This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User:Roscelese's actions and their talk page ( User talk:Roscelese) have become the targets of serious harassment from Djcheburashka, a newbie editor who is quite aggressive. They need a good block and interaction ban. They are also targeting me as well by following my past discussions and edits on controversies which have histories which they don't understand. By rashly jumping in to punish me, they just muddy the waters and kick sleeping dogs. After they return from a block, they need to stay away from anything that's potentially controversial for some time. Right now they've come here with guns blazing and have attracted lots of well-deserved and unwanted attention. Their disruption needs to stop. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My comments on her page were consistent with numerous, repeated warnings she has received from a slew of editors in the past. They are not harrassive. This is an example of the bullying I've been complaining about -- you're casting appropriate comments as violations of a neutral policy, when in fact you and she have worked together on pages to advance a common, extremist, political agenda.
You've requested an interaction ban knowing that she's embedded herself into numerous issues, where she (sometimes along with you) have bullied-off people who object to various things about the pages.
An interaction ban would make it easier for you to continue to (erroneously) claim that "consensus" exists on those pages, since her participation would prevent my own. When a series of people come to a page, and all raise the same issues, just because you and one other person always respond quickly does not mean you have a consensus. It means the opposite, along with violations of WP:tag team and WP:ownership of articles.
You are correct that 3RR doesn't apply to user talk pages, and I know that now. It doesn't make my conduct harrassive, or yours or hers proper. Djcheburashka ( talk) 06:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for putting the protection on the False-rape and Liask pages. However, the page should have the POV template on it, since it is the subject of a POV discussion that has not reached consensus.
In addition, regarding the deletion of two pages --- my nomination was not in bad faith. Rosceles inserted herself, but those pages were nominated for deletion because they have zero citations, they have had warning labels at the top for 3-5 years, no-one's worked on them in that time.
That's consistent with the deletion criteria, and they should not be speedy-kept.
I've been following the wiki policy; within minutes of trying to open discussions to reach consensus, Rosceles has been declaring that consensus is reached and trying to terminate the discussions.
This is a longstanding problem. Going through her talk page I find dozens of complaints and warnings about bias, improper editing, and so forth. Going through her contributions, I see more and more of the same thing.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 17:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Something funny is going on here. What Rosceles had to do with those two pages is that she inserted herself into the dispute, apparently because of her edit war over the *other* two pages, after I nominated them as candidates for deletion. I tried to prevent her from eliminating the deletion process.
I've looked through the background on her warnings, and on her current edits, and what I see is a consistent threat of biased, abusive editing to advance her political agenda.
The two pages for deletion may have had text edits, but they haven't had sourcing. Ever. I did go through the page. One of them had no citations at all when I nominated it for deletion. The other, the only "citations" on it are marks for "citation needed."
In addition, neither of them has any indication of notability. A google search shows there's little evidence that either of them even has an existence beyond the page -- unless the "dark figure of crime" is supposed to be the same as the "dark figure," which already has its own page.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 17:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like what happened with the two pages is I thought she was trying to revert the marking of those pages for discussion-deletion rather than simply voting. That was my error.
In the scheme of things though, its one of the smallest things that's happened here.
Regarding the rest of it --- I didn't know who Roscelese was until a day or two ago. I found a page with some obvious errors on it while researching something; I went to the sources cited in the article; I found serious problems; I then tried to raise the issue in the talk page, where another editor declared that any disagreement must be biased or idiotic, and refused to discuss the matter. I then opened a POV dispute so it could be resolved consistent with policy. Rosc then removed the POV template, again a policy violation, repeatedly.
I started to look through the record of other contributions, and to see the connections between Rosc and a very small group that all focus on the same set of pages, and found a host of additional problems.
The feminist school of criminology page does not have a single citation on it. It has a section of what it says are publications within the field. Those are not sources for the article. The article does not (or did not when I marked it for discussion) identify any source as supporting the contentions made in the article, however. [Note: I went back and what I said was too extreme. It does have a few; I think they're inadequate to establish even noteability, but that's a more complex discussion. I am not deleting what I said before, because I think that deleting one's record that way is improper.] Indeed, if "feminist criminology" has any distinct existence at all, google says it doesn't have much of one. The "dark figure of crime" page has some of the same problems. There's more indication on google that at least the "dark figure" exists, but the page is just one person's un-cited, un-sourced riffing on the topic.
