Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:53, 3 December 2014

Template:MsgEmail

Archives

Archive 01, Archive 02, Archive 03, Archive 04, Archive 05, Archive 06, Archive 07, Archive 08, Archive 09, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16, Archive 17, Archive 18, Archive 19, Archive 20, Archive 21, Archive 22, Archive 23, Archive 24, Archive 25, Archive 26, Archive 27, Archive 28, Archive 29, Archive 30, Archive 31, Archive 32, Archive 33, Archive 34, Archive 35, Archive 36, Archive 37

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

I have two requests for people coming here:

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

Bobov dynasty

Hi Cambridge!

I would like to bring to your attention that misleading info has been put in the Bobov wiki by people who have agenda's. I tried few times to correct it but was deleted by others. At this point you have closed the editing options while the misleading, agenda promote info. is still out there. If you need more elaboration on the happenings please get back to me.

O. Bobov

Protection of articles

How did you protect I (film) article, bro? Can u tell me? :D Ssven2 (talk)

Can you please protect Kaththi article bro, atleast for 2 months because the vandalism is too much to handle. :D. Thx Ssven2 (talk)

Question about Full protection of Neil deGrasse Tyson

Now I see, it was a different reason then I thought. At least this makes sense even if I don't agree. Thank you.

Gforce Pakistan

Hello my friend, You know how this all works. You have made a change to https://en.wikipedia.org/G_Force_Pakistan We'll ask you nicely to revert it back to as it was. We are not looking for trouble. Some Gforce Made members are not very happy with this change. We'll pay you $500+ Dollars for Giving the wiki back to us and We can adjust the price if you want. Please Respond.

Yours Sincerely, D'Amico (Associate and Messenger of GForce Pakistan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gforcepakistan4 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 November 2014

The Who

Hi. You were recently asked to semi-protect this page following this report. However, I have this page on my watchlist (I keep meaning to nominate it for a Featured article candidate but have never quite got round to it) and I don't recall persistent vandalism over the past year. There are certainly edits from IPs that degrade the article quality that have had to be reverted, but I would only class a small handful of those as an actual deliberate attempt to make Misplaced Pages worse. I'd also draw your attention to this edit request where an IP challenged a fact in the article and it turned out they were right. Ritchie333 10:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333 I see now that was a request for pending changes. Would that be a better idea. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, from my understanding, pending changes is for vandalism, BLP violations and copyvios. The only one covering The Who in any serious depth is BLP (from IPs adding unsourced content), but even then I don't think there are serious violations. The biggest problem (from a recent sample of IP edits : , , ,) seems to be more a question of writing from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral one. And that's not something I can see that's an obvious candidate for PC, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I've removed the semi-protection. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd better ping @Tom Morris: who also applied PC to the article before noticing you'd semi'd it. Ritchie333 10:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Climate

You edited Scarborough, ON, I had to undo your information because it's wrong.

And your data is unsourced. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Media of Turkey article

You didn't say anything about that why you added protection to this page. When people wants to add or change this article, will you do that again? The problem was trustworthy of some information in there. It shouldn't be like that.MEOGLOBAL (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, protection was very much needed. He has very poor English skills and he is an avid supporter of the government, and he was really harming the article. If you can, please extend the time of protection, because he will ruin it again for sure. Gezginrocker (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Niels Bohr

Hi CBW! Would you please be so nice to have look at this article. Somebody destroyed the reference-list. I tried to restore it, but am not shure whether everything is ok. Thanks & Greetings -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Ilovaisk

Is there a reason why you limited editing of this article to users with the template editor right? I was requesting semi-protection. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Going Wild

Can you check this article, I began to edit it and am stuck on some odd information apparently added in 2007 by a "retired" editor. I can not find any references to the claims that the editor made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Whoops, now I find a bona fide source that validates the entries. It makes sense now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everything is cool and to boot, we have an unusual film that is now detailed as a Wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Papists / RationalWiki

RationalWiki uses the phrase "Papists" here though it could just be vandalism. You can also see that many of the OP's questions are about what he found at RationalWiki which is the source his statements and even typos (see for example Ezrulie (sic) at the same RationalWiki page). In fact he's asking the WP RD to confirm what he found at RationalWiki. Contact Basemetal here 14:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Basemetal, I don't think that I have ever seen it used other than in a bad way. I'm surprised that nobody else mentioned it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh I know. All I'm saying is this is where the OP saw it. The reason no one else mentioned it is that people at the RD are very tolerant when they notice somebody's struggling with English. Btw, I don't think this is doing him any favor. When I try to point out that editor doesn't seem to know the meaning of some word he's just used there's always people who get in the way to defend him as if I'd said that just to be mean. IMO that's not the best way to help someone with their English.Contact Basemetal here 19:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also noticed that he seems to be ESL but letting him use words that are going to cause offence is not a good thing. It's one of the few words that does not seem to have made it up here, the Canadian Arctic, which is surprising given the number of Scottish people that worked for the Hudson's Bay Company. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Operation Zarb-e-Azb

Hey CambridgeBayWeather. I do not wish to waste your time regarding the edit war on the article but can you please revert to the revision: 21:18, 2 November 2014‎ Faizan (talk | contribs)‎. After this revision its edit wars and so I think it'll be wise to revert to that revision. Amy decision you take regarding this will be respected Sir. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dn do it for him https://meta.wikimedia.org/The_Wrong_Version --39.41.212.125 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Too late. I already declined to revert to any particular version. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks :)--39.41.212.125 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Cyberchase episodes

Hi, why did you set List of Cyberchase episodes as template-protected? It's not a template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for protecting Electronic cigarette. Could you please revert the massive edits that were done after the last revert. They were done without any talk page discussion at all. AlbinoFerret 23:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret continues to disagree with the improvements. This was explained at ANI. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Electronic cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That case is closed with no finding of fault. Your activities, editing, making massive edits without consensus or discussion are the root of the problems with the page. AlbinoFerret 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The case was not closed by an admin. Now you are proposing on the talk page to delete the text or add original research. I have responded. He claims his proposal is sourced but anyone can read the source. He is conducting his own analysis of the review. Side note: After I removed the OR another editor added the word "some". No verification was provided because the word failed verification. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#OR accusations. QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes, bring that to the talk page. I am simply asking that the massive edits be reverted so they can be addressed on the talk page to see where consensus lies with them. AlbinoFerret 23:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, do you really think I want to waste a lot of time at ANI explaining why I protected it then reverted to a particular version of what appears to be a very contentious article. Sure, in some cases I have protected and then reverted but it has to be completely obvious and this is not. The article is in User:QuackGuru's version because that's how it was when I got there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, I will start a section on the talk page to see where consensus lies with the edits. Thanks again for placing the protection. AlbinoFerret 23:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree this not the place for content disputes. This is beyond a content dispute when editors propose original research and replace sourced text with original research. Only sourced text from review is verifiable. You want to start a section on the talk page to revert all the improvements? That is not helpful IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)