User talk:Cameron11598/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN: Cameron11598

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Crash2414

Hi there, although I agree that Crash2414 is likely a candidate for speedy deletion, I did want to draw to your attention that tagging an article within 60 seconds after creation is a bit bitey and doesn't really assume good faith. This, of course, doesn't apply to things like adverts or attack pages, but generally giving a new user 10+ minutes is a good rule of thumb. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! To me it seemed an obvious A7/ A11 for CSD. I've been away from wikipedia for a while (3 Years gasp!) so I'm just getting back into the swing of things. My apologies. Cameron11598 (Converse) 23:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries! Generally it's just suggested that you not tag pages for speedy within moments. You're absolutely right, of course, about that page. But slapping a CSD on a new page really fast like that is likely to scare off new, well-meaning contributors, rather than getting them to do things the right way. Welcome back! --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edit at DRN

Thank you for wanting to help at DRN, but this edit was a good close for the wrong reason since no editor conduct was mentioned in that request. I've supplemented your closing and you need not do anything more there, but please take more care in reading the request in the future. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

???

cameron i know this isnt the relevant message but i cannot see how to reply to ur comments about my sex discussion you just said to me that i am the one confused about the purposes of the discussions page its about changes to articles ...

so .. as it is about an article describing sexual intercourse but defining it as penetration! so obviously we know why we are here and im explaining whhyyy then this article must be changed its confusing our children the definition of sex on wiki is NOT CORRECT AS I have SHOWN and YOU are telling ME that im mistaken ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatshe (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome message! I appreciate it. See u around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.152.239 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Cameron11598. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz article

Hi there, I reverted the CSD you placed on the page, as there is currently an AfD going for the page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. Since there's an open discussion, it's best to let that play out, rather than tag the page. I'd comment on the discussion that you feel it's CSD G10 worthy however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

GC-1 (drug)

The page GC-1 (drug) was tagged as that already but the creator blanked it-so it is now a db-g7. Wgolf (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wgolf: I actually left a message on your talk page the same time you left this. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 19:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Crickets

If you don't know how correcting "protozoan" to "fungus" is "constructive" then please leave my edits alone. Dziban303⁓talk 01:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dziban303: My apologies. However we all make mistakes. remember to WP:AGF ----Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 03:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sajanlimbu

For removing CSD tags after a final warning, he's now listed at WP:AIV. The problem with him will be solved soon enough. --Drm310 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi

The website does say CC0 Public Domain Free for commercial use No attribution required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonazizi (talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

See your talk page --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

Picture number two and three — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonazizi (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture number three

Picture number three thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonazizi (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Phabricator T136509

Just a small note to let you know your task on Phabricator has been actioned and now should be able to create a new account. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 12:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Peachey88:! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

AFC Question

So to get my draft article reviewed, you're saying I just insert {{AFC submission}} at the top before my text starts? 7Slots (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)7Slots

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Paladini

Hi Cameron11598, I saw that you reverted my edit regarding an editor removing an entire section without cause. Was there any particular reason for your rollback of my edit? Thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It was accidental I was looking at diffs while trying to file a WP:SPI on the editor you had reverted and must have hit roll back. My apologies. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Just want to make sure! Thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 05:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan Avidan

Greetings, Cameron11598. I've been attempting to expand this article by inserting sources, bolstering information, and providing much-needed organization. As you are the initial user nominating this article for deletion, could you take a look at the current state of tha article? I feel as though it has come a long way from when it was originally nominated. If not, I understand. The article can easily function as it must being either a full article or a redirect. — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 17:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anthonymous: I agree the article is a lot better than when it started, however there are still a lot issues that need to be addressed with the sourcing most fail WP:RS or don't really establish notability;

The following from the article definitely fail WP:RS:

• "Dan Avidan". IMDb. IMDb.com, Inc. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
• "Ninja Sex Party". ninjasexparty.com. Giggle Chick Interactive. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• "Super Mario Sunshine: Danger Pudding - PART 27 - Game Grumps". YouTube. Game Grumps. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• "Wind Waker HD: Fresh Air - PART 19 - Game Grumps". YouTube. Game Grumps. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• "Run With The Hunted". iTunes. Apple. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• "Firefly - Single". iTunes. Apple. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• "Ninja Sex Party on iTunes". iTunes. Apple. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
• Augustborn, Nicolas (9 January 2013). "Ninja Sex Party Interview". YouTube. Nicolas Augustborn.
• Nelsen, Lydia (24 May 2013). "Ninja Sex Party Interview on Lydia Wants to Know". YouTube. Third String Kicker. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• Ninja Sex Party (2016-03-08). "Eating Food in the Shower". Facebook. Retrieved April 11, 2016. On the set of our upcoming music video for the first song on our FIFTH ALBUM, "Eating Food In The Shower"!
• O'Donovan, Ross (June 25, 2013). "A Personal Message From Ross". Reddit. Reddit. Retrieved 2016-03-10.
• Jump up ^ "Dirty Shorts". YouTube. Mondo Media. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
• "DJs in PJs: Pilot". YouTube. Mondo Media. June 22, 2012. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• "Hipsters Love Coffee". YouTube. Nacho Punch. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• "World Cafe Live 2005". Myspace.com. Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• Capes Coaching (August 25, 2011). "Featured Artist In Action: Dan Avidan". Capes Coaching. Retrieved June 16, 2016.
• "Run With The Hunted". iTunes. Apple. Retrieved June 16, 2016.