There's a reason these pages have had problem templates on them for years. That no-one's been able to provide citations or undertaken to fix them, is strong evidence that they are not fixable.
If I wanted to vandalize the pages, why would I have started the slower page deletion discussion process?
It doesn't seem to me that you've actually looked at what took place; I'm the one playing by the rules.
The problems with Rosceles -- from improper "ownership" of pages; to abusive use of warning templates; bullying other editors; misrepresentations of sources; violations of page blocks; and on and on and on -- are well-established and have been a subject of numerous warnings from administrators as well as editors. Unfortunately, none of it has deterred her. Going through the edits I found a slew of pages with serious POV issues, misrepresented sources, violated policies, etc. Fixing that kind of pervasive bias issue is one of the things that editors are supposed to be doing.
It seems you became involved when a friend of hers signalled you on the page, without pointing you to the discussion pages that led to the situation. If you're not willing to take the time to engage on this, then please step aside and let an administrator willing to take the time do so.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 08:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Please do consider the matter of unnecessary addition of an external image in Sophie Hunter's page. She's not a model whose appearance is pivotal to her profile nor is the external image notable in her body work. Other pages don't have photos in their infoboxes either and they still exist and work as a page even without an external image. The image the user keeps on inserting is also not solely of Hunter's appearance as she is with somebody else in the photo. This is not at all a very good representation or even rational to have an external image in the page. I hope you remove the innecessary external image.
Thanks for placing temporary protection on the List of Cyberchase episodes article. We who edit it have run ourselves ragged reverting edits by anonymous IPs who keep insisting that Season 9 has ended but won't cite a source to prove their claims. If it were up to me, I would desire a longer period of protection for this page, as the vandalism is just likely to get repeated again. But I suppose if push comes to shove, we can just let you or another admin know and have you block the problematic IPs. Anywho, thanks again for intervening on this issue. We owe you big time! -- Jgstokes ( talk) 11:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you also add indefinite pending changes? The article needs further attention, especially when the semi-protection expires. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia 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 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You edited Scarborough, ON, I had to undo your information because it's wrong.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/wiki/The_Wrong_Version -- 39.41.212.125 ( talk) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks :)-- 39.41.212.125 ( talk) 00:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
Thanks for applying edit protection to this article.
1. Is it possible to amend the opening paragraph with text "The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, Australia, Canada, the UAE, the United Kingdom and the United States." One thing that I have noticed in a lot of Islamic extremist / mid east war articles is an emphasis on the US (and, to some extent, terrorism as well with a comparative lack of emphasis on issues like ethnic cleansing, Islamic criticism etc. Internet searches on terrorist and game get substantial hits).
2. Are you the admin for Boko Haram or who is? I was wondering if an extension could be made on Syrian Civil War / ISIL sanctions so as to cover all Islam related groups in the List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations.
Thanks
Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
thank you for putting editing protection on the article List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases since there is in fact an edit war going on. But why did you protect the version that is always set up by one single user who deletes the whole list of hundrets of terms every few days except for three(!) terms, while several other users try to restore the complete list? Yes, I know that the list has several issues but it still had been be a useful list. Now there is that one guy (who also has been involved into several edit wars according to his talk page) violating the article and you put protection on his version? I am sorry, but I really can't understand that.
Mnbvcxyz ( talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi could you please block Meters and Kansas bear becuase they have been putting disruptive facts and Kansas bear wrote an abuse on my talk page please? I am counting on you. I have lot of issues with them but I kept calm.
