This page 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.
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
The person who has been Vandalising the Casper (film) has done it again, can you please blocked the page so it won't continue. DonJakes (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. Give the page a few more days to see if they return or it was a one off. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Protecting subpages
Per here, I think the bot refused to archive because we didn't protect User:Gestrid/Editnotice (which I've just done). For future reference, you can use Twinkle to mass-protect. E.g. go to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Gestrid/ and click on TW > P-Batch, choose your options and boom, all are protected in seconds. You can do the same for deletion (D-batch). Both options appear on any wiki page and relevant Special pages. Best — MusikAnimaltalk 00:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Friend, It me Norsemanmick form Edmonton, long time no talk. How is the weather up there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norsemanmick (talk • contribs) 05:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Norsemanmick. Hi, it has been a while. It's been very mild up here with temperatures about 10C above the normals. But it looks to go back to normal in a few days. How about in Edmonton? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is a balmy -1C at the moment here in Edmonton. Today was lovely with sunny skies. THere is trace amount of snow on the ground and the roads are slick as the city has not been out salting or sanding too much.Norsemanmick (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's been cloudy here for days and we have had three days of nonstop snow. Even if there was no clouds there would still be no sun to to the polar night. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That Polar night is amazing, but I spoke too soon about the weather here in Edmonton, we have just encountered a cold snap, -17 this morning and it is apparently going to stay for a week or so. Still not that cold, but from where we were its a fairly dramatic change. CheersNorsemanmick (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Today, Heavy Ice Fog in Edmonton, worst i have ever seenNorsemanmick (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Norsemanmick. Mot much of that here. Mostly just the fog that is formed by hydrocarbons over town in the cold. Weather has been strange though. First time in years that we had several days of below -40. But then a few days later it's -10. Now back to -29. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Well Sir...I'm getting excited about spe8ng in a couple more months. Its been a drab winter.174.3.128.59 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey hey CAMBRIDGEBAYWEATEHR. How are you and has the weather started to cool down? Here in Ed-Town, we are starting to see the affects of fall. Norsemanmick (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Breitbart News
Hi. I was in the process of editing Breitbart News when you fully protected it. Could you please assist by implementing the edit request here: Talk:Breitbart News#Protected Edit Request the purpose of which is to improve the references. Another editor noted that some references do not support the material. Apparently bad references were added to derail the RfC. Thank you.- MrX 00:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.
Just checking
Happy New Year (a few days late) CBW. The Guns N' Roses(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article showed up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I think it is due to the fact that, when you changed the protection on the first, you altered the "page move" part of the protection from "indef" to "expires Jan 8" - I think that all I have to do to get it out of the category is to add the expiry time to the "pp-move" template. But, I thought it was worth checking to see if the move protection should be changed back to indef. I looked at the logs and couldn't decide whether indef move protection was merited or not. I know this message is kinda long winded so my apologies if it is confusing. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
MarnetteD. I'm not sure if it needs indefinite page move protection. There doesn't appear to have been any problems but it you won't to change it I don't mind. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for taking a look. I'm not an admin so I can't alter the protection. I agree with you that it doesn't look like indef move protection is needed so I just added the expiry time to the template. Just to be safe it might be worth adding the page to your watchlist (if it isn't there already) on the off chance that things go haywire after the seventh. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I see there was a discrepancy between the protection template and the actual move protection. But the move=sysop protection was there almost continuously since 2008 and I think its last change might have been inadvertent. There is a long-running dispute about the spelling of this band's name that goes back to 2004, if you check the talk archive. (Guns N' Roses versus Guns n' Roses and sometimes Guns and Roses). I'd favor restoring the indefinite move protection. It is not much of a hardship to expect people to open up a
Thanks for adding your input EdJohnston. I was unaware of the previous problems. Based on this and another edit to the article I have struck part of my earlier post and would agree that "move protect indef" is the way to go. MarnetteD|Talk 21:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather:, ==Deletion review for Draft:Sukuma Calendar==
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Sukuma Calendar. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nghwaya (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Would you consider re-applying the expired semi-protection to this article? I think I have it on my watch list from a fairly recent ANI thread or something. In any case, it was a shrine of puffery and unwarranted c-quotes, plus overly detailed (and privacy-violating) information on her one child. It's IPs that are always adding and edit-warring over this stuff, and they are doing it now after my (relatively small) cleanup. If you would semi it again, then thanks. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I appreciate it. Softlavender (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Hasbro Studios
Since you protected the main page, I have come to you to say that I think it might be time to protect the talk page now; the disruptive IP is back and removing the same section again.
Closed keep according to the edit summary, but "The result of the discussion was: Delete". Would be good to have reasons either way as a close debate with various outcomes suggested.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting this template! However, your edit broke the template -- see, for example, Musicology. It should work if you put the template after the redirect code. Thanks:Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Redrose64. I did remember that after Jay8g left the message. I wish there was a warning that TWINKLE gave that the protection template was going to be in the wrong place or just disable the adding of templates for those cases. Anyway not an excuse and entirely my fault. I need to remember not to use TWINKLE when protecting templates. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, I see that you were the one that protected the article about the Keddie murders per my request. Could you please take a look at the articles aboutKeddie murders again and Roger Kibbe. Editor, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has removed the infobox at Keddie murders[11] which was really helpful with sketches of the suspect and other information. I find it also weird that the editor in question and another editor simply ignored the request that no controversial edits should be made without consensus that was placed at the articles talk page[12]. A discussion did not even start before the infobox was removed again. So I simply gave up. Then the next day Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi basically stalked me to the article Roger Kibbe and again removed information that was disputed without joining the discussion at the talk page. He left a note after removing the info and had reverted my edit with the reasoning Rm unsourced trivia.), while in fact the section was sourced[13]. I just find it a bit weird that one user follows my edits. I might be completely wrong and then I will drop it, but I prefer if another editor takes at least a look at this. (User Motthoop was also involved this time, this user was the instigator for the last edit war which led to the protection of the article). Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
