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:JimboWalesIsGodOnWikipedia. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:JimboWalesIsGodOnWikipedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, sorry to see this link get deleted. I didn't see a problem with it myself, but what's done is done.

Thanks anyway. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC) _{PS: What ever happen to your signature that ended "Have a gorilla". I thought that one was clever KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)}

Bracket Errors on 16 October

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Buffalo Airways may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• hayriverhub.com/2013/04/buffalo-aircraft-a-veteran-of-d-day/ Buffalo aircraft a veteran of D-Day]]</ref><ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/mikey-mcbryan-makes-d-day-jump-out-of-buffalo-air-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Srđa Popović (activist

Hi! To be able to continue editing after your semi-protection of the article Srđa Popović (activist), it seems like the IP user registered a user namned Dwightkschrute91. The user still continue to remove the same info as before the semi-protection. Dnm (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, CB Weather, thank you for your protection to the SP page, but note that the edit you've now frozen in place is one by the suspect user Dwightkschrute91, who has never done anything on Wikipedia except edit-warring on that page. GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Among good-faith and registered users, yes, I do think there is consensus. You'll notice that no one has challenged me on the talk page. GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This morning's page protect

Re:

Loboc Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: A certain IP address insists of his/her edits leading to red links and a category not found in commons. He insists not to capitalize the word church, wherein in the article, it is used as a part of a proper noun (name of a church/building, e.g. New York Cathedral, London Cathedral, White House). He also removed some citations to certain paragraphs. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am that certain IP address. I spent a lot of time editing this page, as it was full of dodgy syntax, poor constructions, semi-literacy, {{WP:PEACOCK}} etc. On the edit summary I gave notice that it contravened {{WP:OVERLINK}}{{WP:EDITORIALISE}} and {{WP:CAPITALS}}.

User Carlojoseph14 is seemingly unaware of these, or can't be bothered to find out. Usual procedure on redlink detection is to fix it, not obliterate. Easy enough, and I fixed a lot which were already there, as well as incorrect links, such as St Joseph. Proper noun? = bosh! Apart from removing non-encyclopaedic wording, I also removed a lot of material unconnected with the page subject - if for instance you want to read about the 2013 earthquake, then go to that page, not read it here.

What I'm saying is check the page history before issuing a protect order.

I was all set to issue a {{3RR}} this morning - maybe I did, but the process was pretty difficult. 112.198.77.28 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your AWB task is causing errors

See Special:Diff/630197550 and Special:Diff/630200286. You changed "Canada Nunavut" to "Canada Nunavut Nunavut". Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for catching it and pointing it out. I make sure it doesn't happen again. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

Thanks for looking after this while I was away, I really appreciate it. I agree with you that SP is probably a better choice, at least in view of the history now. I do think it'll need more than a month, would you have any objection to extending (or having me extend) that to 6 or 12 months?) No dramas either way. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 17:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oct 2014 warning

sorry for my comment; I did not mean to attack the other contributor but what the other user is doing is bordering on trolling. He/She just inflates numbers and reverts non-stop without even engaging in a discussion. By the way, did you also warn him when he wrote to me: "Now go back selling your sister on the street of Italy for 20 euros, Zigan". I am guessing that, including the really racist part at the end, is ok? 99.240.137.72 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bracket Errors on 21 October

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kobanê Canton may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• After weeks of isolation as a result of Turkey blocking arms and fighters from entering the town (due to the general hostility of the Turkish establishment towards Kurds with any links to the [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to un-protect Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Hello CambridgeBayWeather, I see you accepted the request from RGlouster to semi-protect that page. I believe his request was bad faith. There was no good reason to believe I was a sock of anyone, and plenty of reason to prevent me from editing that page for tactical reasons. Can you please unblock it now, I assure you that my only interests are the best interests of Wikipedia. I have a legitimate wish to contribute to that debate, as a legitimate unregistered UK reader of Wikipedia. 94.196.211.205 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CambridgeBayWeather. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deleted Page (User:AbusedCadet)

Hi, you deleted my page User:AbusedCadet I was wondering why? I'm trying to establish a verifiable online presence.

Regards,

Richard Matthews www.abusedcadet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbusedCadet (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. How do I correct those items? I am that person trust me! I've just setup Richard Matthews (Abused Cadet) in the user space to helped edit to get it setup. What do I have to link to have it ref so it proves it is me? FB TWT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbusedCadet (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

22 October

Hi,

Thanks for that, I've made the appropriate change http://abusedcadet.com/about/ but still can't create the userpage as it's been deleted. What do I do to un-delete it?

Richard Matthews www.abusedcadet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbusedCadet (talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've made changes with refrences added. Hope it's now up to standard.AbusedCadet (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Silicon Valley protection

Thank you for protecting the article. I guess I should have specified an indefinite period of time or more than a temporary amount of protection. Hopefully this will decrease the amount of vandalism, but its been ongoing over the last several years. And new sources seem to encourage further abuse. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Understandable... :) I've been patrolling it for quite a while and have a longer term perspective, but your efforts are appreciated. If there is continued abuse, I can always list it again. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you for that! :) Best regards, --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

El-Clasico page

In "El Clasico" page, in "results" section..

Sum of "All competetive" wins for real madrid is 92 not 93.. Therfore for "All Matches" is 96 not 97

And for Barcelona, in "All Matches" its 108 not 107

You should then change the numbers in the main table in the top of the page in "Most Wins"

Also, the lines just before. "Rivalry" section It says:

"Real Madrid leads the head to head results in competitive matches with 96 wins to Barcelona's 88. Along with Athletic Bilbao, they are the only clubs in La Liga to have never been relegated."

96 should be replaced with 92 And 88 with 89 As the "head to head" (According to "Results") wins are:

92 (Real Madrid) 89 (Barcelona)

And in All matches its:

96 (Real Madrid) 108 (Barcelona)

Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim3adel (talk • contribs) 09:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That should be discussed on Talk:El Clasico. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

el clasico must be edit .....that'wrong numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.219.198 (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Then take it to Talk:El Clasico. User:CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), sunasuttuq 04:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop signs

Bilingual (English and French) stop sign in Ottawa.

Billingual (English and Inuinnaqtun) in Cambridge Bay.

Hiya CBW, I was looking at Road signs in Canada and under the languages part they refer to signs being in English, French, and sometimes Cree. I remember (and if I were home may be able to find a picture) of a stop sign in English, French and Inuktitut in Nanisivik. Are there any such signs in in your area like that to add a picture of to the article? If not I will see if I can dig out my old photo album. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts, interesting to find out what the literal translation would be. The signs in Mongolia said ЗОГС (zogs), which means more like "off" I think. Based on the way the Cyrillic characters looked, we always referred to it as the 3-orc sign.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I just added a multiple image template, nite to see some other language representation other than English and French. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Kuala Lumpur International Airport

This article is already semi-protected because of sock-puppetry. Can you increase the level of protection to full protection since there are edit warring between registered users and a registered user is continuing to edit the page without discussion. Thanks! 71.12.206.168 (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems one user is blocked, not much need for full protection. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. With the one user being blocked I don't think the page needs protecting. User:CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), sunasuttuq 20:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Bangerz Tour

The article has been a mess. Recently, people started to clean up bad editing. I wonder if you can extend semi-protection time, or that would be impossible. --George Ho (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bracket Errors on 1 November

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to God in Islam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Quote|{That both Mohammed and those among his followers who are reckoned orthodox, had and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

El Clasico

Requesting permanent page protection on this article, among the most persistently vandalised pages on this site.User:Carlos Rojas77, talk, 14:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi,