Thanks a lot! Thesnowymanlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesnowymanlan ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could use your input and/or action on this article. A User has been adding a link to copyrighted image on IMDb.com IMO in violation of WP:HOTLINK and WP:COPYVIO using the Template:External media. This is also in the midst of ignoring recommendations on the Talk page as they keep re-inserting the template over and over [5]. I'm done reverting as my policy cites and concerns go ignored even though I think I am covered by the exceptions to 3RR. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, this person claims that they are also an Admin on their User page. I don't know how to verify this, but just a heads up. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on in this article, but its been on the Special:PendingChanges list for several hours with Thesnowymanlan seemingly the main instigator in an Edit War or disruptive editing at the very least. Would you mind taking a look [6]? Thanks, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 12:35 pm, Today (UTC−8)
Thesmashbrobrawler, same edit. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting The Holocaust. Hopefully this will force the waring parties to move onto the Talk Page and talk it out. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Why did you delete that information and put a lock on edits? I will never donate money to wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:3781:23B2:5B4:1895:5AB3:E2A6 ( talk) 16:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I read that and maybe I don't understand the rules as well as you do. In what way did it violate the biographies of living persons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.86.190 ( talk) 19:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your good works ... ~~ Trueside 12:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your good works ... ~~ Trueside 12:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hello,
An anonymous user keeps on removing large sections from Yeni Şafak article. Is it possible to protect the article or ban the IP of the user please? His IP is 137.122.64.60. Thanks. Gezginrocker ( talk) 14:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and your fam a happy holiday season from your friend down south and a bit to the west. Rosiestep ( talk) 01:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hey, I saw you locked down the article. Look, I've been trying to work out something acceptable in the Talk page. I'm the one who started a talk topic and I even went to Sellingpapayas's personal talk page, which they then deleted. But they and Rhydic have been having none of it. And the ideas that 1) GBLT relationships require special authorial external-to-the-work confirmation (asserted by both) and 2) their to-my-eyes highly forced interpretation of events somehow being "objective" and mine (with supporting evidence, only a little of which I've had time to list) being invalid (asserted directly by Rhydic) is frankly raising GBLT erasure flags all over the place.
So I guess I'm asking: what happens now? The page is locked down Sellingpapayas's way until December 26th, so they get their erasure until then? Or what? Solarbird ( talk) 22:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, so, while I was out today, Tutelary yanked out a huge chunk of my argument about this topic and flagged it "copyright violation." I wrote it. I wrote it here, I reposted to my blog, and on my blog, SAID I WAS WRITING THIS ON WIKIPEDIA AND WAS THE SAME PERSON. I've reverted it, but if we're at this kind of point, I have to go to administrators now. Can we do something about this?
I can fully sympathise with why you locked the e-cig article again, but is there any chance you could undo the change Doc James was edit-warring in and that got frozen when you locked it? Thanks.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I notice you protected User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof under WP:UPROT. But WP:UPROT doesn't include talk pages, only their username space. Tutelary ( talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been civilly debating Ryulong on that talk page, and now I cannot answer his most recent statement. I want to explain why WP:BLP1E does not apply. Please unprotect the page so I can rejoin the discussion, or at least put a note at that point that I am prevented from responding due to the page being protected. 70.133.151.184 ( talk) 02:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to request the page be unprotected. The other day I got mad and started deleting the text several times because Cyristhelad for months keeps deleting 361 bytes of documented factual information I have tried to add. I will no longer delete all of his info (and didn't for many months) but I want to be able to put my factual info in and keep it there without him constantly deleting it. At the very least Cyristhelad should be dealt with too for removing my 361 byte addition all the time.
Thanks 76.14.244.233 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.244.233 ( talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you please sort out Binksternet as they are harrasing me and other users (Stanlyfe) by calling us sock puppets without any evidence; I think Binksternet should know to have fact over fiction Muicfantasy ( talk) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi CambridgeBayWeather; Thanks for granting the page protection on Metropolitan (1990 film). I had originally requested Semi-protection (rather than Full) in order to investigate a possible sock. For such a low page-count article, I suddenly received 3 back-to-back quick responses from different dynamic IP editors and one other regular editor with an account. The IP editors appeared to be single purpose accounts as well. My plan was to revert on the Semi-protected page with my account in order to try to encourage the dynamically changing IP editor to open an account for them to make their revert, and thereby obtain more information on what looks like a sock. Reverting the page to the last neutral version, say thirty days ago, after the page goes to Semi-protection (only if you agree) should accomplish the same thing. My WHOIS on the IP editors showed only partial info as to the edit coming from Comcast somewhere in Mount Laurel, NJ, with no further info from my limited account. Cheers. FelixRosch ( TALK) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In light of new information provided by the creator (other links on the talk page), the edit war is resolved. I request full unprotection, or at least reduction to semi. This is coming to you, as the protecting admin. CRRays Head90 | #RaysUp 01:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi man,Can you Teach Me How To use Unblock and Block 115.133.38.236 ( talk) 06:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I need to know Tag Filter and Performer 115.133.38.236 ( talk) 01:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Performer use my name right Load Vordemout ( talk) 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you example Block please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Load Vordemout ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok,Performer is for what and Tag Filter is for what. Load Vordemout ( talk) 02:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.Perfomer is name me.And Tag filter is for what. 124.13.234.53 ( talk) 05:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to the edit war occurring at Metropolitan (1990 film). Unfortunately, the version you restored appears to be written in ESL manner that is vague, difficult to comprehend, and incomplete. I strongly encourage you to compare the currently protected version with other recent edits and consider restoring the one which appears to have been written by a native English speaker. 2601:E:2000:1A3:C914:D4EF:A4BA:8D03 ( talk) 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather:
Hi CambrigeBay,Can you Block Kistara.Beacause She Vandalishem Malaysia And Indonesia Armed Forces.People are so Angry her for her edits.Thanks. 124.13.234.53 ( talk) 07:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for protecting Amy Pascal's page; I am a little concerned that it has now expired (or will expire very soon depending on the time zone you used), however. Do you think it would make sense to extend it a bit longer? Thanks. Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
==Yo Ho Ho==
Dougweller (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec14c}} to your friends' talk pages.