The following to establish his notability but only lend to the groups to which he has belonged to

• "Ninja Sex Party - Billboard 200". Billboard.com. Billboard. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
• Comedy Charts, Billboard. "Billboard Comedy Charts". Billboard.com. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
• "Skyhill - Calendar". Sonicbids. Sonicbids, LLC. Retrieved June 16, 2016. (probably fails RS too)

This only establishes notability of his sister and notability is not inherited

• "How to shop like a fashion editor on any budget". Today (NBC News). Retrieved June 16, 2016.

The iTunes links don't really provide anything other than the songs themselves so they can't really establish notability and they kind of sorta don't meet WP:RS --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

PewDiePie

Hi, you have mistakenly accused me of "repeatedly reverting other editors' contributions". I had only reverted ONCE on the PewDiePie article within the past 24 hours. You seemed to have prematurely assumed I had committed the 3RR, which I did not. Please verify my edit history first before issuing me warnings. Also, if you are related to JacktheHarry, I could report you for Sockpuppeting. Guysayshi (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Note: The following is copied from your talk page --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So I guess Assume Good Faith Doesn't apply? I don't appreciate the baseless accusations of calling me a sock, and at the same time you are also accusing JacktheHarry of being a sock master. Feel free to file a Sock Puppet Investigation it will turn up negative, I'll volunteer to let a Check User look at my account. While you only reverted once on the article, the other editor had already reverted twice. When I send a warning of edit waring, I don't just send it to one editor that is involved I place it on both of their talk pages so they are aware of the guide lines. Also 3 reverts aren't required for edit waring please review the edit warring policy and Assume Good Faith at your leisure. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 11:14 pm, Today (UTC−7)

You issued a warning to me that stated I was "repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions". Obviously I would have felt that I was wrongly accused. But, thank you for clarifying that you "don't just send it to one editor that is involved", but "place it on both of their talk pages so they are aware of the guide lines". As for the sockpuppeting, I apologize for calling you a sock. That user claimed he/she was reverting my "unproductive edits", and I thought he/she used another account to warn me from restoring my edit, which I did not. Guysayshi (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Doubled speedy

Sorry, we posted those at about the exact same time & I was just trying to clean them up as best as possible. Thanks for posting the username notice, saved me doing so.  :) JamesG5 (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem I saw that and was like du-du-da-whaaaaa :p --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:Heaven (Inna song)

Hello Cameron11598. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Heaven (Inna song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This isn't the talk page of a deleted page - the parent page has been redirected, but the talk page is still useful as documenting the RfC that decided on redirect. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know JohnCD I wasn't sure if It qualified it was one of those things I thought was 50-50. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Mabo reverts

Thanks for those reverts - I think they need to be extended back to the last known good change which is tagged "dded Google Doodle commemoration". Check the diffs

No problem, I've asked an over sighter to look at the page and suppress those edits so they won't be publicly accessible anymore too. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Madalin Raileanu

Soccerway and Romaniansoccer are THE MOST reliable sources. Rhinen

The most of the footballers pages are in this form...on Soccerway and Romaniansoccer are all the informations that appeared on the wiki page. Rhinen

I put a reference. :) Rhinen

Vandalism

Thank you Cameron for getting involved... This IP 161.113.20.135 and a few related ones (161.113.11.16, 108.36.102.130, CLCStudent and several others) have been disrupting and vandalizing several pages linked to the Douglas R. Docker articles for months. They all got repeated warnings from me and several other editors and admins and eventually got blocked. once unblocked, he resumed his disruption with an edit war over... believe it or not a comma. I try to make a limited but positive contribution in Wikipedia, but I find myself doing damage control most of the time. Quite frankly it's becoming unmanageable and I'm seriously thinking about giving up. In the end this should be fun, trying to build something, but this kind of behavior is purely destructive and discourages well-intentioned editors from participating. Very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.42.226 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The clown who posted this hadn't edited a single Wikipedia page before today. If anyone is using multiple IPs to create havoc, it is this editor. To wit, the IP talk page that you courtesy-blanked (presumbaly why he is thanking you for getting involved) isn't even the IP that signed the above comment. It should be noted that IPs associated with this individual have constantly made fake block warnings, going so far as to actually post that my account had been blocked. And, lo and behold, it wound up getting HIM blocked. See user Rudra555. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I know that I made a mistake editing Easter so I reverted back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gschofer (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What's this whole thing about?