Sorry about my edit summary. I'll change it now to something hopefully more appropriate. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my username. Who knew it'd cause all this trouble. I miss the days of being able to correct a simple grammatical error on a Wiki page without having to sign in. Sorry if the name offended you, it was a quickie idea, and I didn't know people actively paid attention to the names of Wiki editors! 😂 Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Username policy, especially the section Dealing with inappropriate usernames? I kid, I kid. I'll change my username ASAP. ☺

Glittershit (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about Les Invasions barbares

Doesn't a film that originated in French retain its French name, i.e. Les Invasions barbares? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about Page Protecting

Is setting up page protection a special privilege that can be granted like "rollback rights" or do you have to be an Admin? Thanks, --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, bummer, its something that I'd like to help with, but I'm not ready to go the full Admin process yet. I don't even have 10K in edits. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm all to aware of the drama that can go on there and ANI and Arbcom and the rest. Plus, in my case I'm certain that more than a few Editors would object on a variety of grounds. I have my defenders, but I have my haters as well. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! That's is quite magnanimous. Maybe next spring or some time in 2015 and when I have at least 10K worth of edits or more. I keep busy mostly these days with the Pending Changes list and working my own articles. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's good advice. I'll start casually checking them out. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not alone in my idea Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Unbundling_the_tools. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still no more inclined to go near that gauntlet, but if other rights can be granted that allow me to help out, I'm all for it. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Historiador1923

Dear CambridgeBayWeather Thanks for the clarification, best regard --Historiador1923 (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Key West, Florida

excuse you but i live in key west — Preceding unsigned comment added by VAVAvertigo (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Clinton Public School District: Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandalism by a past user which I missed when I only reverted vandalism from a more recent user. Donner60 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell

I see that you semi-protected Mitch McConnell for two weeks due to edit-warring and BLP violations. The real offender is a registered editor, Tina cain, so that the semi-protection merely prevents an unregistered editor from reverting the changes. (She is changing his Senate job title from Minority Leader to Majority Leader, a position to which he has not yet been elected because the incoming United States Senate has not yet met. She is also edit-warring at Harry Reid.) Could you please look at the conduct of the registered editor? I have filed a report at WP:ANEW and have notified the edit-warrior. I think that a block for her is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This has to do with the result of yesterday's elections in the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

McConnell is the leader of the Senate Republicans and is Minority Leader. Reid is the leader of the Senate Democrats and is Majority Leader. Since the Republicans gained a majority in the United States Senate, McConnell will almost certainly be chosen as Majority Leader when the incoming Senate convenes. Reid will become Minority Leader if the Senate Democrats decide to retain him as leader. (They might dump him and elect another Senator instead.) Tina is now up to 7RR in persisting in changing their titles in anticipation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Now that you point it out, she isn't autoconfirmed until November 9, so it does lock the page against her as well as against the IP who was one of the editors rolling back her changes. However, as far as being a completely new user, she had been cautioned. The first time that I reverted her changes, I reverted them as good-faith edits. Then I cautioned her again, and she persisted, so that she appears to be a new editor who has difficulty learning. I hadn't made the connection that the semi-protection blocks her until November 9. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Another admin (probably an American) was less accommodating than you were and indeffed the edit-warrior. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cell ID

Do you mind if I put the various companies in alphabetical order? It seems a much more natural (and much more intuitive) method of listing than the number of unique cells, and it would presumably pose less of a tempting target for editwarriors. Normally I'd rearrange the list without checking, since it's a small enough issue that editing through protection wouldn't be a problem, but since the list order was the whole reason for the editwar, I'm not about to do it without checking with you first. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've alphabetised them (and added an explanatory comment) while linking to your "please go ahead" comment in my edit summary, lest anyone complain. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Beijing Capital International Airport

Looks like PEK has been constantly bombarded from the Philippines in at least the past month to a point of overwhelming normal edits. HkCaGu (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Djcheburashka

You may wish to take a look at the recent contributions of Djcheburashka (talk · contribs), particularly this, this, this, and this. --Calton | Talk 13:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Afro Latin American

Hi friend. I think we should also consider the other involved user since I was restoring information that is referenced, no. This user edits and places drawn from other reference numbers that pass over the official and are not secure; besides that the reverse, you change other product data inherent to the case. The user User:DonBarchanga DonBarchanga (talk · contribs) adds a uniqueness to the figure for Venezuela, just as long as the rest of the country does not apply the same standard. I noticed on your user talk page and never responded, I invited him to discuss and neither did. I reported to the user for edit warring, but I think that was not complied with, for me it is a bit difficult here since English is not my language, I speak Spanish, but I would like to check up on the history of Afro-Latin American and will observe repeated arbitrary edits the user makes, recently returned to revert the changes. It is not fair that the issue of users to express their article when it is not true, I hope your answer, greetings. Jaam0121 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand, I began a discussion of the issue in the article. One question: When protection expires page pueso rectify the information? since the current edition is the other user, and the information is not correct. Greetings.Jaam0121 (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Hong Kong protests

The article has been frequently edited. Well, we did debate some content that may or may not add significance to the topic itself. However, at least there hasn't been vandalism for a while. I am not very sure whether other contents, removed as undue weight, were made by unconfirmed and IPs. Therefore, I am requesting semi-protection extension. --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, one unconfirmed editor requested addition of something in the talk page, but s/he provided a blog as a source. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know; someone mentioned that content was cited with phony references. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Jenni Rivera vandalism

CambridgeBayWeather,
Do you think you can reconfigure pending changes or even configure temporary semi-protection for: Jenni Rivera, lately the article has had more disruptive editing than before. Thanks! Fundude99 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Stradbroke

Dear Sir or Madam,

I notice that you have locked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradbroke/ to allow only auto-confirmed users to modify the content. I believe this has been at the request of user JEHargrave. Please could you let me know how I become an auto-confirmed user of the site.

JEHargrave is citing persistent and disruptive editing when in fact he is the one removing any edits I make because he doesn't like them. I am aware that he has agreed with the administrators that no links should be added, so I simply added some text about there being an "official website called Stradbroke online". This is the village website which is endorsed by the local authority. No link was added to the page. I believe he's removed this text because he prefers to promote the unofficial website run by himself.

How can it be fair that JEHargrave simply asks for the page to be locked to prevent anyone putting anything that he doesn't personally like?

I'd be grateful if you could let me know what I can do to either become added as an autoconfirmed user, or have the lock removed from the page. My email address is stuart_crane@yahoo.com

Thanks in advance,

Stuart Crane... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.133.182 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to register a user name. Then be here for four days and in that time make 10 edits. You should go to Talk:Stradbroke and discuss the issues there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this page is that edit warring had started with users like 81.158.133.182 (Stuart Crane) deleting all links to one of Stradbroke's websites. What was agreed was that all links and text about both sites should be removed to prevent this edit waring, see User_talk:Yunshui#Stradbroke_Page. Once 81.158.133.182 had added the text about the website then another user added the link back. It is very clear these users are acting together as sock/meat puppets and indeed several have been found already such as User:Nodracol . Maybe if 81.158.133.182 (Stuart Crane) gets a wikipedia account we could have a civilised discussion on Talk:Stradbroke and come to an agreement about restoring the links to both sites and avoiding adding comments such as "improved" and other non-verifiable comments.Jehargrave (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be the best outcome. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

SHINee's Key

Firstly, I want to thank you so much for re-reverting that edit that Speakfromthesoul (talk) made. I really appreciate it.

And I think it would have been better though to report that user or simply block him/her (or give that user a stern warning that if he/she does this one more time, he/she will get blocked), because it seems to me that only this one particular user is creating the problematic edits while nobody else is. Thanks for fully protecting Key's page though, but I'm not sure if that would solve the problem completely as it seems that only ONE user is doing the problematic edits while the others are in good faith, reverting his/her edits.

Anyway I hope all is well and thanks again! Tibbydibby (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any further problems. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)