Dougweller ( talk) 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologise, but I really need to bring it to your attention that an editor that has been blocked for 24h just a few days ago for edit-warring is really not understanding anything and hasn't learned the lesson. Not only he makes problematic edits in a highly sensitive area, but edit-wars without knowing WP:BRD and even threatens other editors ( diff). I noticed you were the blocking admin, so I am bringing to your attention his continuation of same behavior. Best regards, and wishes of happy hallydays, FkpCascais ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for protecting the pages
Shah Amanat International Airport and
Shahjalal International Airport!
Those two pages faced persistent vandalism and really needed some protection from editing by non-users and you gave them just that! The protection has helped kept them neat, tidy and factually correct. Once again, thanks! :) Rihaz ( talk) 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
Vandalism in my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.125.162 ( talk) 03:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi CBW! There's now an IP vandal from Indonesia, and these two have become his favorites:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User:Roscelese's actions and their talk page ( User talk:Roscelese) have become the targets of serious harassment from Djcheburashka, a newbie editor who is quite aggressive. They need a good block and interaction ban. They are also targeting me as well by following my past discussions and edits on controversies which have histories which they don't understand. By rashly jumping in to punish me, they just muddy the waters and kick sleeping dogs. After they return from a block, they need to stay away from anything that's potentially controversial for some time. Right now they've come here with guns blazing and have attracted lots of well-deserved and unwanted attention. Their disruption needs to stop. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My comments on her page were consistent with numerous, repeated warnings she has received from a slew of editors in the past. They are not harrassive. This is an example of the bullying I've been complaining about -- you're casting appropriate comments as violations of a neutral policy, when in fact you and she have worked together on pages to advance a common, extremist, political agenda.
You've requested an interaction ban knowing that she's embedded herself into numerous issues, where she (sometimes along with you) have bullied-off people who object to various things about the pages.
An interaction ban would make it easier for you to continue to (erroneously) claim that "consensus" exists on those pages, since her participation would prevent my own. When a series of people come to a page, and all raise the same issues, just because you and one other person always respond quickly does not mean you have a consensus. It means the opposite, along with violations of WP:tag team and WP:ownership of articles.
You are correct that 3RR doesn't apply to user talk pages, and I know that now. It doesn't make my conduct harrassive, or yours or hers proper. Djcheburashka ( talk) 06:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for putting the protection on the False-rape and Liask pages. However, the page should have the POV template on it, since it is the subject of a POV discussion that has not reached consensus.
In addition, regarding the deletion of two pages --- my nomination was not in bad faith. Rosceles inserted herself, but those pages were nominated for deletion because they have zero citations, they have had warning labels at the top for 3-5 years, no-one's worked on them in that time.
That's consistent with the deletion criteria, and they should not be speedy-kept.
I've been following the wiki policy; within minutes of trying to open discussions to reach consensus, Rosceles has been declaring that consensus is reached and trying to terminate the discussions.