Hey Cameron, you don't know me but I edited Wikipedia several years ago. Alot has changed, especially my maturity level. Haha

I want to ask you what in the world this message I got from Iasalcan is about. I'm assuming you got it too since you posted on her talk page, but it's about the whole study thing this person is doing. What in the world...? I havent been editing this website in 4 or 5 years and I get this random email about that. What on earth? I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure, however I didn't want them having my email so I sent my reply on their talk page it seemed Kind of fishy to be honest. I thought about brining it up at AN or ANI but didn't want to escalate it if it didn't need to be. I'll ask an administrator or one of the ARBS about it though since I wasn't the only one. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Flightx52: I asked a couple of admin's to look into it they are probably going to refer it to a Check User for investigation. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

|

Reminder

Hi, this is just a reminder that when you close noticeboard threads, please add the "non-administrator close" template, as follows: {{nac}} Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I usually do which one did I forget to add it on? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

At least two lately. You can check through your contribs if you like .... Softlavender (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I have and as far as I can see I haven't missed any I'm still checking for things before yesterday. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

And I've looked through all my contribs to project space for the last month there are none that I left off NAC from as far as I can tell. :/ --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently my eyes fail to take it in when the template begins the close rather than ends it or is in the middle. Please ignore messages above. LOL. Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay I try to be uniform but occasionally I add it to the end instead of the beginning :p. I personally always start it off that way because some people lose interest half way through reading a close and I don't want to be mistaken for a mop holder :p --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

!header

chris troutman was disrespectful and should be reprimanded when writing the Avalanche The Architect page there were references to artists he worked with and chris in his comment made the arrogant and disrespectful comment that "name dropping was a cognitive disorder" that is not constructive criticism hence the comment left on his page to him I would like to know how to go about complaining about him and his comment he is suppose to approve or deny pages not hurl insults like a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.193.145 (talk • contribs)

ANI again

Resolved

 – added the template to the closure --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this time you really did forget to put the Non-admin closure template on the close. In the future you might also want to include an edit summary (stating that you are closing and why), and also indicate that it is an non-admin close [you can do that just by adding "(NAC)" in parentheses if you like]. I realize all these steps are a lot of trouble, but they help people who are monitoring ANI and checking what has happened in the edit history since the last visited it. Cheers and carry on! Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Drat figures it would happen right after we had that discussion 1 out of several dozen isn't too bad a score though :p --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed and on a side note, Softlavender I've been around a while and I know the processes for an NAC. This is probably the first time I've forgotten to include it or didn't catch it myself out of the several dozen to maybe hundred I have done I think thats a good track record. Edit summaries I usually do include NAC but not the reason why as they often get cut off in the edit summary box. Happy editing --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

HiHi

Hey Cameron11598, just missed you on IRC it seems - just thought I'd pop over and say your technical input on that AN/I thread was appreciated Also, your IRC part message... *all hail the glow cloud* -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar:, Glad to be of help! And I'm a big Welcome to Night Vale fan. Glad to finally find someone else who understands the reference. I thought I'd chime in with the range size. And Hopefully that edit filter works it seems promising. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Replies

There are some replies to your post(s) here, and I noticed that you were not informed. Regards. Begoon ^talk 12:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon: Responded, Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. As I see it, the situation was unfortunate. You wanted to ask a question in the "right place", but were forced by policy to place a scary template on a new user's page in order to do so. Not an ideal situation, to be sure. Seems like we might need to think of better ways to handle things like that... Begoon ^talk 10:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You asked for it...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For the non-irc using observers this was in reference to a stupid question I asked on IRC --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Scott Cawthon

You're correct that content like that is inappropriate. I've applied revdel to it already; WP:OVERSIGHT can and should still step in to wipe it out completely, but at least it won't be visible to casual users in the interim. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not being editing Scott Cawthon's birth date, it was edited by another user when I entered the page. I don't rely on any sources telling the truth, but some pages must be "unreliable" in your sence. So, stop making me feel guilty for something I didn't do. MariusEllingsen47 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin Dispute Thing