This is a longstanding problem. Going through her talk page I find dozens of complaints and warnings about bias, improper editing, and so forth. Going through her contributions, I see more and more of the same thing.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 17:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Something funny is going on here. What Rosceles had to do with those two pages is that she inserted herself into the dispute, apparently because of her edit war over the *other* two pages, after I nominated them as candidates for deletion. I tried to prevent her from eliminating the deletion process.
I've looked through the background on her warnings, and on her current edits, and what I see is a consistent threat of biased, abusive editing to advance her political agenda.
The two pages for deletion may have had text edits, but they haven't had sourcing. Ever. I did go through the page. One of them had no citations at all when I nominated it for deletion. The other, the only "citations" on it are marks for "citation needed."
In addition, neither of them has any indication of notability. A google search shows there's little evidence that either of them even has an existence beyond the page -- unless the "dark figure of crime" is supposed to be the same as the "dark figure," which already has its own page.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 17:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like what happened with the two pages is I thought she was trying to revert the marking of those pages for discussion-deletion rather than simply voting. That was my error.
In the scheme of things though, its one of the smallest things that's happened here.
Regarding the rest of it --- I didn't know who Roscelese was until a day or two ago. I found a page with some obvious errors on it while researching something; I went to the sources cited in the article; I found serious problems; I then tried to raise the issue in the talk page, where another editor declared that any disagreement must be biased or idiotic, and refused to discuss the matter. I then opened a POV dispute so it could be resolved consistent with policy. Rosc then removed the POV template, again a policy violation, repeatedly.
I started to look through the record of other contributions, and to see the connections between Rosc and a very small group that all focus on the same set of pages, and found a host of additional problems.
The feminist school of criminology page does not have a single citation on it. It has a section of what it says are publications within the field. Those are not sources for the article. The article does not (or did not when I marked it for discussion) identify any source as supporting the contentions made in the article, however. [Note: I went back and what I said was too extreme. It does have a few; I think they're inadequate to establish even noteability, but that's a more complex discussion. I am not deleting what I said before, because I think that deleting one's record that way is improper.] Indeed, if "feminist criminology" has any distinct existence at all, google says it doesn't have much of one. The "dark figure of crime" page has some of the same problems. There's more indication on google that at least the "dark figure" exists, but the page is just one person's un-cited, un-sourced riffing on the topic.
There's a reason these pages have had problem templates on them for years. That no-one's been able to provide citations or undertaken to fix them, is strong evidence that they are not fixable.
If I wanted to vandalize the pages, why would I have started the slower page deletion discussion process?
It doesn't seem to me that you've actually looked at what took place; I'm the one playing by the rules.
The problems with Rosceles -- from improper "ownership" of pages; to abusive use of warning templates; bullying other editors; misrepresentations of sources; violations of page blocks; and on and on and on -- are well-established and have been a subject of numerous warnings from administrators as well as editors. Unfortunately, none of it has deterred her. Going through the edits I found a slew of pages with serious POV issues, misrepresented sources, violated policies, etc. Fixing that kind of pervasive bias issue is one of the things that editors are supposed to be doing.
It seems you became involved when a friend of hers signalled you on the page, without pointing you to the discussion pages that led to the situation. If you're not willing to take the time to engage on this, then please step aside and let an administrator willing to take the time do so.
Djcheburashka ( talk) 08:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Please do consider the matter of unnecessary addition of an external image in Sophie Hunter's page. She's not a model whose appearance is pivotal to her profile nor is the external image notable in her body work. Other pages don't have photos in their infoboxes either and they still exist and work as a page even without an external image. The image the user keeps on inserting is also not solely of Hunter's appearance as she is with somebody else in the photo. This is not at all a very good representation or even rational to have an external image in the page. I hope you remove the innecessary external image.
Thanks for placing temporary protection on the List of Cyberchase episodes article. We who edit it have run ourselves ragged reverting edits by anonymous IPs who keep insisting that Season 9 has ended but won't cite a source to prove their claims. If it were up to me, I would desire a longer period of protection for this page, as the vandalism is just likely to get repeated again. But I suppose if push comes to shove, we can just let you or another admin know and have you block the problematic IPs. Anywho, thanks again for intervening on this issue. We owe you big time! -- Jgstokes ( talk) 11:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you also add indefinite pending changes? The article needs further attention, especially when the semi-protection expires. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia 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 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You edited Scarborough, ON, I had to undo your information because it's wrong.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/wiki/The_Wrong_Version -- 39.41.212.125 ( talk) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks :)-- 39.41.212.125 ( talk) 00:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
Thanks for applying edit protection to this article.
1. Is it possible to amend the opening paragraph with text "The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, Australia, Canada, the UAE, the United Kingdom and the United States." One thing that I have noticed in a lot of Islamic extremist / mid east war articles is an emphasis on the US (and, to some extent, terrorism as well with a comparative lack of emphasis on issues like ethnic cleansing, Islamic criticism etc. Internet searches on terrorist and game get substantial hits).
2. Are you the admin for Boko Haram or who is? I was wondering if an extension could be made on Syrian Civil War / ISIL sanctions so as to cover all Islam related groups in the List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations.
Thanks
Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
thank you for putting editing protection on the article List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases since there is in fact an edit war going on. But why did you protect the version that is always set up by one single user who deletes the whole list of hundrets of terms every few days except for three(!) terms, while several other users try to restore the complete list? Yes, I know that the list has several issues but it still had been be a useful list. Now there is that one guy (who also has been involved into several edit wars according to his talk page) violating the article and you put protection on his version? I am sorry, but I really can't understand that.
Mnbvcxyz ( talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi could you please block Meters and Kansas bear becuase they have been putting disruptive facts and Kansas bear wrote an abuse on my talk page please? I am counting on you. I have lot of issues with them but I kept calm.
Thanks a lot! Thesnowymanlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesnowymanlan ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could use your input and/or action on this article. A User has been adding a link to copyrighted image on IMDb.com IMO in violation of WP:HOTLINK and WP:COPYVIO using the Template:External media. This is also in the midst of ignoring recommendations on the Talk page as they keep re-inserting the template over and over [5]. I'm done reverting as my policy cites and concerns go ignored even though I think I am covered by the exceptions to 3RR. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, this person claims that they are also an Admin on their User page. I don't know how to verify this, but just a heads up. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on in this article, but its been on the Special:PendingChanges list for several hours with Thesnowymanlan seemingly the main instigator in an Edit War or disruptive editing at the very least. Would you mind taking a look [6]? Thanks, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 12:35 pm, Today (UTC−8)
Thesmashbrobrawler, same edit. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting The Holocaust. Hopefully this will force the waring parties to move onto the Talk Page and talk it out. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Why did you delete that information and put a lock on edits? I will never donate money to wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:3781:23B2:5B4:1895:5AB3:E2A6 ( talk) 16:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I read that and maybe I don't understand the rules as well as you do. In what way did it violate the biographies of living persons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.86.190 ( talk) 19:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your good works ... ~~ Trueside 12:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your good works ... ~~ Trueside 12:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hello,
An anonymous user keeps on removing large sections from Yeni Şafak article. Is it possible to protect the article or ban the IP of the user please? His IP is 137.122.64.60. Thanks. Gezginrocker ( talk) 14:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and your fam a happy holiday season from your friend down south and a bit to the west. Rosiestep ( talk) 01:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hey, I saw you locked down the article. Look, I've been trying to work out something acceptable in the Talk page. I'm the one who started a talk topic and I even went to Sellingpapayas's personal talk page, which they then deleted. But they and Rhydic have been having none of it. And the ideas that 1) GBLT relationships require special authorial external-to-the-work confirmation (asserted by both) and 2) their to-my-eyes highly forced interpretation of events somehow being "objective" and mine (with supporting evidence, only a little of which I've had time to list) being invalid (asserted directly by Rhydic) is frankly raising GBLT erasure flags all over the place.
So I guess I'm asking: what happens now? The page is locked down Sellingpapayas's way until December 26th, so they get their erasure until then? Or what? Solarbird ( talk) 22:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, so, while I was out today, Tutelary yanked out a huge chunk of my argument about this topic and flagged it "copyright violation." I wrote it. I wrote it here, I reposted to my blog, and on my blog, SAID I WAS WRITING THIS ON WIKIPEDIA AND WAS THE SAME PERSON. I've reverted it, but if we're at this kind of point, I have to go to administrators now. Can we do something about this?