Can you tell me how those Admin things work and how long they typically take to resolve? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how long it takes for the community to reach a consensus. I've seen and personally closed ANI threads that have been open less than 24 hours, I've seen some that lasted a month. If you are referring to the canvassing one that you are involved in I'd say no more than a week or so most likely, from my personal experience. But it all depends on how long it takes for the community to reach a consensus. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: What do you mean a consensus on what? I thought it was suppose to have an admin look into this and state whether or not it was considered and if the RfC could be restored or not? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fluffyroll11: While yes ANI, can be resolved by an individual admin, the community is also welcome to participate at ANI. Generally speaking more complex issues are resolved by the community (multiple editors) with administrators enacting the consensus that was reached on behalf of the community. Administrators can step in and take action at anytime, however administrators often will defer to what ever consensus was reached by the wikipedia community and then enforce that consensus (sometimes by blocking an editor or other times by placing a topic or page ban, or by warning the editor). Often that is how threads at ANI are resolved. Let me know if I can be of any further help. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: How would it work exactly applied to my situation? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fluffyroll11: as you can see an editor (that isn't an administrator) has commented on the discussion. Generally more editors will get involved. TBH I'm surprised more editors haven't commented yet as canvassing is usually one of the more touchy subjects on ANI (at least from what I've seen). When more editors comment and either agree with or disagree with, one will usually make a proposal whether it be to scrap the RFC and start over, or a topic ban or what ever other remedies an uninvolved editor (or involved) suggest. Or someone may move to have it closed as un-actionable. I'm not too familiar with Canvassing Violations but I think @Oshwah: or @Waggie: (Oshwah or Waggie, you two are usually better at explaining things perhaps you can help out here? I fear I may have made a mess while trying to explain how WP:ANI works) might be able to help explain this better than I can. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I've been asked to help Cameron11598 explain what canvassing is. Sure, no problem.

Canvassing is the act of notifying other editors of a current or ongoing discussion with the intention of influencing or changing the outcome of the discussion so that it ends in a particular manner that you want. Examples of behaviors that would be considered canvassing include mass-spamming users who have no connection to the discussion what-so-ever in order to draw huge attention to it, only messaging certain users about the discussion that you know to be opinionated in one direction, not posting a neutral message regarding the discussion (such as "this proposal is awful and must not pass! Go here to vote Oppose!"). More examples of behaviors or notifications that are considered inappropriate can be found here. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Ok thnk you for everything. One more question. What do you think on this issue do you agree or disagree with the canvassing charge? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fluffyroll11: As I said earlier I'm not the best with the canvassing policy. So for now,  No comment --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Thanks for opposing the block. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: - You really aren't helping yourself in the WP:ANI thread with your comments. A piece of advice, tone it down, don't be catty and take a deep breath before responding. Read WP:ROPE right now you've been given just enough rope to hang yourself. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

hello

hey i didn't do any edits at any article!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.242.110.36 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

P.V.Ramana article: I do not know what disruptive thing you are mentioning. I was the one who created the article and unlike others I have left the disputed claims that others were making. Please research on the news which is making a lot of news since 3 days. Every one wants to claim a piece of the pie. That is why they are editing and changing the article. It is like they are saying that Isaac Newton was born in China. Will you believe that if the entire world says that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsaraswathi (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re NewspaperArchive signup

Hello, Cameron11598. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

CSKA Sofia and CSKA-Sofia

Hello, I would like to explain the situation about CSKA Sofia and CSKA-Sofia. The original club CSKA Sofia, which was established in 1948 became insolvent and went into bankruptcy. Therefore it isn't participating in any league this season. The owner of Litex Lovech moved the club to Sofia and renamed Litex to CSKA-Sofia, using a complex scheme involving a third club, claiming the history and the honours of the club which is under administration and still exists as a legal entity. The renamed Litex (now CSKA-Sofia) is not recognised as successor of CSKA Sofia neither by UEFA, nor by the Bulgarian Football Union. For example, the vice-president of BFU, Pavel Kolev, said in an interview that there is no connection between the two clubs and the new club has "4 titles at best", referring to the fact that Litex Lovech has 4 titles. I can provide screenshots from Bulgarian Commercial Register that both clubs (CSKA Sofia and CSKA-Sofia) exist simultaneously and Litex was renamed to CSKA-Sofia earlier this year.

This is the profile of CSKA-Sofia on UEFA's official page: http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=2608297/profile/index.html Apparently, UEFA consider CSKA-Sofia as a new club.
The owner of Litex(now CSKA-Sofia), who is very rich and influential person, is doing his best to manipulate the public opinion and make his club a legitimate successor of CSKA Sofia. In order to achieve his goals he is waging a propaganda war, which includes misleading news in the media. As a matter of fact, there are 3 clubs named CSKA at the moment. 1. CSKA Sofia - the original club 2. CSKA 1948 - a new club founded by veterans and prominent supporters of CSKA Sofia 3. CSKA-Sofia - a new club/renamed Litex

I propose two separate articles about CSKA Sofia and CSKA-Sofia, one dedicated to each club and eventually a third one about CSKA 1948, due to the above-mentioned reasons.
I'll be glad if you share your thoughts on this matter. --Ivo (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@BG89: Hello Ivo! I'd recommend doing a Request for comment On the existing article's talk page. I'm not too familiar with Football (gosh I'm american it pained me to call soccer football). --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've already tried to explain the person why he should not move the page, but he vandalized the other redirects as well, maybe due the fact that he is a fan of a rival club. CSKA Sofia is one club and it still exists, even though it uses a new legal entity registered in the Bulgarian law system, the same goes for Litex Lovech. The new law entity uses all the trade marks and chests used by the bankrupted one, so there is no reason to create multiple articles for the one same club entity - it is still one and the same, even thought there was a legal shift of the registration in the Bulgarian law system.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 06:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The TV Boy This doesn't really sound like Vandalism but more a content dispute I'd suggest heading over to The Dispute Resolution Notice Board. However they require there be significant discussion on the issue. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Thank you for that answer. This is what I think too. I can summarise the whole dispute in just 1 sentence: "Is CSKA-Sofia(renamed Litex Lovech) the successor of the original CSKA Sofia's history and honours or not?"
Since there are 2 separate legal entities in Bulgarian Commercial Register with 2 separate Identification Codes and both companies have nothing to do with each other, IMO, it's obviously they aren't the same club. Furthermore, Bulgarian Football Union, the supreme organ of football in Bulgaria already said that there are 2 different clubs and there is no succession between CSKA Sofia and CSKA-Sofia. CSKA-Sofia got its license to participate in the championship as Litex Lovech and later changed it's name to CSKA-Sofia because there was already a club called CSKA Sofia - the original club. Also, the syndic of CSKA Sofia publicly said that the new entity is illegally using the trademark of CSKA Sofia and condemned the actions of CSKA-Sofia. I'm having an argument with The TV Boy on my talk page and basically all he says is that it doesn't matter if CSKA-Sofia has legal grounds to use the logo of CSKA-Sofia or not and according to him, everything that does matter is that the logo is being used (obviously illegally) and Wikipedia doesn't care about law. He constantly reverts my edits, even though I've never used false statements or misleading information because I'm not a supporter of CSKA which is simply ridiculous. --Ivo (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is about the club CSKA Sofia, which is represented in the article with it's trade mark, not about the legal entity. The old legal entity is bankrupted, it no longer operates anything. A new entity has been restructured in the Commercial Register in order to keep the trade marks and chests of the CSKA Sofia club and to play in First League at the same time, replacing the bankrupted entity. Science it is playing in First League, the Bulgarian Football Union obviously thinks that this can be done and this is legal. Yes, the legal entities are the ones that obtain license, but these entities represent certain clubs, which are identifying themselves using trademarks. The entity, previously represented the Litex Lovech club and trademark and later made the proposal to switch colors, chests, and names and to represent the trademark of CSKA Sofia. The BFU ident system has the full name of the represented entities installed in them, if you look at the BFU website, you can see that the clubs, except in the position chart, are written with the full names of their legal entities for legal reasons - for example PFC Botev EAD, PFC Septemvri EAD, PFC Neftohimik 1962 EAD, etc... The same goes for Levski Sofia - PFC Levski EAD, and for CSKA Sofia - PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD. Here, in Wikipedia, we are identifying the clubs, and everything else for that matter, with its trade marks - PFC CSKA Sofia, PFC Levski Sofia, PFC Neftohimik Burgas, etc. This entity is using the same trademarks as the bankrupted one - PFC CSKA Sofia. No doubt about that. It is a matter for the court to determine if this is legal or not, but the fact up to this date is, that it is using the chests and the trademark and the court is not saying anything about that. It's BG89's personal point of view that this is illegal - there has been nothing official as of yet, only the fact, that the trademark is used and the entity is identifying itself as a representative of it and the club PFC CSKA Sofia. These are the facts--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 18:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I said I'm not familiar with the issue so why not try to establish a Consensus on the matter by holding a Request for comment? It couldn't hurt and this way the community is making the discussion not just one or two editors. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: BG89 & The TV Boy --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.