I can fully sympathise with why you locked the e-cig article again, but is there any chance you could undo the change Doc James was edit-warring in and that got frozen when you locked it? Thanks.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I notice you protected User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof under WP:UPROT. But WP:UPROT doesn't include talk pages, only their username space. Tutelary ( talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been civilly debating Ryulong on that talk page, and now I cannot answer his most recent statement. I want to explain why WP:BLP1E does not apply. Please unprotect the page so I can rejoin the discussion, or at least put a note at that point that I am prevented from responding due to the page being protected. 70.133.151.184 ( talk) 02:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to request the page be unprotected. The other day I got mad and started deleting the text several times because Cyristhelad for months keeps deleting 361 bytes of documented factual information I have tried to add. I will no longer delete all of his info (and didn't for many months) but I want to be able to put my factual info in and keep it there without him constantly deleting it. At the very least Cyristhelad should be dealt with too for removing my 361 byte addition all the time.
Thanks 76.14.244.233 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.244.233 ( talk) 03:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you please sort out Binksternet as they are harrasing me and other users (Stanlyfe) by calling us sock puppets without any evidence; I think Binksternet should know to have fact over fiction Muicfantasy ( talk) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi CambridgeBayWeather; Thanks for granting the page protection on Metropolitan (1990 film). I had originally requested Semi-protection (rather than Full) in order to investigate a possible sock. For such a low page-count article, I suddenly received 3 back-to-back quick responses from different dynamic IP editors and one other regular editor with an account. The IP editors appeared to be single purpose accounts as well. My plan was to revert on the Semi-protected page with my account in order to try to encourage the dynamically changing IP editor to open an account for them to make their revert, and thereby obtain more information on what looks like a sock. Reverting the page to the last neutral version, say thirty days ago, after the page goes to Semi-protection (only if you agree) should accomplish the same thing. My WHOIS on the IP editors showed only partial info as to the edit coming from Comcast somewhere in Mount Laurel, NJ, with no further info from my limited account. Cheers. FelixRosch ( TALK) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In light of new information provided by the creator (other links on the talk page), the edit war is resolved. I request full unprotection, or at least reduction to semi. This is coming to you, as the protecting admin. CRRays Head90 | #RaysUp 01:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi man,Can you Teach Me How To use Unblock and Block 115.133.38.236 ( talk) 06:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I need to know Tag Filter and Performer 115.133.38.236 ( talk) 01:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Performer use my name right Load Vordemout ( talk) 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you example Block please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Load Vordemout ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok,Performer is for what and Tag Filter is for what. Load Vordemout ( talk) 02:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.Perfomer is name me.And Tag filter is for what. 124.13.234.53 ( talk) 05:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to the edit war occurring at Metropolitan (1990 film). Unfortunately, the version you restored appears to be written in ESL manner that is vague, difficult to comprehend, and incomplete. I strongly encourage you to compare the currently protected version with other recent edits and consider restoring the one which appears to have been written by a native English speaker. 2601:E:2000:1A3:C914:D4EF:A4BA:8D03 ( talk) 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather:
Hi CambrigeBay,Can you Block Kistara.Beacause She Vandalishem Malaysia And Indonesia Armed Forces.People are so Angry her for her edits.Thanks. 124.13.234.53 ( talk) 07:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for protecting Amy Pascal's page; I am a little concerned that it has now expired (or will expire very soon depending on the time zone you used), however. Do you think it would make sense to extend it a bit longer? Thanks. Zigzig20s ( talk) 08:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
==Yo Ho Ho==
Dougweller (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec14c}} to your friends' talk pages.
Dougweller ( talk) 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologise, but I really need to bring it to your attention that an editor that has been blocked for 24h just a few days ago for edit-warring is really not understanding anything and hasn't learned the lesson. Not only he makes problematic edits in a highly sensitive area, but edit-wars without knowing WP:BRD and even threatens other editors ( diff). I noticed you were the blocking admin, so I am bringing to your attention his continuation of same behavior. Best regards, and wishes of happy hallydays, FkpCascais ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for protecting the pages
Shah Amanat International Airport and
Shahjalal International Airport!
Those two pages faced persistent vandalism and really needed some protection from editing by non-users and you gave them just that! The protection has helped kept them neat, tidy and factually correct. Once again, thanks! :) Rihaz ( talk) 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
Vandalism in my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.125.162 ( talk) 03:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi CBW! There's now an IP vandal from Indonesia, and these two have become his favorites: