User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:EdJohnston. 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. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Thank you. I did everything necessary, I believe. I checked some of the articles that link to these and made the corrections, but most of them appear to only be linked through a template.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
More edits after warning
I want to thank you for your previous help handling the edit warring on The Time of the Doctor by Anthony Weights. He had been repeatedly adding, under his account and various sock puppets, the same negative slant to the critical reaction section. I'm not sure exactly how to link to the actual Edit Warring Report I made on January 5, but the issue is discussed nearly word-for-word in the Talk page under Reception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Time_of_the_Doctor. The result you gave read:
"Blocked – Warned. While Anthony Weights repeatedly adds a negative slant to the article, he never participates on talk. If he continues to revert without waiting for consensus he may be blocked. Another admin has restored semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)"
The comment you left on Anthony Weights' talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Weights read:
"See the result of the edit warring complaint at WP:AN3#User: Anthony Weights reported by User:Oxford24 (Result: Warned). If you continue to revert to add a negative slant to the article without waiting for consensus on the talk page you may be blocked with no further notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears you have never left a comment on any regular talk page on Wikipedia, in your entire career. This raises the question whether you are truly here to contribute. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)"
I can make another Edit Warring report but I thought it better to directly tell you he has made the same edits to the page again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&action=history, and I believe he made similar edits under the new account TARDIS2468 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&diff=590061992&oldid=590009537. He seems to have made the same edits repeatedly under sock puppets, always with the same fan reviews and changing the reception to "mixed".
He seems to have little regard for the rules or spirit of Wikipedia, and has not participated in any talk discussions, instead trying to make the same edits again and again even after the warning and semi-protection on the page. Banning him I think would be appropriate, but he will probably continue to make edits under socks. Not sure what I can do but periodically watch for edits or just let whoever wants to change this page do it, since they don't ever seem to give up. Thanks so much for your attention. Oxford24 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I left a further warning for User:Anthony Weights (this time a proposal for an indefinite block) but I'm not sure about your sock analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Resolve
I noticed that you just recently closed one or two of the reports on the Administrator's noticeboard for edit-warring. However I noticed that you did not go near the one I filed for some reason? Can you please resolve or just close it because it appears that administrators in general do not seem to be very involved on that page. ÓCorcráin (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Now addressed. The principle of admin laziness applies to that page. Cases that need a lot of thought get closed last. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Ban appeal
I think there is no particular reason for this ban (link to section at my talkpage with ban notice) to be still valid, so I appeal for its removal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Now considering this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)- After consulting another admin I'm lifting the sanction. Since I notice a dispute at Talk:Đorđe Pelinović I urge you to be cautious. Arguments about the nationality of names can quickly come back to WP:AE if they get out of control. The other party may not be 100% diplomatic here but do your best. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston, given Ad has immediately returned to the same behaviour he was banned for (ie disruptive behaviour on Talk:Pavle Đurišić), and those that reported him for this behaviour in the first place have had no opportunity to comment on the appeal, it seems to me that procedural fairness has been overlooked in this matter. It doesn't just affect Ad, it also affects editors that worked on this article and had to put up with his nonsense before that, and now will have to again. Surely it is not up to you and one other admin to make this decision (without any input from interested editors) when an ARBMAC ban has been imposed? If so, there is something seriously wrong with the system. What is the point in even having this process if he can just appeal it, get it lifted without any opposing arguments being made, and go ahead and immediately return to the same behaviour about the very same thing (ie the Iron Cross issued to Djurisic by the Germans)? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: There is nothing disruptive in my edits on Talk:Pavle Đurišić. I pointed to an issue of citation overkill and proposed how to resolve it based on an essay that deals with this kind of issues.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's an essay with no real influence over policy. You often resort to essays when you have no other recourse to pursue your aim. It is a clear return to the same behaviour, about exactly the same issue you were banned for. Simple as that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Over what policy?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's an essay, not a policy. You pursuing this because you have the same axe to grind as before. Lifting the ban has resulted in an immediate return to the behaviour you were banned for in the first place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing disruptive in my edits on Talk:Pavle Đurišić (link to the section in question). Pointing to an issue and proposing its solution is not disruptive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm hoping that Antidiskriminator will show willingness to accept consensus on the matter of the Iron Cross and to discuss briefly. If the editors on the talk page have to spend another 10,000 words debating this it won't suggest good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's concerning that a decision that potentially has many repercussions can be made on such a whim. I note you requested Joy's opinion on the matter, but he failed to respond so one cannot consider that much of a "consultation". Surely if a complaint and ban has been thoroughly discussed at length through the proper AE channel then an appeal must also follow the same course? How a decision could be so easily overturned and without an iota of real argumentation from the banned editor and with absolutely no input from other editors is beyond me. Him personally seeing "no particular reason for this ban to be still valid" apparently trumps all else. Antidiskriminator, still unsatisfied with the results of his prior grievances that were discussed ad nauseam, is immediately rehashing them and continuing where he left off. It's obvious he has not bothered to do any self-reflection to see the underlying causes of the ban and has rather just viewed it as an inconvenient timeout. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- User:Joy did respond to my question by email. I hope and expect that User:Antidiskriminator will use the lifting of the ban as an opportunity to show improved behavior at Talk:Pavle Đurišić. If there is no improvement there, admins can deal with it. There did not seem to be much reason to have elaborate process over the lifting of such a narrow ban. It wasn't like it was a complete ban from WP:ARBMAC. Ad's complaint about 'citation overkill' has at least surface validity and an attempt to *briefly* deal with the matter could be acceptable. One option (if he finds it to be a big concern) is to open a WP:Request for comment, with a precise definition of the question to be answered. (Not just 'too many references'.) EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's concerning that a decision that potentially has many repercussions can be made on such a whim. I note you requested Joy's opinion on the matter, but he failed to respond so one cannot consider that much of a "consultation". Surely if a complaint and ban has been thoroughly discussed at length through the proper AE channel then an appeal must also follow the same course? How a decision could be so easily overturned and without an iota of real argumentation from the banned editor and with absolutely no input from other editors is beyond me. Him personally seeing "no particular reason for this ban to be still valid" apparently trumps all else. Antidiskriminator, still unsatisfied with the results of his prior grievances that were discussed ad nauseam, is immediately rehashing them and continuing where he left off. It's obvious he has not bothered to do any self-reflection to see the underlying causes of the ban and has rather just viewed it as an inconvenient timeout. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm hoping that Antidiskriminator will show willingness to accept consensus on the matter of the Iron Cross and to discuss briefly. If the editors on the talk page have to spend another 10,000 words debating this it won't suggest good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing disruptive in my edits on Talk:Pavle Đurišić (link to the section in question). Pointing to an issue and proposing its solution is not disruptive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's an essay, not a policy. You pursuing this because you have the same axe to grind as before. Lifting the ban has resulted in an immediate return to the behaviour you were banned for in the first place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Over what policy?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's an essay with no real influence over policy. You often resort to essays when you have no other recourse to pursue your aim. It is a clear return to the same behaviour, about exactly the same issue you were banned for. Simple as that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: There is nothing disruptive in my edits on Talk:Pavle Đurišić. I pointed to an issue of citation overkill and proposed how to resolve it based on an essay that deals with this kind of issues.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston, given Ad has immediately returned to the same behaviour he was banned for (ie disruptive behaviour on Talk:Pavle Đurišić), and those that reported him for this behaviour in the first place have had no opportunity to comment on the appeal, it seems to me that procedural fairness has been overlooked in this matter. It doesn't just affect Ad, it also affects editors that worked on this article and had to put up with his nonsense before that, and now will have to again. Surely it is not up to you and one other admin to make this decision (without any input from interested editors) when an ARBMAC ban has been imposed? If so, there is something seriously wrong with the system. What is the point in even having this process if he can just appeal it, get it lifted without any opposing arguments being made, and go ahead and immediately return to the same behaviour about the very same thing (ie the Iron Cross issued to Djurisic by the Germans)? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- After consulting another admin I'm lifting the sanction. Since I notice a dispute at Talk:Đorđe Pelinović I urge you to be cautious. Arguments about the nationality of names can quickly come back to WP:AE if they get out of control. The other party may not be 100% diplomatic here but do your best. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Message
Is there a way to PM you about an issue involving an editor and sockpuppeting that I noticed? I don't want to start posting my issue here so that they or anyone else can see. ÓCorcráin (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- See the 'Email this user' link in the left sidebar of this page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice
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.
ÓCorcráin (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Two years?
EdJohnston, isn't your two-year block of 198.20.32.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a bit harsh? They have only made 4 edits since October, and we are usually a bit more lenient when it's a school. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've actually never noticed a {{schoolblock}} situation turning around, but I might be old and jaded. In my spot check all the edits from that school, going back to 2011, appear to be vandalism. At a school, there is usually no possibility of a dialog with the person at the other end, so rehabilitation through discussion is not an option. If you think a different duration would be better, feel free to change it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- True, it doesn't seem to have been used for any constructive edits. I'll leave it the way it is, since they can always appeal it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, as you know my topic ban includes from everything concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan has been made indefinite, but with a sports exemption. I want to ask, can I edit this Chovgan article, it is related to history but Chovgan known as sport? --NovaSkola (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Should be OK, but it is better to ask User:Sandstein since he is the admin who issued your sports exemption. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you agree removing that...
Hi Ed,
Do you agree with, "its time to remove this[1]" as you suggested to this be made in that page,I want to see, what you think about this? Regards. KhabarNegar Talk 18:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- KhabarNegar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Hello KhabarNegar. You're asking for review of your restrictions which have been entered in WP:RESTRICT. You don't seem to have a lot of edits since 21 June 2013, though what you've done is OK (maybe 60 edits altogether). We don't really have enough data to tell if the sanctions would no longer be needed. Can you say what you would work on if the sanctions were lifted? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, Good question. As for the answer, the answer is I will continue the same way I do after 21 June 2013, nothing more, I'm not interested to get deeply involved in any conflict, even if I'm sure I'm OK, and the other side is troll again I will not get involved. Actually if there is someone else which have the time and power he or she will continue but I'm not interested anymore, SO I will continue as you have seen till now, since 21 June 2013. Probably fixing any obvious vandalism and stuff like that, but even about obvious vandalism I will not persist if the troll or vandal is serious, cause I don't care that much anymore. Regards, (Honesty :) ) KhabarNegar Talk 20:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your history before 21 June 2013 includes some edits about Talk:Right-libertarianism that seem to have caused an uproar. Are you planning to go back there? Generally we let people come back to the bad topics if we have reason to think they won't repeat the previous pattern that caused concern. This requires that you state in words what your previous problem was and say what you will do differently. Unless you have a strong desire to return to Right-libertarianism you might be better off just living with the restrictions for another six months. Then you won't have to answer all these questions and you can just do your thing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, here is an option :). I don't want to put any pressure on anyone you or "Doc James" or "Zad68", SO Lets just ban my account(completely) for next more 6 months if you guys want and if it fix any problem. Its OK for me, and ban the account as "Dennis Brown" done for more 6 months, with description of "Disruptive Editor". so in this case you should not answer if any one asked why you remove my account from that list. Its no problem to me. Actually I don't want to go Back to Right Libertarian article, nor to any other article in these kinds of categories. Actually I used Wikipedia by Good Faith, but that restrictions doesn't show that, anyway I think its easy, as my side, The only thing I can say is, I will not get involved in any conflict in any article anymore,(so I think it fix anything), I will also don't remove previous block and stuff from my Talk Page(at least for next 6 month). You also may add my talk page to your watch-list, anyway. but if more 6 months is needed its no problem at all :), Regards, KhabarNegar Talk 20:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any case yet to lift the restrictions, but you can remove anything you want from your own talk page, including the old block notice, given that you are not under a current block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Would you tell me why these restriction is placed, so I may know the reason. I mean which edit have the problem? I don't know which have done wrong? Exactly? and I want to know if its possible in Wikipedia website to know why I got blocked. KhabarNegar Talk 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any case yet to lift the restrictions, but you can remove anything you want from your own talk page, including the old block notice, given that you are not under a current block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, here is an option :). I don't want to put any pressure on anyone you or "Doc James" or "Zad68", SO Lets just ban my account(completely) for next more 6 months if you guys want and if it fix any problem. Its OK for me, and ban the account as "Dennis Brown" done for more 6 months, with description of "Disruptive Editor". so in this case you should not answer if any one asked why you remove my account from that list. Its no problem to me. Actually I don't want to go Back to Right Libertarian article, nor to any other article in these kinds of categories. Actually I used Wikipedia by Good Faith, but that restrictions doesn't show that, anyway I think its easy, as my side, The only thing I can say is, I will not get involved in any conflict in any article anymore,(so I think it fix anything), I will also don't remove previous block and stuff from my Talk Page(at least for next 6 month). You also may add my talk page to your watch-list, anyway. but if more 6 months is needed its no problem at all :), Regards, KhabarNegar Talk 20:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your history before 21 June 2013 includes some edits about Talk:Right-libertarianism that seem to have caused an uproar. Are you planning to go back there? Generally we let people come back to the bad topics if we have reason to think they won't repeat the previous pattern that caused concern. This requires that you state in words what your previous problem was and say what you will do differently. Unless you have a strong desire to return to Right-libertarianism you might be better off just living with the restrictions for another six months. Then you won't have to answer all these questions and you can just do your thing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, Good question. As for the answer, the answer is I will continue the same way I do after 21 June 2013, nothing more, I'm not interested to get deeply involved in any conflict, even if I'm sure I'm OK, and the other side is troll again I will not get involved. Actually if there is someone else which have the time and power he or she will continue but I'm not interested anymore, SO I will continue as you have seen till now, since 21 June 2013. Probably fixing any obvious vandalism and stuff like that, but even about obvious vandalism I will not persist if the troll or vandal is serious, cause I don't care that much anymore. Regards, (Honesty :) ) KhabarNegar Talk 20:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
This is well explained in the past. You can find all the discussions about you at admin boards using this noticeboard search.
One of the results you'll find is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#User:KhabarNegar. In that thread, User:Dennis Brown said:
"The short version is that KhabarNegar's enthusiasm exceeds his clue to the degree that it is causing disruption for a number of people. While he may have some good intentions mixed in there, his methods are fatally flawed. Edit warring, copyvios, misunderstanding policy to an extreme degree, not understanding what is and isn't a reliable source. I don't want to claim incompetence, but it is an inability to cooperate in a collaborative environment and abject misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works..."' (June, 2013)
Your best plan for now is to spend some time making quiet improvements that others don't quarrel with, and don't lead to misunderstandings. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, what you copy from Dennis are just some words, If Wikipedia have rules, these words should been proved according Wikipedia policies. ""These are just putting some words next to each other"". I didn't act against ANY SINGLE policy of Wikipedia Website, ... as I said I don't care, even if all these restriction are removed I will not get Wikipedia reliability serious anymore, as I said before, But I Just wanted to know if anyone really understand the situation here or not. Anyway Thank you for the help, As I said I just wanted to know more about the way it works, & Its not important, Regards, KhabarNegar Talk 07:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your English is all twisted up, and even if I understood it, your logic doesn't make sense. Can't understand "I will not get Wikipedia reliability serious anymore". My guess is that you also edit the Persian Wikipedia, and it might be better to work there where I assume that the language will not be a barrier. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello from Civatrope
I'm pretty sure there already is a consensus on the talk page. What else do I have to do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civatrope (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't look like consensus to me. You are better off posting at WP:AN3 and agree to take a break from the article for seven days. Otherwise your edit warring is still blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
On the overall talk page the following users mentioned things related to my revision attempt:
Dantai Amakiir Enoch777 120.22.150.144 68.187.247.93 Nothingeverhappensever Uncle Ed Madprofessional Bulldogo 123.237.112.127 95.109.103.15 Civatrope
There are (were) 110 watchers.
There are only three people fighting the current changes Roscelese, EvergreenFir, and Binksternet.
I am not sure how to calculate consensus I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civatrope (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's too late for this discussion. You should agree to take a break from this article or you will be blocked. The time for consensus was before you made four reverts in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
for protecting AERc - I'm not sure if any of the other pages need the same - see [2]. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Relisting 1992–93 FA Premier League RM
Why did you relist the move discussion on 1992–93 FA Premier League? There is a clear consensus to oppose the move (5 opposes to 2 supports). – PeeJay 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- There was an additional vote on 16 January. If the discussion is really over we'll know soon. When it is over, it will probably close the way you stated. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Evidence at SPI?
I fear WP:Tiptibism is the only real reason for the block of User:Roccodrift as an "illegitimate sockpuppet" since no evidence of such was presented, CU showed zero other "sleeper accounts" which would be needed to show "illegitimate sockpuppet" as a rationale, and the person was not presented with anything remotely representing a "fair hearing". Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, a great deal of behavioral evidence was presented. So much so that some of it was removed by a clerk. Perhaps you meant proof? Isn't it kind of tacky to repeatedly cite your own essay as if it has bearing on anything?- MrX 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- First of all -- I find your accusation of "forumshopping" via an edit summary to be distasteful indeed. I also note that you had initially opposed blocking -- but then decided that you did not like his edits -- that is not exactly how "socks" are proven. I would also note "my own essay" has been edited by several other editors, and it seems that an essay stands on its own regardless of who writes it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you were the one to block him (edit warring - airports & info boxes), this is FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Msloewengart. JohnInDC (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Central East Africa
Sock blocked, I've unprotected it, so go ahead and close. I've got no opinion on the issue. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you closed the discussion at AP Spanish, will you also close the parallel discussion at AP French? bd2412 T 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The RM at Talk:AP French (disambiguation) has now been closed by User:JHunterJ. His decision was to move the article on the language exam to AP French Language rather than AP French. I can see the argument for both options. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Requested moves
I don't necessarily agree with your decisions for all of them, but THANK YOU so much for closing some of those backlogged requested moves. I really appreciate it. Red Slash 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. In former times a certain currently-banned user would keep announcing on noticeboards whenever the RM backlog got too long. I wish there were an easy way to keep making his charts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Serbian google
You made mistake with closing Đakovica RM. Google.sr gives the same hit number as google.com or any other extension.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Evidence that .sr and .com tend to give the same results for English-language material and the same hit counts for the same query would be of interest, though I didn't see any offered in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I explained it in the discussion (diff). Nobody objected it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- You made a claim to that effect but didn't give any evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. The other party made a claim without giving any evidence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Antidiskriminator "In at least one case search results were offered that came from google.sr (Serbian Google)." Whats wrong with that statement? Anyway, Serbian Google Books, like French Google Books produces different search results to English Language Versions of Google Books. Period. Also, EdJohnston never said that Serbian Google books prouduces different search results. IJA (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- No. The other party made a claim without giving any evidence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- You made a claim to that effect but didn't give any evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I explained it in the discussion (diff). Nobody objected it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Question
Hello Ed.
I plan on working on the Georgian royal styles of the monarchs and since I have confusingly non-defined topic ban wanted to ask you about a fact that the Georgian kings style was like this: "King of Kings of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Arranians, Kakhetians, and Armenians; Shirvanshah and Shahanshah". So just wanted to make clear what happens if I just copy this text into a new article I will be working on? I think that should not be a topic ban material as it has very minor mentioning of the style and that's all. One word basically. So anyways what would you suggest? Jaqeli (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Since User:Sandstein closed your ban discussion it is best to ask him. It helps if you can point out one of the articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ed, There is no article yet as I am planning to create one about the royal styles and one of those royal styles includes "of Armenians" as well so I think that won't be a topic ban material right? @Sandstein: Please see this message here. Jaqeli (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to write an article about the styles of Georgian kings and these styles include "of the Armenians", then the article relates to both Georgia and Armenia and is covered by the topic ban. Sandstein 16:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It was closed as moot due to IHAMD being checkuser blocked with technical evidence; however, the editor was subsequently unblocked (due to identity confirmed), and therefore this thread should be reopened. I will reopen this shortly. I am leaving this note here because you were involved in the discussion regarding what to do about the editor. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ohnohedinnit
Hi Ed, could you please review this? For Ohnohedinnit's first edit after his 24-hour block expired for edit-warring in poorly-sourced and unsourced content at Herpes genitalis, he reverted back in poorly-sourced and unsourced content at Herpes genitalis. Zad68 20:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not accurate. My edit added another scholarly article and was not a reversion. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- What is most striking about the version that Zad68 continues to restore is that there is an unsourced quotation in the first sentence. How can that version be maintained and in the lede of the article? Ohnohedinnit (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Question
Greetings. Though my ban has now expired, I hope you can shed some light on the reasons behind it. I've continued to improve herpes genitalis, adding references and content and making the text overall more readable. Another editor - who seems to have many more edits on other pages - continues to revert. That I am blamed for edit warring seems grossly unfair. The editor's concern is that the page does not conform with the guidelines of WP:Medmos, though I am making a concerted effort with every revision to improve the number of journal articles referenced. The editor does not respond to my questions on the talk page. Also,WP:Medmos also does not prohibit the use of popular press in all circumstances. Indeed, some starred medicine articles make significant use of these sources - for example, see or example, see the BBC and Pittsburgh Post Gazette references in Poliomyelitis. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)u
- Ohnohedinnit, I suggest that this discussion be continued at User talk:Ohnohedinnit#Edit warring at Herpes genitalis. I have your talk page on my watchlist. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
To close the loop about the use of the BBC and the Gazette, they are used at Poliomyelitis to source information about history: when the development of the vaccine was announced, and when rinderpest was eradicated. Ohnohedinnit is trying to use a Village Voice column centered around a porn star to source statements about epidemiology and a CNN article about porn stars to source statements about the effectiveness of disease testing. If Ohnohedinnit can't discern the qualitative difference in the use of the sources, we do indeed have a problem.
Zad6821:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_and_disruptive_editing_by_Arildnordby, you haven't added Death by burning. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Restriction of Slovenski Volk
- Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
About your commments in The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights talkpage [[3]], I had reverted S.V's edits once in Illyrians and Peloponness per Wikipedia:Banning_policy (Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason ), where he clearly violated the ARBMAC, taking also into account the exception by the sanctioning admin.
Do you believe that only a new wp:ae can solve this issue? The arbmac restriction with an exeption in "Prehistory and Roman Balkans" is already multiple times violated.Alexikoua (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- If User:Slovenski Volk will agree to observe the 1RR which still applies to his edits of Balkan articles, that should solve most of the problem. Though he sometimes makes nationalistic comments on talk pages, he does appear to have some knowledge and he seems well-intentioned. Our article on the Illyrians is a notorious trouble spot and it should not be allowed to get out of hand. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've just saw his activity in Ethnic Macedonians, where he attempts to promote his pov. I have the feeling that a clear definition of the specific arbmac restriction is needed here. After all the sanctioning admin was very generous and offered him the opportunity to contribute in two specific time-periods (prehistory - Roman) in Balkan history. It's sad that even this one isn't respected.Alexikoua (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Though it's not an ARBMAC article, we see this charming comment by User:Slovenski Volk at Talk:Rus' people/Archives/ 1#Ignorant: “And I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any more of your pathetic edits and even more pathetic ""references"" Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)”. I think that some kind of a deal or a new restriction may have to be worked out regarding SV's Arbmac edits. I'll leave a note for him that he's being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've just saw his activity in Ethnic Macedonians, where he attempts to promote his pov. I have the feeling that a clear definition of the specific arbmac restriction is needed here. After all the sanctioning admin was very generous and offered him the opportunity to contribute in two specific time-periods (prehistory - Roman) in Balkan history. It's sad that even this one isn't respected.Alexikoua (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks again Ed for your involvement and efforts to clear things up. I do want to clarify, though, there is no edit -war on the Illyrians article [4], I made one revert in responce to his, blanket-revert to a good edit on the presumption that I am "not allowed" to edit Illyrians. These actions have now ended (over 48 hrs ago), and there has been no further edit-warring (and in fact, I gave it a "cooling off" period whilst these discussion proceeded). And as stated previously, I am willing to work with him.
- So this is a fundamentally different issue to the originally offending actions on Ancient Macedonians - which was a content dispute. I wish to clarify, whislt we're on the topic, that as far as disputes go in this area, it was of a realtively 'benign' nature. The said dispute was on the nuances and minutii of how identity was perceived in the Ancient Era - hardly anything sinister (!) There was nothign pertaining to any wars, battles, crimes, politicians, "hate", territorial rights or anything to that effect. So i think the nature of the dispute needs to be taken into account. Whilst I do think I was treated a bit rough (I was facing effectively an embargo by a team of other editors who constantly reverted well-written and immacutely referenced material); I fully accept the blame lays on me. It was I that breached the 3RR initially, then my 1RR thereafter (and then I was placed on an ARBMAC ban becuase I had a previous block on the Scythians (who arent even from the Balkans- however broadly defined). Again, this reflected a sense of arrogance on my behalf, just becuase i felt that my arguements were "better", more intricate, and used more specialist literature. I now realize that this is not how Wikipedia works, but relies on concensus. In my utter ignorance, i was not even aware of other measures - eg seeking third party opinion, asking for mediation, etc. I now do; and am better equipped to deal with such issues.
- I admit that I sometimes make snide comments. I must watch that. But I never make nationalistic comments. I never direct commentary based an editor's 'background', rather on their quality of their edits. But I fully admit that nothing negative or disparaging should be said, and I agree to show nothing but politeness.
- In summary, i ask that I be allowed to edit ARBMAC articles. I am happy to observe whatever 1RR regulations imposed on me, even undergo a "trial period"- with risk of more severe repercussions. Because I can honestly say a have a great deal to offer this field, and wikipedia in general. I have done so much research and have the best and most up-to-date resources at my disposal to continue improving Wikipedia articles. If you can but mark some of my recent work [5] where I discuss the linguistic 'origin' of the Antes; a people generally presumed to be Slavic but i discuss fairly and with Due weight every possible perspective; or my recent defense of the Turkish peole in responce to racialistic and downright offensive commentary by some other user [6]; not to mention the plethora of maps I have created which are used not only in multiple articles in English Wikipedia, but also around the world, eg [7] (!). And despite my admittedly (at times) hot-headed and abrasive attitude, i am very much non-partisan and neutral. I see Balkan peoples as brothers who share a very much similar culture and history (even if the feeling is not mutual). I have not ulterior motives other than writing with post-modern Anglo-phone literature, becuase so many of the Balkan article are still very much written based on dubious "internet sites" and equally dubiuos books by "scholars" from the 1970s Soviet era. As you might imagine, to many people, my updating these articles with new-age western perspectives which "de-construct" many national myths perpetuated and propagated in older historiography would appear very weird and out of "left field" to the average editor, even as a personal afront; as it undermines the basic fundamentals of what they were taught from primary school onwards, engrained as they are to the point of reaching a religious level. That is why I have met so much resistence, no matter how hard i tried to explain to people. But deconstructing outdated methodologies and nationalist-historical narratives ultimately leads to a true understading of history, that societies some 2000 years ago operated on a wholly different basis - inclusion, multi-linguality, pluralism and multiculturalism - quite different to the modern nationalist discourse of the late 19th and early 20th century of 'ethnically honogenoues nation-states'. No modern country is the same as its namesake some 3000 years ago. In this light, it becomes easily clear that there is no 'historic basis' for any modern conflicts; and they are indeed like anywhere else, the manipulations of modern governments- a topic I personally do not venture into Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is an wp:ae now that concerns Slovenski Volks.Alexikoua (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Western_Balkans_around_814_AD.png){kind=link}
Talkback
{{talkback|Ceekay215|False warnings}}
My bad. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I reviewed that discussion, thank you. It's good that a compromise was worked out. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Prem Rawat, Rainer P.`s appeal
Hi, EdJohnston, and thanks for the nice and speedy acqittal! Just to avoid doubts: Do the DS sanctions only go for me or for any editor of the concerned article(s)? Best --Rainer P. (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- All editing on the topic of Prem Rawat is subject to the sanctions. In practice, nobody will get an actual sanction (like a topic ban) unless they have previously received a notice of the DS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Request Edits
Hi Ed. I was wondering if I could borrow you for a minute to consider implementing a couple minor Request Edits.
- There's one here for Publishers Clearing House where user:Bilbobag and I seem to have reached an agreed-upon version for a small tweak.
- Here is one regarding outdated pricing information on Viralheat. There are no reliable sources specifying that their pricing has changed, so my proposal is to make some subtle changes to put it in more of a historical context. That one may be less obvious on what is the best edit to make.
CorporateM (Talk) 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Replied on those pages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I replied on both pages. I appreciate you taking the time. Some of these small things are rather boring for someone to help with. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, if I haven't worn out my welcome, I think the Yelp, Inc. page could also use a fresh perspective. I started on this one about a year ago. IMO it still has a lot of problems that need to be fixed before it will be GAN-ready, but when editors disagree things can move slowly. There have been quite a few discussions about the exact wording of the Lead. I also think the article contains an unneccessary promotional image, violates WP:CRITICISM, and that when the controversy was trimmed it was done so excessively trimming a key fact about how the controversy began. It might take a bit more elbow grease to wade through areas where editors disagree, but if you're interested in participating I can try to start a new string summarizing a single key issue and maybe we can hammer things out with some fresh blood. CorporateM (Talk) 18:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
HouseOfArtaxiad
You might want to warn HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) against these kinds of edits.[8] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- He is not an admin. He can't warn people with sanctions. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- User:HouseOfArtaxiad, please undo your removal of User:Grandmaster's warning to you from the AA2 case log. As the current wording of WP:AC/DS indicates, there is nothing in the rules that requires the person leaving the DS notices to be an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- But it wasn't even a link to the decision authorizing sanctions. He was just accusing me of violating a rule I wasn't at the time. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Grandmaster's notice to you here gives a link to the AA2 case, which is, in fact, the decision authorizing sanctions. At present there is no requirement that people can only be notified for some reason. Any notice will do, if it gives a link to the case. If you want to appeal your sanction you should use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Though WP:AN can hear appeals it is usual to go to WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- So if I put the warning on your talk page, his talk page, and maybe a thousand other talk pages, could I list them all myself? --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Somebody who abused the notification system could be charged with disruptive editing. I don't believe we are anywhere near that, because User:Grandmaster's notice to you seemed reasonable. If you are indeed hoping to have your ban lifted, it is curious that you are fighting against the issuance of a reasonable notice. Shusha is one of the horrible articles in the AA domain where people are always making nationalist changes.
I haven't studied your changes at Shusha closely enough to have an opinion on their quality butIt was certainly proper to make you aware of the ARBAA2 case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)- I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just think that's a loophole that should be changed. It is insulting that a follower ordinary editor has the power to give marks of discipline. Especially when all I did was add some pictures and added more neutral wording on the article. Before that I never interacted with him. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Trying to change the rules about who can issue DS notices is like tilting at windmills, since Arbcom has established this. It would be more helpful for you to explain how you can improve article content in the AA domain if your ban is lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just think that's a loophole that should be changed. It is insulting that a follower ordinary editor has the power to give marks of discipline. Especially when all I did was add some pictures and added more neutral wording on the article. Before that I never interacted with him. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Somebody who abused the notification system could be charged with disruptive editing. I don't believe we are anywhere near that, because User:Grandmaster's notice to you seemed reasonable. If you are indeed hoping to have your ban lifted, it is curious that you are fighting against the issuance of a reasonable notice. Shusha is one of the horrible articles in the AA domain where people are always making nationalist changes.
- So if I put the warning on your talk page, his talk page, and maybe a thousand other talk pages, could I list them all myself? --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Grandmaster's notice to you here gives a link to the AA2 case, which is, in fact, the decision authorizing sanctions. At present there is no requirement that people can only be notified for some reason. Any notice will do, if it gives a link to the case. If you want to appeal your sanction you should use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Though WP:AN can hear appeals it is usual to go to WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- But it wasn't even a link to the decision authorizing sanctions. He was just accusing me of violating a rule I wasn't at the time. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- User:HouseOfArtaxiad, please undo your removal of User:Grandmaster's warning to you from the AA2 case log. As the current wording of WP:AC/DS indicates, there is nothing in the rules that requires the person leaving the DS notices to be an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
re Darkshadow
With the exception of the article to which you refer, this editor has made no use of their sandbox versions and has accumulated a bunch of stale drafts as a consequence. They appear to build articles in user space by cutting and pasting large chunks of pre-existing articles into an empty palette. Undoubtedly they make some contributions to article space, but that is no good reason to keep a bunch of stale drafts.
To provide a recent example, not listed at MFD, please consider this version of Britain's Got Talent dated 18/1 [9]. It is a comprehensive 7 year old article. Changes to it are few and far between, focused on updates when the series re-appears in Spring each year. Darkshadow does not appear as a contributor in stats. in the live article. Now look at this [10] recently added to sandbox. This is made up of large chunks of copy and paste from the existing, substantive article. This is the editor's method, effectively creating WP:STALEDRAFTs in sandbox from the existing article space version. The editor is entirely capable of introducing content into existing articles and does so from time to time, but that does not justify mass retention of (with the single exception) unused stale drafts. They have not objected to the MFD, AFAIK. Leaky Caldron 19:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Move review for Gjakova
An editor has asked for a Move review of Gjakova. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Blacklight Power
FYI: A BLP paper has been published in European Physical Journal with a substantial disclaimer: The Editors-in-Chief of the EBJ D wish to clairfy that the publication of the highlighted paper ... is in no way an endorsement of the authors' "hydrino" hypothesis by the Editors of this journal. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
3rr forum
Ed, I responded to your complaint at the 3RR forum. Not sure if I'll have a response from you there, but I'd appreciate it. It's ok that you warned me about ARBMAC stuff, but I didn't go against anything. In the Albania national football team 15 players (out of a 25 people list) were not born in Albania, so Faton Toski is a candidate for the national team and the media reports it, based on interviews it has with him. Valon Berisha declares to play for Kosovo, as reported by media. My additions are sourced and I'm not inventing these things. Rather than punishing me you should warn the IP who edit warred. Not punishing that behavior will make the IP be more bold in removing my sourced additions. And it's a good thing to teach to someone to put a "cn" template, rather than instigating them to remove information. Those 4 players were clearly Hungarian (3 of them) and Bosnian (1). It's removing that information that makes wikipedia a poor place. Ethnicity is important, and if it's not sourced, it's a problem, but it's even more of a problem if someone doesn't do anything to source, but just destroys articles. --Vetemekenshkodran (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- The responses at AN3 explain the issues with your recent edits. You seem to be here on Wikipedia to promote things Albanian. It is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia to promote anything. The 'cn' template must be another one of the things you suddenly learned about in the six days since your account was created. If you continue this crusade, you are risking a block or a topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Question from BMK
Ed: I just wanted to bring this to your attention. I know that I am the sanctioned editor, and not Robsinden, because I was the one to break 3RR, but he was the other side of the edit war, so it seems a bit unfair, especially since other editors expressed the opinion that no solo navboxes should have their collapse state changed until a community consensus was determined. I fully understand that you have no obligation whatsoever to do anything about this, but I did want you to be aware of it. BMK (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I don't know if he's made any other similar edits because I have not looked at his contrib list and don't plan to. This one simply popped up on my watch list. BMK (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is about the edit warring complaint. You've asked about a particular edit by Robsinden which uncollapsed a template. When the Template:Frank Perry was first added to The Swimmer (1968 film) in this edit in 2009 it was in the expanded (uncollapsed) state. Since then you've tried to collapse it a number of times for instance here but each time it's been uncollapsed by others. The Frank Perry template is only three lines so it's not easy to see the benefit of collapsing that one. You've agreed not to change any collapse states for two weeks (that is, until Feb. 11) but you could continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Collapsing film director navboxes. My review of that thread suggests there is little support for collapsing. Unless you can think of some really good arguments it might be best for you to follow the project's wishes and let the issue go. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is about the edit warring complaint. You've asked about a particular edit by Robsinden which uncollapsed a template. When the Template:Frank Perry was first added to The Swimmer (1968 film) in this edit in 2009 it was in the expanded (uncollapsed) state. Since then you've tried to collapse it a number of times for instance here but each time it's been uncollapsed by others. The Frank Perry template is only three lines so it's not easy to see the benefit of collapsing that one. You've agreed not to change any collapse states for two weeks (that is, until Feb. 11) but you could continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Collapsing film director navboxes. My review of that thread suggests there is little support for collapsing. Unless you can think of some really good arguments it might be best for you to follow the project's wishes and let the issue go. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Unsigned Changes to UST Global
Hello Ed. I hope my note finds you doing well. For quite a while after your last intervention, the employees at UST Global kept the site without changes regarding who founded the company. As you recall, the records for the founder of the site were spelled out in papers filed with the Superior Court of California in November 2007.
We have now reverted back to an individual(s) not signing in, making the edit to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.
Thanks for considering what you had done the last 3 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days.
I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've renewed the semiprotection. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Main Hoon Shahid Afridi (film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main Hoon Shahid Afridi (film). Since you had some involvement with the Main Hoon Shahid Afridi (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UBStalk 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Lowering of Protection
Can you take a look at Lowering or Protection Celtic F.C. Thanks.Blethering Scot 12:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Am I blocked?
Hi Ed! My topic ban has been lifted recently, but I find I cannot edit the Prem Rawat talk page beyond the preview level. Am I also still blocked somehow? Seems I can edit the PR page, but not the talk page. Yet I would prefer discussing new edits before I make them. Can you help, please?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it. There was an unclosed template at Talk:Prem Rawat that made new posts appear to be HTML comments. Try again now. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, it's fine now.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Self-published sources in-place
You protected the article with self-published sources in-place https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594148542&oldid=594086880 Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've taken care of that. If you see any other changes justifiable under WP:PROTECT, let me know or use the {{editprotect}} template. Please note that I've left a warning at User talk:Startropic1 about personal attacks and it applies to you as well. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Will do. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring complaint, Music for Millions
well, apparently I'm too stupid for Wiki. The "Diff of edit warring" above says "link", I placed toccata's name thinking it would link to them. Apparently, it wasn't. Yes, I made three reverts as I have received no details as to what Toccata quarta hasn't given me any details of their revert. Asking questions gets me a warning. I stated on my complaint that I wasn't sure I was submitting correctly.Unbelievable.Zabadu (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- If the other person doesn't respond it doesn't give you a personal licence to revert. There are ways of bringing in more people via the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Zabadu, I removed your comment from WP:AN3 that included an opening HTML comment bracket and no closing bracket. Try again if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is all too ridiculous for words. If someone wants less of a plot, so be it. And Wiki wonders why supporters are few and critics are high. All I asked for was an explanation. What I get is a pissing contest. And you all stick together in your silence.Zabadu (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to comment on Acid Mothers Temple discography#Discography? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
RfC/U Quackguru, again
Hi EdJohnston! You participated in an RFC/U concerning User:QuackGuru in 2011. There is a new RFC/U on for the same user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2, and your input would be welcome. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please double-check; I didn't participate in the 2011 RFCU. I did issue a topic ban to this editor in 2011. Regarding the ongoing GERAC dispute, I have wondered why a compromise couldn't be worked out. Looking at Talk:GERAC it does not seem that anyone has tried opening a regular RfC to settle the content issues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did start a RfC. See Talk:GERAC#RfC:_What_level_of_detail_should_be_included_in_German_acupuncture_trials.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Quackguru, thanks for your comment. I now see that a content RfC has been opened about German Acupuncture Trials and it is already listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It seems reasonable to wait for that closure before opening an RFCU about User:QuackGuru. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Editors prefer less detail according to the RfC IMO.[11][12][13][14] It was previously explained, for the set-up a summary was better. User:Mallexikon previously said there is consensus forming to not include this material but he tried to restore the details about the set-up against consensus. After reading this comment at the talk page, for balance and readability I added this information to acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Mallexikon previously said We found consensus to limit the information about the results; however, QG opposes this consensus as well. It is fairly obvious I do not oppose limiting the information about the results. I prefer less detail about the results and so do a lot of other editors. Another said As to GERAC, the concern there (and in fact other editors raised the coat rack issue more than I did at the AfD) was the picking out of impressive-sounding details from the primaries to construct a coat rack of undue details: something which is still happening (but not for long?). Again, I've said my piece on this but decided to let it run because - nobody reads that article. Howick is good secondary commentary on GERAC and I think you misrepresent him by saying he dismisses sham controls. He does however say they are unlikely to have been useful for GERAC, as WP relates. I've been looking at his work more widely and his schtick seems to be that conducting effective trials (of any kind) is really hard in general. For GERAC Ernst, of course, also says the placebo methods used were problematic. There were problems with the article discussed at the AFD and on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Quackguru, if you have not already made these points in the RfC you might consider doing so. And you could make a section called 'Proposed closure' (with very brief text) which might assist any admin who feels like closing the RfC. Of course the other side could make their own proposed closure if they disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The content RfC has now been closed by User:Gaijin42. I hope this settles the issue and that the GERAC article can be revised appropriately. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Quackguru, if you have not already made these points in the RfC you might consider doing so. And you could make a section called 'Proposed closure' (with very brief text) which might assist any admin who feels like closing the RfC. Of course the other side could make their own proposed closure if they disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Quackguru, thanks for your comment. I now see that a content RfC has been opened about German Acupuncture Trials and it is already listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It seems reasonable to wait for that closure before opening an RFCU about User:QuackGuru. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did start a RfC. See Talk:GERAC#RfC:_What_level_of_detail_should_be_included_in_German_acupuncture_trials.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Re- Your opinion?
Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.Gareth Griffith-Jones – 19:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yemen
Hello, i was recently blocked for edit warring [15]. I am currently engaged in debate in Talk:Yemen here and here. An edit was reverted today without providing a counter argument, and the editor concluded that i "have failed to receive census". It happened the same day i got blocked for reverting the same exact edit. What should i do now? if i reverted the edit it will be considered an edit warring. How do i get a third party to monitor the discussion? Thank you --يوسف حسين (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- So far, at Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture, it doesn't appear that anybody supports the edits you want to make. You want to use the work about the Queen of Sheba by Deborah Coulter-Harris. She appears to be an associate lecturer in the Department of English at the University of Toledo, not a historian. You should not go further in changing the article until you can get a consensus. One way you can try to find people to support you is to open a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- okay .. i will cite historians --يوسف حسين (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The other editor did not respond to the discussion Talk:yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba. I added new sources but he did not respond. Should i go ahead and make the edit? as for this Talk:Yemen#Najahid it seems the discussion have reached a dead end. The editor is basically disregarding every source i bring and interpret texts to fit his notion. I do not know how to use the RFC template. --يوسف حسين (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can help you create an RFC, but you need to propose a neutrally-worded sentence saying what change you want to make. Do you want to add:
- You can propose this in the RfC, but people who have commented so far are unlikely to support that. You would be hoping that the listing of the RfC would bring in more contributors who might agree with you. It sounds like the current contributors want everything to be extremely well-sourced to respected scholarship, and they don't want anything said beyond what is known for sure. E.g. they doubt that we know the exact location of the Sabaeans. You have been writing at excessive length and this discourages dialog. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that is the sentence i want to use. I did not mean to write at excessive length i was simply citing different authors, There is a language gap here and i think i cannot get my point reached in short sentences. i highly doubt that they are looking for extremely well sourcesed respected scholarly works, user acid snow and the others did not respond to the quotes i provided. I do not understand, is there a problem with the references i provided here? All of them except one are archaeologists and one of them is a historian. --يوسف حسين (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you intend to contribute to the old history of Yemen you need to have the skills needed, especially in English. These are complex scholarly topics. It also helps if you have access to the full text of reference works, and are not just Googling for snippets. The others appear to be so disappointed by your work that they are losing interest in responding to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was the one who expanded the ancient history of Yemen. I know English is not my first language and i do have a lot of grammatical mistakes. Nevertheless, i was the only editor who expended that section. If they are disappointed that does not mean i am wrong. I do not see any just reason to delay my edits. Maybe you were disappointed but all i know is that the other side did not respond --يوسف حسين (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Lack of response does not give you consensus to proceed. See WP:CONSENSUS. If you can't persuade anyone to support you on this, you should go work on something else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am working on something else. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states that :" Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content", and the sources i provided fit this category. The other side did not complain about the sources rather he claimed that he could not find the quotes. --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have access to the full text of any of the books you are citing? EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- yes i have full access to one of the books. --يوسف حسين (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am working on something else. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states that :" Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content", and the sources i provided fit this category. The other side did not complain about the sources rather he claimed that he could not find the quotes. --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Lack of response does not give you consensus to proceed. See WP:CONSENSUS. If you can't persuade anyone to support you on this, you should go work on something else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was the one who expanded the ancient history of Yemen. I know English is not my first language and i do have a lot of grammatical mistakes. Nevertheless, i was the only editor who expended that section. If they are disappointed that does not mean i am wrong. I do not see any just reason to delay my edits. Maybe you were disappointed but all i know is that the other side did not respond --يوسف حسين (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you intend to contribute to the old history of Yemen you need to have the skills needed, especially in English. These are complex scholarly topics. It also helps if you have access to the full text of reference works, and are not just Googling for snippets. The others appear to be so disappointed by your work that they are losing interest in responding to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that is the sentence i want to use. I did not mean to write at excessive length i was simply citing different authors, There is a language gap here and i think i cannot get my point reached in short sentences. i highly doubt that they are looking for extremely well sourcesed respected scholarly works, user acid snow and the others did not respond to the quotes i provided. I do not understand, is there a problem with the references i provided here? All of them except one are archaeologists and one of them is a historian. --يوسف حسين (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why are you still lying? Its getting very annoying. Everyone can see my comments so can you please stop this (I have asked you to stop before yet you wont)? "The other side did not complain about the sources", are you serous? I have complained about your sources, the way you are using them, cheerrypicking, and how you changed "quotes".
- "user acid snow and others did not respond to the quotes i provided", really I did not provided a response to your "quotes"? *Sigh*.
- As for not finding your original quotes, it was because you deliberately changed them. When I asked you about this you said "if you can't find them than it's your own problem". I don't understand why you are doing this as it is not working in your favor in anyway. You even went and readded it after you were told to receive consensus for your edit yet you did not. Because of all of this I have reverted you as you were also told by me, EdJohnston, and others to wait to receive consensus; which you did not.
- EdJohnston, I would highly recommend (if your not already) that you carefully read what I have said in this discussion. If you want to see all the other things he has also done to discredit me than you should also go there. AcidSnow (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:AcidSnow, can you give an example of a quote from a book that you believe was misstated by Kendite? EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes i did not lie because you did not complain about the sources, you said that you could not find the quotes! complaing aboun the sources means that you believe they are bias or outdated or unverifiable. You did not do that instead you complained that i have "changed them"! I know i should receive census but you are not ready to engage in a rational discussion. it's almost personal with you guys.--يوسف حسين (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just read his latest response on the matter. it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.--يوسف حسين (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- The link he uses to describe Yemen as one of the oldest civilizations in the near east says the following :
- User:AcidSnow, can you give an example of a quote from a book that you believe was misstated by Kendite? EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
. The South Arabian kingdom of Saba (biblical Sheba) emerges, with its capital at Marib, a fertile oasis east of modern San'a in Yemen. In biblical accounts, the Queen of Sheba brought a rich gift of gold, spices, and precious stones to King Solomon in Jerusalem.
- Another proof that this a personal matter, --يوسف حسين (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I would highly recommend (if your not already) that you carefully read what I have said in this discussion. If you want to see all the other things he has also done to discredit me than you should also go there. AcidSnow (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Redirect question
Can you explain the reasoning behind renaming the "Days of our Lives" entry "Days of Our Lives"? Every Days-related page is directed to the former, and Days is officially registered with a lower-cased 'o' in 'our'. Was a consensus reached in renaming the page? Partyclams (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- See Talk:Days of Our Lives#Requested move 2013. Generally Wikipedia relies on its own style guide to decide on the capitalization of titles and frequently does not follow the style used in sources. The relevant guide here is MOS:CT. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW
[16] is typical now. Cheers. I am gone. Collect (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted the last IP change and imposed semiprotection per WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think you will find a slew of similar edits from the "homophobia/censorship" contingent on a substantial number of BLPs. Cheers -- it is in your lap now. Collect (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
[17] another -- as I said, the floodgates are open fully. Collect (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC) [18] as well. And you should examine the Justin Bieber article as well if you wish to see a BLP disaster. Collect (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have watchlisted a few of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
[19] a discussion about a clear use of a third-hand anonymous source being used by a possible POV pusher. Collect (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Move question
Hi! You recently moved To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of an airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding (H.R. 3578; 113th Congress) to Bill H.R. 3578; 113th Congress and mentioned a move request in the reason why. I haven't been able to find that request. Was any explanation given as to why it needed to be moved? I understand that the title is long, but it is the bill's official title (it doesn't have a short one). Just using the bare numbers seems insufficient as a title. The numbers alone don't provide any information about the subjects of the bill - air traffic controllers, sleep disorders, and rulemaking. There aren't many bills without short titles, but there are some. I'd like to know why this move was made so that better titles can be used in the future. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- There was a move request at WP:RMTR which you can see at this link. If you disagree with the move and think the original title was better, feel free to open a discussion on the article talk page using {{Requested move}}. This will allow for a consensus to be formed. Another possibility is you may be able to find how the press is referring to this bill. They might be using a shorter or colloquial title that still contains some information on what the bill is. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I've started putting together some first-draft content to expand/improve/correct this article in hopes of eventually bringing it up to the GA mark (long ways to go atm). You commented previously on another discussion string, so I wanted to let you know I also just posted some more information and content regarding their origins (also considered to be the origins of the credit card industry by historians). I also pinged user:Pine, who I think is a WikiProject finance member and who I pinged previously. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I reviewed your change and left a note at User talk:CorporateM#Diner's Club edit request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
2014 Winter Olympics
User:Cityinfonorns continues his edit warring on the 2014 Winter Olympics article, he got blocked for (as reported here at the 3RR noticeboard) → User talk:Cityinfonorns:
--IIIraute ([[User talk:IIIraute|talk]) 19:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
at Talk [23] revert to consensus version IIIraute don't stop edit warring--Cityinfonorns (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Cityinfonorns, you are still fighting to restore your preferred map to show the location of Sochi. This was the issue in the 3RR case. You should try to get a clear consensus on the talk page. The next time you revert the map you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- at Talk [24] a clear consensus version IIIraute is still fighting to restore preferred map--Cityinfonorns (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- It looks to me that you still have a 2 vs. 2 tie on which map is the best. Why not pursue the talk discussion to a clear verdict. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have added the other map as a compromise settlement → [25]. --IIIraute (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
A new account with a very similar editing pattern has appeared → User talk:Nwbocploumouic:
--IIIraute (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Cityinfonorns continues his edit warring on the 2014 Winter Olympics article, now that User:Nwbocploumouic got blocked:
- It seems that User:Cityinfonorns is now blocked indef as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
My request at WP:AE
Hi, I am glad you posted on my Talk page. Please tell me what to do. Should I just re-insert the sentence I added originally with the appropriate reference (since the reference said the same thing)?—Khabboos (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since the material is dispiuted, you need to get consensus before restoring it again. An RfC is one way to get consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Talk:Eitarō Ozawa#Move about 36 pages? RM was closed as move back all articles, but the closer couldn't do it. It would be nice if you could do it now. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- All done except for one article, as explained at User talk:Red Slash#Move discussion at Talk:Eitaro Ozawa. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
{{talkback|Michitaro|Taburakashi: Daikō Joyūgyō Maki}}
- Replied at User talk:Michitaro, thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I also replied at User talk:Michitaro. Michitaro (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Question
Quick question Ed. Does someone adding deliberate factual errors by misrepresenting a source fall under WP:SNEAKY? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Usually we would call that WP:Disruptive editing, but it needs evidence. You'd have to show the person knew the actual meaning of the source but was intending to mislead. EdJohnston (talk)
RE: Walter Gorlitz
I do not wish to re-ignite a feud on the Larry Norman article's talk page, so I will discuss this with you here. Furthermore I'm deferring this to you and the mediators in our discussion on the Larry Norman article's talk page:
Walter Görlitz and I were both warned to stop personal attacks on either other and so forth. I have done my best to take a step back and focus on the material we're editing rather than feuding with Walter Gorlitz. However, I have noticed he continues to make heated exchanges, and even directing that heat towards the mediators. I also noticed on his talk page, (talk) , that he was warned over a dispute/edit-warring with someone else on another Wikipedia article, just a mere day or two after the Larry Norman dispute began.
Perhaps there should be more disciplinary action taken? I will leave that decision with you administrators and the mediators, but I'm certainly getting tired of his vitriol on the Larry Norman talk page. Startropic1 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you think that Walter has engaged in personal attacks at Talk:Larry Norman please link to such an attack. I am unhappy to see that you are not grasping our WP:Reliable source policies, since you are still defending the use of thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com. You should not be using self-published sites for information about Larry Norman. If you don't believe me you can ask for feedback on the source you want to us at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am apparently not the first person to use that site as a source as it is cited elsewhere in the article. So why was it acceptable then, but not now? Also I am using other sources to verify the reliability of thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com
To quote the reliable sources article you linked to:
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."
Thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com meets that criteria, I have cited numerous sources to prove this and I can cite even more sources. Our mediator also noted that self-publication can be used for rebuttals of criticisms made in the article. In any case I will be using additional sources for the edits I am proposing.
As for Walter's behavior:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Norman#Dispute_Resolution
The last comment there made by Walter was argumentative with the mediator(s)
Walter and the mediators argue about whether or not I can suggest edits, and further up at the beginning of the Proposed Edits section he tells me I cannot suggest edits at all. I'm not quite sure if the latter was posted before or after the argument with the mediators, but I don't recall seeing it until after the argument. I could very well be wrong though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz#Talk:Canada
There you can see he was warned for doing the exact same thing he was warned about in regards to the Larry Norman article, and that is dated 7th February, 2 days after he received the warning pertaining to the Larry Norman article. Startropic1 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Now he's being argumentative with the mediators, and he's defying consensus. He's arguing with them on other boards now too:
A consensus was reached, now this really needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I appear to have missed the party here and I don't see a need to respond to anything discussed about me here. I was just going to state that the lock will expire in a few hours. I'm not sure if you have the article on your watch page, and while I don't expect any fireworks or that you are suddenly responsible for the page, it may be good to keep an eye on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see that a thread was opened at Wikipedia:RSN#www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com and www.failedangle.com. That thread brought in some outside opinions. When the article protection expires at Larry Norman I hope that people will make changes only with consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for you protected John Hunyadi and Magyarization articles. Could you protect the above article too? SPs of User:Iaaasi from Craiova are very active with regard of this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Norden1990 you don't like the historical facts, so you prefer to hide them (by reverting me), on the reason that this ip is from Craiova 86.127.24.200 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Semiprotected the massacres article, 86.127, feel free to work for consensus for your changes and consider creating an account. Without a fixed user talk page, nobody can leave you messages. More background is at WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you could also semiprotect Hungarian Turanism, where a sock of User:Stubes99 tries to add unsourced information (it is a blatant sock, a CU could easily confirm that the techincal data correspond). 79.117.167.69 (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Semiprotected the massacres article, 86.127, feel free to work for consensus for your changes and consider creating an account. Without a fixed user talk page, nobody can leave you messages. More background is at WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Slavery in Iran
What Hoary (is clear that is an anti-Iranian) has written about Slavery in Iran is nonsense words (e.x. The figure that has been added does not have any resource and is not clear that this is belong to which country and so on). The previous version of Slavery in Iran is correct version. So I have not removed the materials of the page. Just I returned the correct version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1241edit (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Feel free to persuade others that you are correct. If you continue to revert without persuading the others you'll probably be blocked. It's in your interest to try some diplomacy. If you are blocked then you'll have no further opportunity to make your case here, and no one will even hear your arguments. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Peregrine981 on Open Europe
Peregrine981 apealed to you to block my account on Open Europe claiming there had been no discussion of my edits. On the contrary, there is a whole discussion thread. Peregrine981 I believe has abused his position as an editor by constantly reversing edits, removing balancing references and relying on citations from one blog post in march 2010 to paint a picture of an organisation that does not fit with the truth. Open Europe is a well regarded critic of the European Comission, havng an Editor who works for the European Commission involved in editing wars and abusing his position to block those who do not agree with him is an abuse of wikipedia - thanks. AyreSmith1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayresmith1 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your account has been indefinitely blocked by a checkuser. Your complaint here didn't give me very much to go on since it has no links to anything I might recall. By searching around I found this ANI report. I also see that I semiprotected Open Europe on 31 January, most likely because of the ANI complaint about socking. Since a checkuser was involved I assume that you have in fact been socking so I don't have much motivation to look further into the substantive issues about Open Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this editor still banned from Armenian and Azerbaijani articles? Since the 25 January 2014, he has clearly edited in articles concerning Armenia, Armenians, etc.[31] Per this request by HouseOfArtaxiad, his request was denied.[32] --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Left a note for the editor at User talk:HouseOfArtaxiad#Your topic ban from AA2. It seems that a block may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ed, you might want to look at the edits of this IP.[33] They appear to mirror HouseOfArtaxiad's.[34] Both appear to edit war in tandem for a particular POV.
- Nazim Bey,[35], edit-warring.
- Battle of Bitlis, [36]
- List of massacres in Turkey, [37]
- Kahramanmaras,[38]
- Just a little to much of a coincidence. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't know if 216.125.48.225 (talk · contribs) is the same person as HOA, but his edits at Nazım Bey justify a block in their own right and an AA2 warning. Others have already given him vandalism warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I filed a sockpuppet investigation request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HouseOfArtaxiad, to see if the IP has anything to do with HouseOfArtaxiad. Grandmaster 09:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Those aren't Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfArtaxiad (talk • contribs)
- If you read the bottom of the WP:ARBAA2 page, it states:
- "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." Would you say that a massacre of Armenians, such as those directed by Nazım Bey, is not related to Armenia? How about List of massacres in Turkey, when the victims are stated to be Armenian? EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Infraction
Srnec user has violated the rule of three reversals twice ([39] [40] [41] [42] [43] and [44] [45] [46] [47]). He took advantage of the system rules. He got it from blocking me so I could not report him and now his offense has expired, they tell me. I can not believe that this could be possible and I think that deserves a penalty.--EeuHP (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Move under open AfD
Hello EdJohnston! Please note this. I've requested move protection for the article until the AfD is closed.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ethiopian Airlines ET702 hijacking is now move protected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think the article can now be moved. The outcome of the AfD was to keep it.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review this User Page, and suggest improvements to it.
User:HRA1924 in connection with the IAC controversy and the IP block. Thanks.
PS: we have attempted to use email many times to the OTRS email ID with dismal results. We had not escalated matters to the Office or General Counsel as we want to exhaust all opportunities which Wikipedia theoretically offers to outsiders. Ours is a matter with serious potential legal issues, and we would have appreciated if competent community editors with a strong legal background had also been involved. It seems to us that everybody hopes we should take our "hot potato" to the WMF Legal section. HRA1924 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello from Wiki New England gathering, I believe
Hi. At the New England gathering last month at MIT, as a sign-in sheet was circulated, I was the person who remarked "One of you is on my watchlist." That was in reference to you, or so I believed after scanning the list of those who had signed in ahead of me.
I mention that now, as I stop watching--something I was doing for a technical reason rather than because we on many of the same pages. Feel free to delete. --P64 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Abbas Babaei Article
I have been an observer of the Abbas Babaei article and have been following the recent conflict. I wanted to point out to you that this conflict seems to be getting no where. The IP address does not seem to not be cooperating and has explicitly said "I have no intention of co-operating with you" and "When the article is unblocked I will make my edits." the IP goes on to make another comment "And I ask you: did you ever see Abbas Babaei fly an F-14? If so, exactly when? Do you have any empirical proof he was an F-14 pilot?".
It seems to me that such comments make no effort to resolve the dispute?
Of course Hooperag is not totally innocent either... as they should have been more cooperative in the beginning and not have plagiarized from that website. However after the edit war they seem to have offered a fairly reasonable proposal to solve the problem. I recommend you as a Wikipedia administrator take some action with your mature judgment so this conflict can finally be resolved. I feel Hooperag's proposal is decent and you change the article to incorporate hooperag's suggestion and then keep the article protected for a few weeks until things cool down, and then depending on what you think, block the IP address and temporarily block Hooperag.
I wish both parties had acted more cooperative and not have created this dispute in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.77.59 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please use Talk:Abbas Babaei to reach consensus about what should be in the article. Anyone who won't follow a proper consensus can be sanctioned. You don't seem to have commented yet on the talk page yourself. Your participation might help motivate the others to discuss properly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Help
Hi, I have a complaint about User:Cavid_Süleymanlı, he keeps not following talk page instructions and violating wikipedia's policies and adding what he thinks best. Could u please deal with him? - Nicat49 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Need some details. Is this a complaint about formatting of sports articles? What articles? EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
"Cassandra" IP sock SPI, again
Hi Ed, I've had a go at tightening up a draft for an SPI for "Cassandra" here at my sandbox (the section at the top). Is this more along the right lines? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- See Talk:Scottish Gaelic#Semiprotection. In my opinion an SPI filing is not really needed yet, since there is not much that can be done beyond semiprotection. Let me know if the problem exists elsewhere. It may not be worth the trouble to revert the editor's talk posts. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I'm happy with that as a shot across their bows may make them pay heed. Here's hoping. This article seems to be their primary focus since moving on from Scots language a few weeks ago. I'll keep you posted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
duplicate posting deleted Startropic1 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Quiet for over a week since your semiprotection at Scottish Gaelic, Cassandra's reappeared today. They've found an old talk thread at William Wallace to tag their favourite views to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Good heavens, that's not User:Cassandra at the peak of her insanity, I hope..? Bishonen | talk 00:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
- Bishonen, we should block all the Cassandras just in case! @Mutt, are you keeping a list of these IPs somewhere? It could be helpful. The dialog at Talk:William Wallace doesn't yet look bad enough to semi the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- The IPs are here Ed. Yes, for that post it would seem harsh to semi-protect. It is though typical of the way Cassandra posts, at least initially, in a thread. It seems fairly benign and reasonable but if familiar with Cassandra's favoured themes, it's not hard to spot that they're taking the opportunity to hang those themes in an existing discussion on another matter. In this example the insertion of their term "Scot-land", with a hyphen, and reference to lowland Scots as being English are two familiar POV riffs which stand out to me. They may or may not pick up and run with them but I recognise this as being Cassandra's focus, rather than the thread's actual discussion of the term "patriot". But to act because one strongly suspects what they are up to, hmmm... Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just checked range contributions though and the sock seems to have been on one of their occasional common-or-garden vandalism sprees as well. This is the most blatant but the following one seems to be misinformation and this one possibly a joke with someone who attended the school or its predecessor (the sock has identified as being from Yorkshire). There's also an instance of blanking. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per above, as suspected the "Scot-land" and "'English' Lowlands" themes were continued later at Talk:Robert the Bruce, in an unrelated and similarly old forum post started by themself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Though this may be annoying I don't think it's abusive. The vandalistic edits by 92.12.105.138 don't look to be Cassandra. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM? I could elaborate as to what I think they are driving at re "Scot-land" and "English Lowlands" if that helps but it's oft-repeated OR of theirs, amongst several related OR themes, that they keep attempting to shoe-horn into any talk page or article that they feel they can. If it's the difference in character of the vandalistic edits (from the same IP range as Cassandra) that make it seem doubtful they are Cassandra, there have been plain vandalistic edits by IPs which identify in other edits as Cassandra: 1 2 and 3, or have made edits to other articles characteristic of those targeted by Cassandra (this IP also edited at Scotch (adjective) in a manner that was clearly Cassandra): 4. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you about NOTFORUM but don't see any admin action that is worth taking. The 2009 vandal edit at Grassland by 92.5.13.102 is most likely by a different person than the 2013 edits that look to be Cassandra. IPs do change hands. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Though the user's broken record POV-pushing is blatant and transparent if one knows their history but much less obvious if encountering for the first time (particularly with the IP- and article-hopping) I'm conscious that to revert many of their posts may seem harsh to other observers but a concerted programme of "revert, ignore", per your comment in an earlier thread, may be the only way to go about it. Thanks for the help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- ...and they're really widening the scope of their target articles now: [48] Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Though the user's broken record POV-pushing is blatant and transparent if one knows their history but much less obvious if encountering for the first time (particularly with the IP- and article-hopping) I'm conscious that to revert many of their posts may seem harsh to other observers but a concerted programme of "revert, ignore", per your comment in an earlier thread, may be the only way to go about it. Thanks for the help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you about NOTFORUM but don't see any admin action that is worth taking. The 2009 vandal edit at Grassland by 92.5.13.102 is most likely by a different person than the 2013 edits that look to be Cassandra. IPs do change hands. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM? I could elaborate as to what I think they are driving at re "Scot-land" and "English Lowlands" if that helps but it's oft-repeated OR of theirs, amongst several related OR themes, that they keep attempting to shoe-horn into any talk page or article that they feel they can. If it's the difference in character of the vandalistic edits (from the same IP range as Cassandra) that make it seem doubtful they are Cassandra, there have been plain vandalistic edits by IPs which identify in other edits as Cassandra: 1 2 and 3, or have made edits to other articles characteristic of those targeted by Cassandra (this IP also edited at Scotch (adjective) in a manner that was clearly Cassandra): 4. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Though this may be annoying I don't think it's abusive. The vandalistic edits by 92.12.105.138 don't look to be Cassandra. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per above, as suspected the "Scot-land" and "'English' Lowlands" themes were continued later at Talk:Robert the Bruce, in an unrelated and similarly old forum post started by themself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Bishonen, we should block all the Cassandras just in case! @Mutt, are you keeping a list of these IPs somewhere? It could be helpful. The dialog at Talk:William Wallace doesn't yet look bad enough to semi the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Block evasion - 108.48.144.42 --> 108.48.85.180
Hi Ed, just a heads-up that the kid who was abusing their thesaurus via 108.48.144.42, and who was blocked for one month, has evaded their block and is doing the same stuff from 108.48.85.180. I've issued a fresh warning, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention so you can keep an eye on it. To refresh your memory, the kid uses too many words to say things, which results in sloppy, unencyclopedic language. Here's an example "official love interest, true love, and girlfriend", "shared a romantic kiss". They were doing other pernicious stuff too like removing references from articles, changing Pocahontas' birthdate, etc. I've reverted most of their edits on the basis of block evasion. Though they do make improvements to some articles, like by correcting bad grammar and misspellings, this other crap they do devalues their contribution. It looks like good hand/bad hand vandalism. Here's the ANI. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked the new IP for evasion. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
ANI
ANI that might concern you - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_IDHT_even_after_mediation. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- It does concern me. I can't complain about how this turned out. Will the guy stop after a mere indefinite block? I'm afraid that the crusade will continue by other means. It's fun to get lectured about Wikipedia policy by somebody who won't even accept the Wikipedia terms of use. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring Haller's Blue Army
| This should continue on the article talk. See WP:DR for how to settle content disputes. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I have made grammatical and contextual improvements to the overall article. But, Faustian has an issue with just one paragraph. Instead of dealing with this on section he continually reverts all my edits, even though they were done section by section individually. I have asked to notice this fact but he did not take that in to consideration, instead he jumped at the opportunity to call my editing disruptive. --COD T 3 (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
What does that mean? Here is the text from the book and the name of the source: Nationalizing A Borderland: War, Ethnicity, And Anti-Jewish Violence In East Galicia, 1914-1920 BTW, General Jozef Haller was the commander of the Blue Army.
You are starting to act like a jerk, to win your argument you keep accusing people of the worst things, so here is proof; that's the source I used to back up my claim. --COD T 3 (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
University Rochester Press, 2003 [54] Direct quote from the book: "He [Gibson] stood out for his antisemitism even in an era when genteel disdain for things Jewish pervaded the clublike atmosphere of the foreign service. Upon their arrival in Warsaw, the Yankee diplomats [including,. of course, Gibson] found their prejudices confirmed by an almost physical repugnance towards the city's exotic Orthodox Jewry...to Gibson and his colleagues, the Jews represented antagonists and also a source of sport, and ridicule of Jewish traits, customs, and appearance became the favorite expression of camaderie within the legation." Page 67. The guy just flat-out lies about what is in sources. This should not be tolerated.Faustian (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Is there somewhere else in the article Comedian where the information in Etymology can be placed? You recently closed that can. I will not open it again by posting on the Talk page; leaving this in your very capable hands. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- See this edit by User:PraetorianFury which adds a section called 'Etymology'. It is up to editor consensus whether this material belongs there; the RfC did not address that. All the RfC settled was whether to include 'comedienne' in the first sentence. Several commenters believed that 'comedienne' could be mentioned later in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
note
After Qwyrxian said that I explained things on his talk page and he said I don't know about the other times this has happened to, so I can't comment on them, so he is admittably saying he can't judge if I can edit Wikipedia or not. He also said a good portion of what you changed on Joel Osteen was for the positive, so it seems like you can be a good contributor. So no, it is a lie to say I was "in trouble" because nothing happened. There was a misunderstanding and it was taken to the talk page and resolved. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
talk page move
Hi, EdJohnston. Thank you for your moving Li Xiang (disambiguation) to Li Xiang. Please also move Talk:Li Xiang (disambiguation) to Talk:Li Xiang. Thanks! --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Your advice at ANI/EW
Thanks for the cool advice, I'll voluntarily take it if it is what's going. I've been giving this too much time than I've actually got anyway. I just want Wikipedia to represent what I see around me regarding the place I've lived all my life. I've been rusty anyway, so I should be back more of a 'settled' way (I always remember the deeper levels of policy even if I unfortunately have broken some of the more top layer aspects of it at times - but I do forget some 'technical' stuff, and it all looks very different these days too). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Good move
Thanks for fixing my moving stuff up at Andrew Durant: much appreciated.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Close of Anna Pou case move discussion
EdJohnston, following the move review guidelines, I am first reaching out to you on your talk page to discuss your decision to close the review. I want to understand more about your decision. It seems objectionable that someone moved the article unilaterally from its longtime name: Anna Pou case to a completely unrelated name. It seems like an attempt to whitewash an important episode in American history. We cannot change the fact that these events occurred, even if they are uncomfortable to those involved. The fact that Dr. Pou was arrested and prosecuted and ultimately not indicted has led to legal changes in multiple states protecting doctors from prosecution in future disasters. She herself has become a passionate public speaker about her case. I don't quite understand your reasons for not allowing the name to be reverted to its longtime name, which was accurate. Let's try to find a solution that preserves history, not creating a revisionist and inaccurate one. Thank youAccuracyObsessed (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The WP:BLP policy should be kept in mind. There is a concern in calling something the 'Anna Pou Case' where it appears that a case with that name was never formally opened. You have just added as the article's Reference 2 (taken from a CBS News website) a PDF that is an apparent draft document which is not signed by any court official. The only named case mentioned on the talk page is "William Armington, M.D. vs. Sherri Fink, et al, Civil Action 09-6785, Eastern District of Louisiana." Even 60 Minutes did not call it the Anna Pou case. In terms of the numerical vote, I found that the majority of opinions were against moving the article back to the Anna Pou Case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. Here are my thoughts in response: "There is a concern in calling something the 'Anna Pou Case' where it appears that a case with that name was never formally opened". A case with that name was certainly formally opened. Dr. Pou was arrested in the case "State of Louisiana versus Anna M. Pou." There is no historical doubt about this. The arrest affidavit and warrants are authentic, as evidenced by the fact that were published not only by CBS, but many other respected news outlets, including the Times-Picayune (http://www.nola.com/katrina/pdf/072006_nolacharges.pdf), the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20060717warrants.pdf) and others. It's available on FindLaw as well. It is historical fact that the affidavits were submitted and the warrants signed by Judge Calvin Johnson on July 17, 2006. It is historical fact that the Anna Pou case was then taken to a grand jury. Nobody could possibly dispute this. Regarding your second point: "In terms of the numerical vote, I found that the majority of opinions were against moving the article back to the [[Anna Pou Case]," my understanding is that move decisions are to be made on the merits, i.e. Wikipedia titling policy, not on a vote (anyone can vote). In any case, the math shows you are incorrect: 4 supported reverting (including the proposer, who counts) and 3 opposed reverting. If math is the yardstick, then the article should go back to its original name. When I requested the titling discussion, I should have reverted the name first to the long-used name so that we could have discussed the unilateral move. The difference of opinion suggests there is not consensus support for the move that was made two weeks ago to the current name. Wikipedia policy also clearly supports the established name when there is conflict. If someone can unilaterally insert historical revisionism into an article on an important piece of recent American history, and if it can be confirmed so easily without knowledge or reference to the substance, what does that say about the integrity of the entire Wikipedia project? I urge you to please reconsider and revert to the established name Anna Pou case as we continue this discussion. Thank you for considering this request.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- For a period of time prior to 21 February the article was at the title Anna Pou Case. Here are other moves:
- On 21 February Schwartzenberg moved the article to Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina
- The Requested Move discussion was opened by you on 22 February
- While the move discussion was still running you moved the article back to Anna Pou Case.
- I reverted this move on 1 March since it was a unilateral move during an open discussion
- People who voted Support (they want Anna Pou Case to be the title)
- 172.9.22.150
- Alf laylah wa laylah
- AccuracyObsessed
- Minerva1927 (no WP edits outside this move discussion)
- People who voted Oppose (they want MMC and Hurricane Katrina to remain the title)
- Schwartzenberg
- Chris Chittleborough
- 98.163.229.83 (No WP edits outside this move discussion)
The numerical vote seems to be 4:3 in favor of Anna Pou Case remaining the title. If we discount the two single-purpose accounts then the margin is 3:2 in favor of Anna Pou Case. The numerical vote agrees with how I closed the discussion. I was also influenced by worries about WP:BLP, an issue which was noted in my closure. After correcting my vote count (per AccuracyObsessed below) I still don't perceive a consensus to do the move.
Prior to the move discussion, there were sections on the talk page complaining about article content from a BLP perspective. One of those who commented was User:Gloriamarie. User:Schwartzenberg also commented. He made a number of speedy deletion recommendations but they were all declined by User:DESiegel on 20 February.
AccuracyObsessed, I still hope you will answer my objection to Reference 2, which appears to be a draft warrant and is unsigned. If you must use primary documents you ought to find valid ones that the court has actually processed. If you can't find such a document then you should base your argument on quotes from the secondary sources. If the record has in fact been 'expunged' then that might account for the difficulty. The newspaper accounts are obviously not expunged so they can certainly be used. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Court documents are pretty much never acceptable as sources, signed or unsigned, and i believe i removed such documents from the article in the past. They should not be used here, and statements that can be sourced only to such documents should be removed. DES (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, you have again miscounted! 172.9.22.150 was in support of reverting the move.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I corrected the numbers above. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sounds like a good rule to eschew court documents. I would venture that the links we're discussing here would in fact be acceptable because they were republished by major media outlets as part of news stories about Dr. Pou's arrest. However, in light of your concerns, I have just made an edit adding two additional references to remove any doubt about the veracity of the facts in that sentence.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- And so I see you edited the above and even with the correct recount you don't see consensus to make a move back to the longtime name. I disagree and see the more relevant point being that there is absolutely no consensus to make a move away from the longtime name: Anna Pou case. This has been the name since 2009, going on five years. Removing Anna Pou's name from the article about her arrest is historical revisionism. Please reconsider. Is this your final decision, or will you allow the discussion to continue? Thank you.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- And finally, I wonder whether this comment was considered--"The former title may not be the only sensible one, but (a) the current title is useless and misleading and (b) the old title is informative and compliant with the MOS— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)" Thanks again. AccuracyObsessed (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- And so I see you edited the above and even with the correct recount you don't see consensus to make a move back to the longtime name. I disagree and see the more relevant point being that there is absolutely no consensus to make a move away from the longtime name: Anna Pou case. This has been the name since 2009, going on five years. Removing Anna Pou's name from the article about her arrest is historical revisionism. Please reconsider. Is this your final decision, or will you allow the discussion to continue? Thank you.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sounds like a good rule to eschew court documents. I would venture that the links we're discussing here would in fact be acceptable because they were republished by major media outlets as part of news stories about Dr. Pou's arrest. However, in light of your concerns, I have just made an edit adding two additional references to remove any doubt about the veracity of the facts in that sentence.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I corrected the numbers above. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, you have again miscounted! 172.9.22.150 was in support of reverting the move.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll comment here since I got pinged by echo when AccuracyObsessed pasted my sig in. Ed, I have no problem with your close. I think there's some confusion due to the word "case." AccuracyObsessed seems to mean the court case, which I don't think, as AccuracyObsessed seems to, is a reasonable subject for an article or for a title. My thinking was that Anna Pou is at the center of a case in the sense of case study. I think it'd be better to have Pou's name in the title of the article for the reasons I gave on the talk page, but obviously it has to be disassociated with her personally somehow. Anyway, I'm not sure what the answer is, but given that AccuracyObsessed and I gave the only evidence-based arguments for opposing the move and we were split on the reasons for it, I don't think it was a bad close. I can't think of a better title now anyway, and it's not important as long as redirects that mention Pou remain in place. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- alf laylah wa laylah, thanks. Your opinion on this move close is important. I think we agreed more than disagreed. I read "Anna Pou case" in both ways--it was definitely a legal case, and it has also become a cultural touchstone, a case of ethical decision-making, end-of-life care, and disaster response taught in universities and particularly in medical schools. That's part of what's so odious to me about airbrushing her name out of the title of this article. It feels like an attempt to rewrite history and drive traffic away, which it's already doing, objectively, based on page view statistics. If nobody is willing to allow a reversion to the longstanding name, which as you know I think would constitute a disservice to history, I'd at least love it if an editor who is informed about the facts of this case, but with no axe to grind, could suggest an appropriate title.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "The Case of Anna Pou"? (The title of an academic article); "Anna Pou and Hurricane Katrina Deaths"? "Anna Pou, Hurricane Katrina, and Euthanasia" (the name of the popular KevinMD article)? "Anna Pou Controversy"?
Yo
What I asked for was semi-protection, not full protection. --Niemti (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- From reading the changes and the edit summaries it looks like a regular two-person edit war. See this 3RR report. It appears that the IP *did* notify you of the complaint. Consider working this out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
re: Special:Permalink behaves differently in Safari (won't go to sections)
Hi, sorry, I don't have a Safari to test with :( Posting this on WP:VPT or filing a bug seems like the best course of action. Thanks for the report :) (I have also received the e-mail, it is sufficient to contact me in one way, as I treat them all equally :) ) Matma Rex talk 23:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
AE
Hi Ed, since you're an AE regular who hasn't commented yet, would you mind having a look at WP:AE#Gilabrand, which I think would benefit from extra outside opinions. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like this is now closed. Thanks for your work on this. The Arab-Israeli AE cases tend to be stressful. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Proposed moved of Bibliography of encyclopedias
EdJohnson: RedSlash has pulled me up short. I apparently (unknowingly) refactored his support into "opposiition" ot the move. I thought I was refactoring my own edit. I screwed up. I did not intend to skew the vote there. I need your help to get that discussion reopened and fairly heard and decided. I apologize to him, to you, and to Wikipedia. Please help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I tried to fix this. Please look at this edit and see if the result looks OK. The result of the move discussion doesn't change. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I became a "not move". I wanted to correct the record, as was not trying to impermissibly stack the vote. This was (IMHO) a marginal issue and of no great consequence to me. 'Some call it a spear, some call it an arrow. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I ditto that it's not a very important move. I have no further opinion, I just wanted to clear things up. Thank you for your help! Red Slash 21:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I became a "not move". I wanted to correct the record, as was not trying to impermissibly stack the vote. This was (IMHO) a marginal issue and of no great consequence to me. 'Some call it a spear, some call it an arrow. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!
I appreciate the kind words. Closures are the sorts of thankless jobs for which one can expect little reward if one does well, and much friction if one does poorly. You know this from firsthand experience, as a respected veteran who (unlike me) somehow avoided any case of "wiki-burnout." I am serious about my vow to stay within the realm of yeoman tasks, and avoid real controversy. About once a year or so, though, a good idea mistakenly wanders its way into my head, and I help where I can. :) It would be a minor miracle if I manage to repeat the feat before 2015, so I'm thrilled someone noticed my rare flirtation with good sense! Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- We always need more
victimsvolunteers to deal with the move backlog! You used to be involved in review of deletions. Move discussions are a lower-stakes area than AfD but people are often devoted to their view of proper style, causing debates to never really terminate. Disagreements over capitalization will go on forever. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Editor report at WP:AN3
Hi Ed, just letting you know that as the initiator of the report at WP:AN3 I did in fact leave a notice in that editor's talk page (actually TW did automatically) which he promptly deleted. Thought I'd leave you a note so you wouldn't think I purposely omitted making the editor aware that I had opened a report about him. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up. He is now thoroughly alerted. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
IP's edits suspicious
You might want to notify this "new user" of AA2 editing restrictions.[55] Though, I believe this IP is a blocked user.[56] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The user has already been notified of AA2, and been blocked once. Since the block there is no revert warring. I will keep an eye. Don't see a definite sock case. The guy you refer to is topic banned but no longer blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I must have meant topic banned user. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw you were active
Can you please look at this editor, it's an obvious nocal sock whose on a revert streak. I'd report this on a board but there aren't any suitable for this case. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- How do you know this is a sock of User:NoCal100? This editor was already mentioned in the NoCal100 SPI in October, 2013 but no action was taken then. I just don't know much about NoCal. Do you think User:Zero0000 can recognize him? EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
2nd chance template...
I apologize to you for not knowing that the use of second chance also enabled the user to attempt a sourcing draft. After so many years of dealing with vandals who use their talkpage to host false information all the time after blocks to enable use by later socks I thought it was the same, but now I do know for the future; you taught a new trick to me. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
User:50.240.235.141
The user keeps vandalizing the following pages: Special:Contributions/50.240.235.141 and he's received multiple warnings here. May you please do something about this user? 99.46.224.17 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Could you help summarize this for me? Your complaint is that he adds pages to redlinked categories. Can you find where he was warned about this, and show examples of him continuing to do that after the warning? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- A report was also filed at ANI and the IP user has now been blocked by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"Cassandra" returns to favourite article
The Cassandra IP sock has just returned to the talk page of what is probably their favourite article, Scots language, tagging their usual themes to the most recent thread. Would you consider semi-protection for a period? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, just wondering again about semi-protection, Cassandra having revisited the article today. (A thesis they've repeatedly posted before, as usual.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've semiprotected Scots language. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Filter question
I posted this at ANI a few days ago: We have had problems in the past with editors promoting concepts and terms from Europa Universalis - creating categories, renaming articles, changes of government types within articles, etc. Several socks were blocked last September over this and copyvio issues- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis/Archive. Yesterday I discovered some page moves relating to this and today I have found a number of IPs doing similar edits, all geo-locating to Rio de Janeiro. Two IPs in the same range were involved last year. Recently - that is from January until yesterday, other IPs have been making the same type of edits. Most recent ones are 187.15.70.13 (talk · contribs), 187.14.224.110 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.48.73 (talk · contribs). Others include 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.53.42 (talk · contribs) 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.38.249 (talk · contribs), 187.15.8.12 (talk · contribs), 187.14.230.20 (talk · contribs), 187.15.71.7 (talk · contribs), and 187.15.73.173 (talk · contribs). I'm still searching for recent additions of "Noble republic", Administrative republic, Republican Dictatorship, Revolutionary empire, Administrative monarchy, all of which can be found at the game's wiki[57] and were part of a now deleted template here which Admins can view.[58]. Part of the tactic is to add sourced text to force the phrase into an article, eg [59]. Note this is copyvio from [60]. Some edits have misrepresented sources, eg [61]. These are all throwaway IP addresses.
I spent some lovely hours (and ended up buying Charles Esdaile's Peninsular War, Kindle edition, when I found more copy from the same 187.15 and 187.14 ranges - the same problems we faced before with Turgeis (talk · contribs) and his socks. See my edits at Mutiny of Aranjuez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've ended up giving these long term semi-protection, but that won't work with the Europa Universalis vandals.
A range block would have to much collateral damage, so I'm wondering if filters would be the solution. One would look for the addition of the words Esdaile and "Peninsular War", another (if one would be enough) would look at the addtion of various phrases to articles. I'm not clear how filters work for an editor who isn't actually watching all the articles - ie how I would find out if someone tripped a filter. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've never created an edit filter so I'm not the best person to answer this. Try asking at WT:Edit filter. Have you checked the ranges to see if there are any good-faith anon contributors? EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, thought you were. I've been told the collateral damage would be to heavy. This is one editor or group quite clearly, as some of the Europa Universalis stuff adds non-Esdaile copyvio. I'm wondering if there might be other copyright violations I'm missing which don't relate to Esdaile or the videogame. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your RfA support
Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least, and kind of disheartening. Thank you for for pointing out specific examples of our intersecting work. Greatly looking forward to proving the opposes wrong in the future! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Blocked user IP hopping and continuing to sock
Mrwallace05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I opened an SPI, at which the user claimed he didn't know he was logged out while editing; his "master" account is currently blocked. Today he edited with IP 86.137.2.12 [62] which is part of the same range he'd supposedly been unknowing editing while logged out. His edits are almost exclusively limited to genres at articles about The Beatles. Could you do a range block, and possibly increase the duration of his block? Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 18:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I should correct myself and say the IPs don't resolve to the same range per se, but they do resolve to Bedforshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire counties in England, which all adjoin one another; it's unlikely that three different editors in such close proximity have an interest in changing genres. Radiopathy •talk• 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since there is a recently-closed SPI case, memories are still fresh. I suggest reopening the case to add this IP. If you use the standard SPI submission form with the name 'Mrwallace05' it should do the right thing. The various IPs are so far apart that a rangeblock does not appear practical. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone opened an SPI; do you want to have a look? There are over a dozen IP socks, plus registered accounts. Radiopathy •talk• 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for handling Syngenta issue; quick note
EdJohnston, thanks for the lock on the Syngenta article while Binksternet, Jytdog and I try to sort things out. I wanted to bring to your attention that Binksternet's response in the Edit War page indicates he either didn't realize, or doesn't believe, he was also guilty of 3RR. I am not trying to "tattle" or reopen the discussion; I am bringing this to your attention only if you think saying something is necessary in order to prevent a repeat. (For what it's worth, I certainly won't be repeating 3RR.)
- Oh, and if you're interested, most of the Syngenta conversation is taking place on my talk page. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for Bayer Corporation change
Thanks for making the change to the Bayer Corporation/Bayer USA web pages. I think they now best represent the current organizational names and structure. Littleboybrew (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
So I'm a pseudoscientist?
Are you willing to justify your actions? I'm not an obvious pseudoscientist as far as I can tell. So I must be, by your logic, in group two or three. Please share your reasoning. Khimaris (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:ARBPS, 'Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted'. You added some tags at Vitamin C megadosage questioning some statements in the article, and you made a talk page comment citing http://www.orthomolecular.org as a possible source for improving the article. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that large doses of Vitamin C are not currently accepted by mainstream medicine as a cure for cancer. Vitamin C megadosage is about a topic in the domain of fringe science. In fact, the related page at orthomolecular medicine is in the Category:Fringe science. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I never mentioned anything being a cure for cancer. Posting a link as background information does not make me a supporter. Don't put words in my mouth. I posted the link to the orthomolecular papers because they were talked about in comments on the Cochrane review that were already post. Othomolecular medicine maybe pseudoscientific but the very concept of Vitamin C megadosaging is not. Like I said in the talk page, it's like labeling anyone who eats their five a day as a nutter because some quack practitioner agrees with as much. Further more, what does Lipoic Acid have to do with any of this? I reject the label you've placed on me and I want to know the mechanism to remove myself from this list. Khimaris (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- You have chosen to edit an article where claims about fringe science are sometimes discussed. It can't hurt to make you aware of the rules for editing such topics. At present there is no way to become un-notified, but Arbcom has been debating the matter for years. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- So basically it's a permanent scarlet letter used to threaten and scare off the riff raff? So why am I being singled out again and why did you link to Lipoic acid on the warning page? There is a fairly extensive list of people who are editing the megadose page who haven't been branded as craycray. And what about the retraction by Magog the Ogre on 01:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)? You can maybe understand why I feel apprehensive about the selective enforcement of regulation can't you?Khimaris (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- You first came to my attention due to a 3RR violation. If the other people you mention from the same article also were reported at the 3RR board, then perhaps I'd check them to see if any Arbcom notices were appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I never mentioned anything being a cure for cancer. Posting a link as background information does not make me a supporter. Don't put words in my mouth. I posted the link to the orthomolecular papers because they were talked about in comments on the Cochrane review that were already post. Othomolecular medicine maybe pseudoscientific but the very concept of Vitamin C megadosaging is not. Like I said in the talk page, it's like labeling anyone who eats their five a day as a nutter because some quack practitioner agrees with as much. Further more, what does Lipoic Acid have to do with any of this? I reject the label you've placed on me and I want to know the mechanism to remove myself from this list. Khimaris (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ed,
Since the time I posted the report against the IP at WP:EW, A.amitkumar racked up an equally high number of reverts, reverting the IP's edit (which can be easily seen in the page history). Should I have filed a report on them too or did you take their edits into consideration when semi-protecting the page? Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- And you have been provided with valid reason too. If you have your own valid reasons then let me know, else I don't believe buddying up around here is going to help. A m i t 웃 23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was so impressed by the IP's 21 reverts that I didn't look closely into the others working there. Another admin could use their judgment if they think other editors should be blocked or warned. Possibly Amit thought he was reverting vandalism (unexplained removal of content). EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2014
- Which I thought I was and had reported the IP too on AIV. It might have looked like an edit war but i assure you it was not. I dont prefer people trying to bloat an issue on some one else's page here instead of using my talk page and asking me directly on my talk page for which i think it exists, unless the editor above is hunting around for victims? A m i t 웃 23:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Amit, I think the conversation is over. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which I thought I was and had reported the IP too on AIV. It might have looked like an edit war but i assure you it was not. I dont prefer people trying to bloat an issue on some one else's page here instead of using my talk page and asking me directly on my talk page for which i think it exists, unless the editor above is hunting around for victims? A m i t 웃 23:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Manzilnfl
Back in August 2013 you indefinitely blocked User:Blackhu20 per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive220#User:Blackhu20 reported by User:Vejvančický (Result: Indef). What is your opinion of Special:Contributions/Manzilnfl, which I'm fairly sure is another account of the same user? Disclosures: I started an SPI here, even though he disclosed the accounts at my request. I also initiated AfDs for Poudar and Pouder, and I've reversed a number of Manzilnfl's edits. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Now blocked for vandalism. He is erasing articles or large sections again for no apparent reason, just like Blackhu20. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/29/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Responded, thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
... for moving Template:The Holocaust (end). Could you move the talk page as well, please - the present situation is a bit confusing with the talk page redirecting to the talk page of a different template! Thanks, --NSH002 (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Talk page moved as well. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Uncontroversial technical requests: Move page to Voice to skull
Regarding your recent edit [63], may I ask for your reasoning behind the decision? I am not familiar with how the "move" action works, so your explanation would be highly appreciated. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Synsepalum2013. The background for Articles for creation is explained at WP:AFC. You were requesting an uncontroversial move of your article draft to main space, asking me to replace the existing page at Voice to skull. Since people could object, I judge this to be a controversial move. You could ask for a discussion such as a WP:RM, but people will be asking you why you're trying to promote a draft which was declined at AfC. The comment by the AfC reviewer was "Too much of a fringe theory for a stand-alone article. Topic covered adequately in the existing articles Auditory hallucination and Microwave auditory effect". Consider following up with the reviewer as suggested in the decline message. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, EdJohnston. Since I already contacted the reviewer here without reaching a consensus, I guess my next step should be to ask for a controversial move and face the possible objection. What do you think? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- You can open a requested move, but I wouldn't be optimistic. There is existing material at Microwave auditory effect#Conspiracy theories. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick reply. As I stated before, I believe the topic Voice to skull is notable enough to deserve its stand-alone article instead of a mere section under a related (not even a encompassing) topic, such as microwave auditory effect. Both can exist and they are not mutually exclusive. I have seen numerous precedents on Wikipedia. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I pinged you ed, but it looks like I had to close yet another RM on this.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't know as much about AfC as I would like, but Synsepalum2013's approach looks to be improper. I think he's close to being hit with a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- AFC has its own accept/reject system, and the same article was already deleted at AFD. Technically, since it was rejected for being covered by other articles, it is eligible for CSD#A10, but I'm already knee deep in it, so it would better for someone else to send it. RM is improper there, it was just a work around. He is basically using it as a magic 8 ball. He has a serious wp:hear problem. He's trying to argue that it is notable because no one has convinced him it isn't notable.... I don't expect this to end well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't know as much about AfC as I would like, but Synsepalum2013's approach looks to be improper. I think he's close to being hit with a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I pinged you ed, but it looks like I had to close yet another RM on this.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick reply. As I stated before, I believe the topic Voice to skull is notable enough to deserve its stand-alone article instead of a mere section under a related (not even a encompassing) topic, such as microwave auditory effect. Both can exist and they are not mutually exclusive. I have seen numerous precedents on Wikipedia. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- You can open a requested move, but I wouldn't be optimistic. There is existing material at Microwave auditory effect#Conspiracy theories. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, EdJohnston. Since I already contacted the reviewer here without reaching a consensus, I guess my next step should be to ask for a controversial move and face the possible objection. What do you think? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
re Tenino
Yes, I'm rethinking that proposal; my notes about Warm Springs peoples were ignored but per "Self-identification" in NCET and MOS and elsewhere, what the people call themselves should be taken into account; I perhaps should have struck out the "Tenino" proposal and substituted "Warm Springs people" for it. Being ignored I'm getting used to...when not being insulted, that is.Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Given the climate, noting that redlink ready for use, it's probably better than I don't speedy move it to the correct title.Skookum1 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Any further move of Tenino people should be backed by reliable sources to show that the new name is reasonable. Having another move discussion is a good way to have the sources looked at. If you want a new article called Warm Springs peoples it should be coordinated in some way with the existing article on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. If you check out the confederation's web site at http://www.warmsprings.com, the word 'Tenino' only occurs once and it's from a 19th century treaty. To refer to the Tenino as the 'Warm Springs bands' (as we do in the Tenino people article) may give them a more prominent role than the warmsprings.com web site indicates. Maybe the sub-tribes of the Tenino prefer to use other names for themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- As in certain other cases, terms used by anthropologists have turned out to be egregious and sometimes offensive, e.g. Northern Kwakiutl for the Haisla, Heiltsuk and Wuikinuxv, and Kwakiutl when applied to all Kwakwaka'wakw. I'm not sure if e.g. Tygh have their own article. Per the coordination with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, that's a given; though I'm not sure if all the peoples covered by the anthropological term "Tenino" are part of that government and/or on that reservation. The current title is not a "commonly recognizable name" (being of anthropological and not COMMONENGLISH origin) and may in fact offend some of the peoples in question who would not call themselves "Tenino". As you know I dislike the "people" dab unless absolutely necessary; "peoples" is obviously preferable when there are more than one people involved. "Tribe" is definitely wrong in this case, however.Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you believe that some names are considered offensive, you should provide reliable sources for such a claim. We are limited here by what the available sources tell us, which per the article's references are mostly by anthropologists. There is a book about the Warm Springs people written by a tribal elder, George Aguilar. See a JSTOR article interviewing him. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- What I meant was not terms that are derisive, but mistaken and very often with bad connotations for the people described incorrectly by the name; the Kwakwaka'wakw, a modern invented name for "those who speak Kwak'wala", which is what it means, are of several groups of different status within the Kwak'wala speaking community/society; the Kwagyulh were not high up on the proverbial totem pole and their name was something the larger, more powerful, higher status tribes like the 'Namgis and Mamalillaculla (sp?) were never comfortable with. The Southern Kwakiutl (Laich-kwil-tach or Lekwiltok/Euclatawas/Yucultas are OK with the "Kwakiutl" name because they're related to the Kwagyulh and lived near them before their migration/invasion south to where they are now, 200-250 years ago. Misapplication of names to the wrong groups by anthropologists and governments, and the touchiness of natives to the result of this, is why, especially in Canada, the peoples came up for new names for their macrogroups like the Nuu-chah-nulth, Kwakwaka'wakw, Sto:lo and Syilx (RM is at Okanagan people about that one btw); or to replace pure English names like Thompson Indians with Nlaka'pamux and Rivers Inlet people with Wuikinuxv. The RM at Chipewyan people re Denesuline is about an actual term of derisive origin that remains in wide use by linguists and anthropologist; the latter like other names just mentioned is now standard Canadian English, which avoids terms with derisive origins and openly embraces native names now. This has been pointed out there, in the text apparently added by a member of the group long ago, or by someone informed about them, and though precise cites for it are not yet found; the situation is a common one re Eskimo/Inuit and Slavey/Deh Cho and Sahtu and more.
- If you believe that some names are considered offensive, you should provide reliable sources for such a claim. We are limited here by what the available sources tell us, which per the article's references are mostly by anthropologists. There is a book about the Warm Springs people written by a tribal elder, George Aguilar. See a JSTOR article interviewing him. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- As in certain other cases, terms used by anthropologists have turned out to be egregious and sometimes offensive, e.g. Northern Kwakiutl for the Haisla, Heiltsuk and Wuikinuxv, and Kwakiutl when applied to all Kwakwaka'wakw. I'm not sure if e.g. Tygh have their own article. Per the coordination with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, that's a given; though I'm not sure if all the peoples covered by the anthropological term "Tenino" are part of that government and/or on that reservation. The current title is not a "commonly recognizable name" (being of anthropological and not COMMONENGLISH origin) and may in fact offend some of the peoples in question who would not call themselves "Tenino". As you know I dislike the "people" dab unless absolutely necessary; "peoples" is obviously preferable when there are more than one people involved. "Tribe" is definitely wrong in this case, however.Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Any further move of Tenino people should be backed by reliable sources to show that the new name is reasonable. Having another move discussion is a good way to have the sources looked at. If you want a new article called Warm Springs peoples it should be coordinated in some way with the existing article on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. If you check out the confederation's web site at http://www.warmsprings.com, the word 'Tenino' only occurs once and it's from a 19th century treaty. To refer to the Tenino as the 'Warm Springs bands' (as we do in the Tenino people article) may give them a more prominent role than the warmsprings.com web site indicates. Maybe the sub-tribes of the Tenino prefer to use other names for themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Reason to mention all of this is to compare an offensive, and/or alienating mistaken usage with one that actually is visibly derisive in its etymology. But the chorus of naysayers who maintain that {{Canadian English}} and CANSTYLE/ENGVAR do not apply, and that global "sources" should prevail against modern reality and usage in the country these peoples (not "objects) are in.
Citations are needed, yes, but it is already an established fact that most modern sources now use Denesuline and "Chipewyan" is being phased out of use (though a few bands in Alberta still use it in their names, and that's the name of the language in the Northwest Territories, where it is one of 17 official languages of government). That RM remains unclosed; hopefully somebody with reading - and thinking - skills will come along and read all of it, not refuse to read it and condemn the proponent in a hostile close....many of us support it, Canadians in particular, and it shouldn't be an issue of whether it's derisive or not (a look at its etymology and history will demonstrate that), it should be a matter of SELFIDENTIFICATION (gonna have to make that a shortcut to NCET; I think something's also in MOS. Guidelines calling for the move of the title to the modern usage in the country the group is in, yet older out-of-date sources, or writings with those sources in their bibliography/lexicons, are claimed to outweigh all other guidelines. Even though, as things turn out, ample evidence and sources have been presented in support of the moves, and not just me but others have pointed out the flaws in the oppose votes....but someone will come along who has no patience or real interest, count up "support" and "oppose" votes numerically, with no regard for qualitative meaning or valid, accurate (and not anachronistic) title, and say "non consensus, not moved".
Tenino I would have to study the four groups in question and find out why one group lives with the term Tenino and maybe that's their original endonym, I dn't know; what I know is there are four peoples, not one, and Tenino peoples at least is called for, given the conundrum that three of the four are not known as Tenino. Though they do mutually identify if not all speak the same language (?). There's some other "tangled" ones like that - Colville is one. In this case and others, if there has to be a dab (avoiding dabs on such names was part of the "old consensus", and indeed turns out to have been in the guidelines all along....well, except WP:NCL.....)...if there has to be a dab, it has to be plural in such cases as this.Skookum1 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, when you made the "Mitrovica, Kosovo" move, the talk page didn't move for some reason. Could you fix that please? Kind regards IJA (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Done. EdJohnston (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers mate IJA (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Question about the resolution of an editwar dispute at Administrator's noticeboard
Greetings! I have a question about a dispute at Administrators' noticeboard where you gave a resolution few days ago: [64]
The dispute was concerning editwarring at an article Talk Pages between User:QuackGuru and I, and as a result we both received a warning. I am sorry to bring this up again, but the following day after the warning, user QuackGuru deleted my posts at the article Talk page (Pseudo-Science) again: [65]
I have not made any changes to the article Talk Page thereafter. However, I did remind user QuackGuru at his user Talk Page kindly that he is violating against the warning we both received, and asked him to please recover my post at the article Talk Page. As a result, he just deleted my post, and hasn't taken any action to recover my post at Talk:Chiropractic: [66]
What should I do? I have already contacted the user, and filing a dispute about the same matter feels somewhat redundant. Thanks for your time still! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- User:QuackGuru made a note in the edit summary that he was archiving, on 5 April. He put the material in Archive 37. The section called 'Pseudo-Science' is now at Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Pseudo-science, so your comments are still in the record. I would prefer that both parties stop archiving so long as there is a dispute, but I wouldn't take action at this time. The page at Talk:Chiropractic is already set up for bot archiving with a ten-day interval. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your answer. I think 2 days is pretty unreasonably short time to archive discussions, especially when there's been popping up edits over the matter even after (e.g. [67][68]). That's why I think it would be really nice if the post could still be active instead of "just being hidden" in the archives. What I am scared of, though, is another editwar at the Talk Page if I happened to recover my post. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your comments in the archived thread are unclear: Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Pseudo-science. It is not obvious what change you want to make in the article: "chiropractic is nowadays acknowledged by the traditional medicine as a special field of treatments, as well as included in the Current Care Guidelines on an International basis." The fact that chiropractic is paid for by some health plans is still consistent with some chiropractors having pseudoscientific beliefs. Anything you do unilaterally will most likely be challenged, so you should find some way of getting others to support your change. For example, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! In the thread I quoted a part of the current article, and after that I gave few sources that offer alternative aspects to the matter. I would have wanted to discuss those things with the public, that's why I made the post on the Talk Page. Archiving a post only after two days time-period in unacceptable though in my opinion, especially after QuackGuru just had got warned from editwarring at Talk Pages. If QuackGuru is accepted to "kill conversations" like that, shouldn't it be accepted as a general rule? I don't think it's really fair if anybody could just archive posts that do not please them after such a short period of time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The claim is well supported in accordance with V: For most of its existence it has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence[69] that are not based on solid science.[70]
- Joseph C. Keating, Jr., Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic.
A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. Chiropractors' tendency to assert the meaningfulness of various theories and methods as a counterpoint to allopathic charges of quackery has created a defensiveness which can make critical examination of chiropractic concepts difficult (Keating and Mootz 1989). One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994).
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - User:Jayaguru-Shishya, please move on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! In the thread I quoted a part of the current article, and after that I gave few sources that offer alternative aspects to the matter. I would have wanted to discuss those things with the public, that's why I made the post on the Talk Page. Archiving a post only after two days time-period in unacceptable though in my opinion, especially after QuackGuru just had got warned from editwarring at Talk Pages. If QuackGuru is accepted to "kill conversations" like that, shouldn't it be accepted as a general rule? I don't think it's really fair if anybody could just archive posts that do not please them after such a short period of time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your comments in the archived thread are unclear: Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Pseudo-science. It is not obvious what change you want to make in the article: "chiropractic is nowadays acknowledged by the traditional medicine as a special field of treatments, as well as included in the Current Care Guidelines on an International basis." The fact that chiropractic is paid for by some health plans is still consistent with some chiropractors having pseudoscientific beliefs. Anything you do unilaterally will most likely be challenged, so you should find some way of getting others to support your change. For example, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your answer. I think 2 days is pretty unreasonably short time to archive discussions, especially when there's been popping up edits over the matter even after (e.g. [67][68]). That's why I think it would be really nice if the post could still be active instead of "just being hidden" in the archives. What I am scared of, though, is another editwar at the Talk Page if I happened to recover my post. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Controversial revert to Acupuncture talk page
After he was warning Jayaguru-Shishya restored the section where editors did not make that comment on that talk page. It was originally made on his talk page. He was also warned not to revert at the acupuncture talk page. If it was an accidental there would of been an autogenerated edit summary. He claimed he was Sorry, I was unticking the "Watch this box".
- Dear QuackGuru, maybe you haven't noticed but[71] as you can see, there is no harm done: your post still stands there safe and sound. However, we are discussing here about you archiving my post at the article Talk Page[72] only two days after it was posted.
- Absurd changes to Chiropractic lede
"Studies on chiropractic, moreover on its principle intervention spinal manipulation, have found it to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for many cases of lower back pain."[original research?]
This is not a summary of the body and the sentence is original research.
"However, as with most medical interventions, there are reports of mild to serious adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases."[2][3][not in citation given]
- Rubinstein, SM (2013 Feb 1). "Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review". Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 38 (3): E158-77. Retrieved 1 April 2014.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
- Rubinstein, SM (NaN). "Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain". doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
References added to the lede do not very the claim. Hence, the text failed V. The accessdate was on April 1, 2014. This looks like an April fools joke in mainspace. You can read the body of the article and you can see the lede does not summarise the body. There is no point discussing this on the talk page with Jayaguru-Shishya when he is not getting it. I don't see a content dispute. I do see, however, a disruption dispute. As long as admins treat original research added to the lede as a content dispute this will continue to happen on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is not the topic we are discussing here. I have already given you my answer, so could you please not to stick with it? I also hope that you could take my proposal of reconciliation[73] seriously. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The text failed V and the other text was original research yet you were claiming the text passed V because the sourcse were strong. That was disingenuous.
- When you connect the dots this shows you are not interested in improving the article and you have not given me an answer why you added original research to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
One edit that has been reverted does not constitute such an important page history. It all falls under the "revert controversial undiscussed moves" header. Matthiaspaul's wordiness does not change that fact, particularly because every single item he lists is just a redirect he created.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- The rules are not 100% clear on whether the briefly-existing DAB can be deleted per the G6 criterion. It does contain more than 'two links to existing Wikipedia articles', even if the links are redirects that he created. Why not open a move discussion? EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Synsepalum2013
I've started a thread on User:Synsepalum2013 at ANI. [74] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Revert question
Hi EdJohnston, I previously asked a question about 1RR, on abortion related pages, that I'm still not clear on. The question involves conduct policy, after the initial revert, with respect to further general editing on that same page. For example, if I revert the contribution of an editor, and then that revert is later reverted by another editor, and then I don’t touch it again, I leave that editor’s contribution exactly as is, but within that same 24 hour period, I edit content from another uninvolved editor, is that a violation of the 1RR? I’d like to be clear on this policy so I don’t accidentally violate it. BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Two reverts within 24 hours, even if they are of independent material, violate the 1RR rule. To be safe you should wait to get consensus on the talk page. It appears that you have strong views about the matter being discussed, and that's likely to attract the attention of admins. Any indication that you will negotiate calmly and wait to persuade others (before reverting) will be in your favor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston, thanks for your reply. I actually have strong views about NPOV and abortion pages often seem to struggle with this. Please refer to talk:Becky Bell to see I have been calmly negotiating, and also began my edits in response to request on that talk page to improve article with respect to bias/NPOV.Thanks BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's one thing to participate on Talk and it's another thing to wait for a consensus there. If you have questions about the usability of a source, you can ask for an opinion at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I actually did raise concerns over deleted quote on talk page, and when I did, none of the talk participants defended the deleted quote, or said anything about why it should maintain in article. I initially hesitated in deleting it, because it went well with a sourced quote from the New York Times regarding use of Bell as a "poster girl in bitter debate over abortion", but this quote was deleted without explanation or consensus to delete. I think it might be helpful if reminders about consensus building, especially before deleting well sourced material, could be given to all participants, given the bias concerns on page. -thanks again for link to sources noticeboard. BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- You've been singled out for notification because of the complaint about you at WP:AN3. Your account was only created on 18 February so you conceivably might need reminders about policy. It isn't useful to complain to me when you have not been able to persuade the others on the talk page. The Becky Bell case has attracted much commentary. Deciding which comments are germane for our article is subject to weighing and balancing, and isn't a simple question. There isn't any higher authority to appeal to than the talk page itself, unless you want to open an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I actually did raise concerns over deleted quote on talk page, and when I did, none of the talk participants defended the deleted quote, or said anything about why it should maintain in article. I initially hesitated in deleting it, because it went well with a sourced quote from the New York Times regarding use of Bell as a "poster girl in bitter debate over abortion", but this quote was deleted without explanation or consensus to delete. I think it might be helpful if reminders about consensus building, especially before deleting well sourced material, could be given to all participants, given the bias concerns on page. -thanks again for link to sources noticeboard. BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's one thing to participate on Talk and it's another thing to wait for a consensus there. If you have questions about the usability of a source, you can ask for an opinion at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston, thanks for your reply. I actually have strong views about NPOV and abortion pages often seem to struggle with this. Please refer to talk:Becky Bell to see I have been calmly negotiating, and also began my edits in response to request on that talk page to improve article with respect to bias/NPOV.Thanks BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Munir hussain1
In reference to your closure of this AN3 report, will you please review recent edits of User:Munir hussain1 at the article Anusha Rahman, as I still stand by my earlier request. -- SMS Talk 16:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I already saw the reverts there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have had previous accounts.
I edited under pschmehl, but I've forgotten my password. When I used the forgot password link, I never received the email. So I started editing under my IP. I prefer using a username, however, so I created a new account.
If you read the history of the page and the complaint that I filed against MiG29VN you will see that he constant removed the cites that I entered, reverted back to previous cites he had created which I had cleaned up (but not changed) and constantly insisted that I needed to prove what I was citing because he couldn't find it on Google Books. If you look up Vennema's book on Google Books (The Viet Cong Massacre at Hue), you will find that it doesn't allow you to view the pages. When you search for something you get two or three hits, not necessarily the one you're looking for, and you can't scroll up or down to read the context.
I told him repeatedly that I have the book in my possession and I'm citing directly from it. I finally gave up and included exact quotes to prove that what I had written was accurate. He then demanded that I prove that there were 27 graves and 2397 bodies. To do that I would have to quote the entire chapter. So he calls it an unreliable source and removed it.
I have spent a great deal of time cleaning up all the cites on that page (I use the wizard so they will all be formatted consistently), and he keeps reverting them back to incorrect format.
I've been researching the Hue Massacre for several weeks now and am working on an article. So I thought I would look at Wikipedia to see what it had. I saw some places where I could add useful content and some things that needed to be corrected, so I went to work. Then that jerk kept deleting everything I was doing or reverting it back to his poorly formatted style.
I hope this explains it. Txantimedia (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- This information is helpful. But your editing record as User:Pschmehl in 2004 was so brief that I imagine there must be more to the story. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I should chime in here, but based on my limited interactions with Txantimedia and his IP, I see no reason to doubt that he is very much an inexperienced editor (and I have exposed my fair share of sockpuppets in the past). Both the IP and Txantimedia have engaged in behavior characteristic of beginners, from struggling with formatting to repeatedly contacting the Reference Desk and Teahouse for help, to the point where Txantimedia did not initially understand that his edits were "disappearing" because MiG29VN was repeatedly reverting them. Txantimedia's earliest sporadic IP edits included no formatting at all; on examination, one can progressively watch him learn how to cite sources through both example and trial-and-error. I assume Txantimedia found out about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring after Nguyễn Quốc Việt repeatedly suggested bringing the dispute to WP:ANI--and once there I had to correct the formatting he used.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- TheTimes, thanks for your comment! EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I should chime in here, but based on my limited interactions with Txantimedia and his IP, I see no reason to doubt that he is very much an inexperienced editor (and I have exposed my fair share of sockpuppets in the past). Both the IP and Txantimedia have engaged in behavior characteristic of beginners, from struggling with formatting to repeatedly contacting the Reference Desk and Teahouse for help, to the point where Txantimedia did not initially understand that his edits were "disappearing" because MiG29VN was repeatedly reverting them. Txantimedia's earliest sporadic IP edits included no formatting at all; on examination, one can progressively watch him learn how to cite sources through both example and trial-and-error. I assume Txantimedia found out about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring after Nguyễn Quốc Việt repeatedly suggested bringing the dispute to WP:ANI--and once there I had to correct the formatting he used.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
A discussion involving your interpretation of TBAN
FYI, your interpretation and application of the Topic Ban policy is being cited as an example at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Do_topic_bans_extend_to_the_banned_editor.27s_user_talk_page.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Another sock (?) at Yadav
Could you please take a look at Yadav, where a likely sock of the editor you recently indeffed has appeared. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is a sock of the other guy, but I left him a {{uw-castewarning}}. Since then he has managed to get himself blocked 24 hours by another admin for removing content with no discussion. In my view this is heading toward an indef block if the person won't discuss. By now, the path of the caste warriors is well-trodden. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks like MiG29VC is back
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF&diff=606269936&oldid=606269118
Txantimedia (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- SPI filed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea. While you wait for a result there, I've semiprotected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- How do we get his reverts removed? Txantimedia (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Since MiG29VN is now indefinitely blocked, it seems unlikely that anyone will object if you undo the recent edits by his IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- How do we get his reverts removed? Txantimedia (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea. While you wait for a result there, I've semiprotected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
SinnerSchrader
Hi Ed! I can be such a pest constantly poking editors to look at my COI contributions. I try to spread out the annoyance and I haven't bugged you in a while, so here I am! I just submitted a new article to AfC on SinnerSchrader here. They are one of the largest digital marketing firms in Germany. Oh the meta-ness of doing marketing work for marketing companies (or is this marketing? I don't know). AfC is usually backlogged by a month or more and I guess I am just selfish and impatient enough that I tend to see if I can find someone willing to review in a more timely fashion, even if it takes a week or two to get around to it. And I thought you might be willing to take a look.
You'll have to excuse my attempt at a bit of jolly sarcasm - spending such a disproportionate amount of time following WP:COI can make me annoyed at how annoying I am. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:3RR warning
Sorry, but I believe that you have mishandled this case. I reported my suspicions about it being a WP:SP case a full day before this other user reported me at WP:3RR, yet that investigation has not been looked at yet by an admin. I attempted to resolve the dispute at the article talk page(s) before it became a full edit war, yet the other user (and its apparent sock) has refused to assume good faith in my edits, accusing me of vandalism and pushing a POV. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- The SPI is not open-and-shut. Somebody will eventually deal with it, but I didn't let it decide the result. The other party is now blocked 48 hours per a straight 3RR violation. You should be careful about getting into a two-party edit war. The most logical response for an admin is to block both. If your position truly has merit, you should be able to get additional people to participate and give their views. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you have closed 3RR cases which were opened much later than the SP case. I also don't understand the terms of your warning. Are you saying that I cannot revert ever again without reaching consensus at a talk page? There is simply not enough editing traffic on this site to do that. Indeed in this case there was a third user (Wee Curry Monster) who supported my edits, but they were reverted twice as well. I also note you have taken no action against SSHamilton. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Another admin will eventually deal with the SPI case. User:SSHamilton did not break WP:3RR. To settle the edit war, it may be sufficient if you will make a proposal on the talk page of what to do and then wait to get support from others before you change the controversial items again. It is not easy for an outsider to see what the dispute is about; all I perceive are some very large reverts that change many paragraphs at once. You could break this down into smaller issues and try to get support for individual changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you have closed 3RR cases which were opened much later than the SP case. I also don't understand the terms of your warning. Are you saying that I cannot revert ever again without reaching consensus at a talk page? There is simply not enough editing traffic on this site to do that. Indeed in this case there was a third user (Wee Curry Monster) who supported my edits, but they were reverted twice as well. I also note you have taken no action against SSHamilton. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
RE: User:LibDutch
He's beginning again, now he's removing sourced material.. Per WP:LEAD information that is mentioned in the lead does not need to be referenced. Now he's removing information from the lead, even if its mentioned in the sections "Institutionalization" and "Secterianism" on the Hafez al-Assad (I should know what is mentioned in the article, I wrote the darn article....) ... Stop this vandal from continuing. --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is no discussion of this matter at Talk:Hafez al-Assad. That would be good place to start. Also, you made a beginning at taking this to GA in October 2013. Maybe you should try to continue that. If you can get an outside GA reviewer to look at things it may give you some leverage. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
User: Ring Cinema
As per your prediction, User:Ring Cinema has resumed edit warring on The Godfather Part II the moment his block expired. I've reverted his edit until a consensus is reached on the talk page, but I would suggest a longer block, particularly as he has already been blocked seven times now. 88.104.17.77 (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Another admin has handled this, appropriately in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Wondering who will solve the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 edit issue
After the block of User:Jiltsedge for 48 hours, I immediately reverted List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013. But after the reversion, User:Number one bullsh1tter reverted my edit. I wonder if his actions are right. He seem doesn't know anything about the article, except from the fact that there was an edit war going on.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- That editor is now blocked for having an offensive username. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is it okay if I revert his edit? I am concerned with WP:3RR.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've undone the change by the editor who is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is it okay if I revert his edit? I am concerned with WP:3RR.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Help on creating George Kline article BLP
Hello I added some of the info I have on Professor Kline as a generic dumping if you will to my talkpage to sort out and start an article on Professor Kline. I now have alot of data on him and will need help forming it into an article so I was hoping to ask for just alittle bit of help on it. LoveMonkey 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Replied at User talk:LoveMonkey#George Kline. LM, please fix your signature to link to your user talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Oscar Lopez Rivera
I apologize, the comment on the closing discussion on OLR was buried in my talk page. The discussion still rages. I welcome the debate as to which sources to use to include more information regarding the crimes for which OLR was convicted, since these form an essential part of the debate as to whether he should or should not get clemency. Alas, the debate is wordy enough on the OLR talkpage.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I hope that people will be waiting for consensus at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Oscar Lopez Rivera. If they continue to revert after the protection expires, admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
User Thomas Limberg (Schmogrow)
Hi, I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it (I noticed you were an administrator and responded on the same page I'm mentioning); but, the referenced user is kind of spiraling out of control on the Naive Set Theory talk page, at this point they're mainly just saying nonsense, very insulting, and clogging up the page and impeding it's actual function (their ranting is spanning several sections). To prevent escalating the situation on the page itself, I have refrained from addressing the user as it appears that it would do no good. Thank you, I apologize if this is the wrong place to bring this.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Since you have opinions to offer at Talk:Naive set theory#Proposed move I encourage you to fully participate in that discussion. Since this user is employing an IP address they can't edit the article at the moment; they can only vent on the talk page. There is no need for you to answer Thomas Limberg directly if you feel he is not making sense. I am hoping that those participating in the discussion, if they have access to a copy of Halmos's Naive Set Theory (book), may refer to it in preparing their own position. There is also the subject classification of the American Mathematical Society at http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/pdfs/classifications2010.pdf. Someone could check how the various flavors of set theory are referred to there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply - my concern wasn't so much with them even editing the article, or with their opinion, but that they are making the talk page itself difficult to use by filling it with aggressive comments full of randomly bolded words - it makes it difficult to discuss when having to wade through song recommendations, random somethings about Jesus returning, and ad hominems without content. At any rate, I'll drop the matter since I've said my piece; thank you for the quick response.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
You might want to be aware of this
A "new user" posted this on the Portal talk:Turkey[75];
"Certain Armenian wikipedia editors are going from page to page and "Armenianizing" everything. Most of the time, what they write is completely false and unsubstantiated. They've even managed to make "Sabiha Gokcen"'s page about the 'Armenian Genocide' and also about how "the racism of Turkish society was revealed". I'm a very new member, but I've already seen the following users on multiple Turkish pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarshallBagramyan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EtienneDolet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerevantsi
Virtually every Turkish page on here, whether it's about Turkish history, cities, or people, is either denied, slandered, demonized, or made Armenian. I can't understand how this happens, and why Wikipedia is so ridiculously subjective?".
I find it odd how this self professed "very new member" knows about Portal talk:Turkey already. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Being Targeted
Knowing that there is a Turkish Portal on Wikipedia is not indicative of having had a previous account on here. I don't know how to do anything other than delete material, and can't add references or sources or link things up or anything. The Turkish portal is something I knew about before I joined Wikipedia, and it's wrong for this knowledge to be used against me. Also, the post I made there is absolutely true, these people go around Turkish pages and make unsubstantiated edits, and when I report it to people it's me that gets targeted? That is just wrong. The reason I joined Wikipedia was to try and make the content less biased, but I'm being targeted here for reporting that people are spreading subjectivity across Wikipedia? I really don't understand why you people are so hateful. I've done nothing wrong. Also yes, I've entered into an edit war on the Sabiha Gokcen page over an issue so simple it shouldn't even be matter of discussion. Why is it that I'm the one being targeted for that, but the Armenian users who have re-edited all the material on there seemingly for years, and have consequently been in various forms of editing wars for years, are not? This is like going on Napoleon's page and writing that "his origins are disputed" because of an article published in a German nationalist newspaper. To argue against that gets me a warning, but to make that into fact is alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobjektivist (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- At Sabiha Gökçen you said Not enough of a basis to state her origins are a matter of dispute". This seems to be transparently against the sources, which indicate that people dispute her actual parentage. You seem to be saying that her own autobiography must not be questioned, even though others do question the matter stated there. If you want to be taken seriously as a well-intentioned new editor, it is against your interest to immediately join an edit war on a hot-button article that has overtones of Turkish nationalism. If Hrant Dink was murdered by a Turkish nationalist this indicates that the topic has a nationalist flavor. Your best option is to find reliable scholarly sources which review the matter of Sabiha's parentage. See WP:SIGN for how to sign your comments on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am not disputing that there are claims regarding her Armenian identity. I haven't removed the the whole sections on the page which talk about these claims. What I'm saying is that a claim published in a single newspaper article which was moreover denied by her family should not be grounds to state her early life as being "disputed". I have read her autobiography and so this issue is close to heart, and I'm sorry if that makes me look bad by starting off with an edit-war. But like I said, looking onto the page's history other users have also warred with the Armenian editors on that page but not only does this seem to not be cause for a warning against those editors, but their edits are the ones being preserved. I've looked into other language versions of Sabiha Gokcen on Wikipedia and none of them state her origins as being "disputed". I've googled non-Wikipedia links and it is the same. Saying that there are Armenian claims about her ethnicity is different than saying her ethnicity is under doubt. Also, this is a list of academic sources posted by another user regarding Sabiha Gokcen, http://www.centennialofwomenpilots.com/node/57 http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/gokcen.html http://goefoundation.org/index.php/eagles/biographies/g/goeken-sabiha/ http://cinemaguild.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TCGS&Product_Code=2146 http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Fl-Ka/G-k-en-Sabiha.html At this point I would like your help on this issue. Like I said, there is not problem stating that there are claims about her origins. But just because there are claims about 9/11, does the Wikipedia article on it start by stating "the origins of 9/11 are disputed" or does it say "9/11 was a terrorist attack"? But that page does contain the claims about 9/11 on it, but the claims don't mean the event is "in doubt". Thanks Theobjektivist (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that her family denies the claims is evidence that there is no dispute? Where in WP:Reliable sources does it say that the opinion of a family should be deferred to? And you are treating http://www.cinemaguild.com as a reliable source about her family history? This is a shopping website that sells movies. Do you think they maintain a reporting staff to look into the claims made in the movies? Please ask at WP:RS/N if you think this is a reasonable source on a nationalist matter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said I simply posted links another user had already posted. From what I can tell, there is no issue with the other sources. These are academic publications made after the 2004 newspaper article of Hrant Dink. But as I also said, I'm not arguing over whether or not there are claims about her ancestry. I'm saying that having claims about her ancestry are not grounds to start off the article by stating "her origins are disputed". I'll repeat, does the 9/11 article start by saying that "9/11 is disputed"? Or, there are countless academic, archival, and newspaper articles rejecting the Armenian Genocide, but does the Armenian Genocide Wikipedia page start off by saying "the Armenian Genocide is disputed" or does it simply have a section on "Genocide denial claims"? Also please understand I don't really know anything about the links you're posting the "WP" stuff. They look really technical and strange.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobjektivist (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Even though WP:Reliable sources may look 'technical and strange' I urge you to read it before making more reverts on contentious articles. Otherwise it's not wise for you to be here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Man, I'm just trying to be honest. You don't have to mock me. Simple truth is that I'm currently working on a graduate thesis at University of British Columbia, and don't have the time to get into the specifics of Wikipedia. I feel the points I've made about 9/11 and the Armenian Genocide are completely reasonable but for some reason you're ignoring them. The issue here isn't about reliable sources, it's about wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobjektivist (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you 'dont have the time to get into the specifics of Wikipedia' and you haven't read the page at WP:Reliable sources it would be in your interest to stay away from highly contentious articles until you have more experience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protection
There is no real reason to restore the semi-protection on Naive set theory. The reason for having it semi-protected is gone.
Out of curiosity, why did you do so? Did I just miss to fill in an adequate edit summary (again)? YohanN7 (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, well, I can guess. Only admins can add or remove these thingies (without being reverted by an admin). Seriously, there is no need for it, so please remove it. The original "reason" now has an account and has, besides, shown no signs of editing against consensus. Edit: In fact, not even once, not even before things got heated! YohanN7 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The editor you mention is not behaving well on the talk page and may still manage to get himself blocked if he continues to promote his own personal theory. It is distracting that he won't confine himself to his registered account. Notice a complaint here by User:Phoenixia1177: "they are making the talk page itself difficult to use by filling it with aggressive comments.." EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict, so my post may not be up to date) I fully agree, but I think there is a a fair chance he made an honest mistake there. He did right away admit that he was he. He might have been trying something out, but that would be speculations.
- If anyone has been really insulted by this guy, it is me. But, it is also fair to say that I told him that I could take it, but that most others wouldn't. I can take it, and I would rather try to make him into a good Wikipedian than to have him banned. Give him a day or two more. He is pretty impulsive, so another warning right now will automatically set him on fire. Please just ignore for a short period of time what he does unless he goes bananas over somebody else. YohanN7 (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Teramo again, sorry
Hi, I'm again here bothering you with the Teramo matter. The usual local troll has restored last January his previously rejected version, full of all the inconsistencies we spoke last years, and losing all the improvements and changes made in the meantime since his version (I think dating from 2011 or so, always the same). I'm of course open to improve the version by searching within the small lot of changes made in the meantime his his last abrupt reversal. Thanks for attention and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- You must be referring to this edit. There is an IP-hopper from 151.26.* who returns to the article periodically. I've applied one year of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Safarii, server side redirects and necro-threads
I just replied to you here on Matma Rex's talk page about Safari dropping the URI fragment which comprises the anchor, thinking it was a recent post (and not the 3rd of march!). I don't know if someone got back to you on that but AFAIK it's a known bug in Safari. Protonk (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Question re: your arbcom message
Hello. I see that you say I should not have posted at Arbcom recently, per BANEX. The comments I posted had nothing to do with any content or topic of a WP article, but were solely about behavior. Could you point me to the provision of BANEX which directs me not to have done that? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- "SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased." 'Other pages' includes AE discussions that are related to the Ludwig von Mises institute. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see, but isn't this block appeal related to a personal attack on me as cited by Arbcom in the block rather than to the Mises Institute or associated persons? Do you think that the BANEX language was intended to prohibit the comment that I made in this thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- You should not be on the AE page at all if Carolmooredc is appealing a sanction. Arbcom has tried to exclude a set of people from the topic area to improve the tranquility of that area and let other editors make progress. If those sanctioned people all show up at AE to report one another (and add their own testimony to reports started by others) then the desired goal of tranquility will not be achieved. If Carolmooredc happens to behave badly and you are not given a chance to point that out, you need to rely on others to make the observation. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think I understand your point, but I'm asking whether anything remotely like that is stated in the BANEX text. If there had been an interaction ban, I would read the BANEX language to bar the comment I made, but Arbcom did not invoke that remedy. On the other hand, in the spirit of trying to prevent disruption of Arbcom business by editors venting overt or veiled personal agendas, we have Gaijin and Srich -- both of whom have a history of hostile interaction with me -- chiming in to support quashing the sanction arising from Carolmooredc's personal attack on me. I'm not talking about her allegation that I violated my topic ban. I'm talking about her personal attack on me at Arbcom Enforcement, cited in her block. I don't envy Arbcom, which has a very difficult role in preventing these personal attacks and coalitions of editors who manage to persevere in them at ANI and force them into your lap. On the other hand I think it would help if a clear and thorough statement of BANEX could be made so that others don't misconstrue it in the future. I note that you didn't respond to my question above as to the intention of the current BANEX policy, but since I don't dare pursue this matter, I think there's no point continuing to discuss it for now. Thanks for your replies. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's absurd to suggest that the topic-ban extends to talk pages related to the discussion of or appeal of the topic ban (as opposed to pages related to the Mises Institute). Under this logic, one could never appeal one's topic ban, because mentioning it on the appeal page would make the page relate to the topic at hand (in this case, the Mises Institute). Please use all the tools at your disposal to check your logical reasoning. Steeletrap (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BANEX explains how you can appeal our own ban. That's what it's there for. Banned users intervening in complaints about other banned people is what's been disallowed by recent decisions. But if your name has been mentioned in someone else's complaint then you can respond. (People are allowed to defend themselves). EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's absurd to suggest that the topic-ban extends to talk pages related to the discussion of or appeal of the topic ban (as opposed to pages related to the Mises Institute). Under this logic, one could never appeal one's topic ban, because mentioning it on the appeal page would make the page relate to the topic at hand (in this case, the Mises Institute). Please use all the tools at your disposal to check your logical reasoning. Steeletrap (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think I understand your point, but I'm asking whether anything remotely like that is stated in the BANEX text. If there had been an interaction ban, I would read the BANEX language to bar the comment I made, but Arbcom did not invoke that remedy. On the other hand, in the spirit of trying to prevent disruption of Arbcom business by editors venting overt or veiled personal agendas, we have Gaijin and Srich -- both of whom have a history of hostile interaction with me -- chiming in to support quashing the sanction arising from Carolmooredc's personal attack on me. I'm not talking about her allegation that I violated my topic ban. I'm talking about her personal attack on me at Arbcom Enforcement, cited in her block. I don't envy Arbcom, which has a very difficult role in preventing these personal attacks and coalitions of editors who manage to persevere in them at ANI and force them into your lap. On the other hand I think it would help if a clear and thorough statement of BANEX could be made so that others don't misconstrue it in the future. I note that you didn't respond to my question above as to the intention of the current BANEX policy, but since I don't dare pursue this matter, I think there's no point continuing to discuss it for now. Thanks for your replies. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- You should not be on the AE page at all if Carolmooredc is appealing a sanction. Arbcom has tried to exclude a set of people from the topic area to improve the tranquility of that area and let other editors make progress. If those sanctioned people all show up at AE to report one another (and add their own testimony to reports started by others) then the desired goal of tranquility will not be achieved. If Carolmooredc happens to behave badly and you are not given a chance to point that out, you need to rely on others to make the observation. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see, but isn't this block appeal related to a personal attack on me as cited by Arbcom in the block rather than to the Mises Institute or associated persons? Do you think that the BANEX language was intended to prohibit the comment that I made in this thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Concerning Rollback
I have seen your post.[76] I don't know if there was any abuse of rollback by DS or not. But I have a suggestion. I think we should not grant Rollback rights to anyone who had been blocked for edit warring, and they should have clean block history from edit warring, even for 1 year.
You think it will be possible? OccultZone (Talk) 06:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:PERM/R, a page where requests for rollback are considered. If you look in the archives of that page you can see how past cases have been decided. It is not uncommon for rollback to be suspended if somebody uses rollback during an edit war, but the rule you are proposing is not currently on the books. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Block request
A month ago there was a dispute regarding the presence of Franz Kafka on the Czechs page, User:Der Golem keeps putting him there, even though he's demonstrably not Czech. I requested him to be blocked for edit warring, but you just locked the page and ufortunately, it was the incorrect version with Kafka present. I waited a month until the lock ended in hope that the user would give up. He didn't and he keeps vandalizing the page. I therefore request you to block him, because he's never going to stop.--Liongrande (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Der Golem: Both of you are risking a new 3RR complaint. I suggest opening up an WP:RFC at Talk:Czechs. If you do so you could make an announcement at Talk:Franz Kafka so that people who know about Kafka can participate. The wording about his nationality in Franz Kafka appears to be very carefully done. Sometimes nationality is omitted from an article when the situation can go several ways, as it does here. Same problem occurs with Gregor Mendel. The claim that Kafka was 'demonstrably not Czech' appears curious and I wonder how you could source it. If people don't behave well on a question of nationality in Eastern Europe they can be warned or sanctioned under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Edit-war complaint
Ed, I noticed that you closed this edit-war complaint involving Person of Interest because it turned into a content dispute. The same thing is occurring at this dispute involving QuackGuru and Jayaguru-Shishya. I've seen these disputes about pseudoscience areas that start being about conduct and end up being arguments over content. This really has the potential to continue, on and on. It would be nice if the case was closed with some result before it takes over the page. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's hard to muster the patience to study enough diffs to figure this out. If nobody in the dispute can *briefly* show a violation, in 200 words or less, admins may not do anything useful. This dispute doesn't appear to be a breach of 3RR. It might either be long-term edit warring (by one or more people) or an ARBPS violation. Have you been operating as a regular content editor on any of these articles? Do you understand whatever it is that they are arguing about? EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I follow the disputes over pseudoscience but I have only commented on talk pages, WP:AN/I, WP:AN and WP:ARE, I have not edited the articles themselves. It's a minefield, very polarized. Lots of reverting, arguing, filing complaints over PS/DS at WP:ARE in order to get editors blocked or topic banned. Those who are sympathetic to or neutral about fields like Chinese medicine or acupuncture try to improve the articles but the articles are closely watched and every edit can be challenged by those who are skeptical about these subjects. I'm not commenting on the quality of their edits, just that it is difficult to work on these articles without either edit-warring or giving up because of the near constant conflict. It's nearly impossible to work in this field for any length of time without finding oneself reported on a noticeboard.
- I'd close this as "No result", no sanctions but warnings to all parties. In the future, I hope admins can address 3RR reports before they spin out of control, as discussions tend to do in this field. Just my two cents. Liz Read! Talk! 15:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: New 3RR report about Czechs
I am, of course, absolutely in support of prompting more users to take part in the discussion about Kafka. But this is not another Kafka outbreak; because actually the problem here is not Kafka. The user in question is against inclusion of any Jew categorically in the article about Czechs. So Kafka became the object at the moment because he is the only Bohemian Jew that I insisted to keep in the article. But if any editor wants to add any Bohemian Jew or any Czech Jew, this editor will be here to remove the Jew from article about Czechs. And because not many editors are concerned about this rather less important topic, the editor attempts and might easily succeed to keep that article free of Jews. That is what concerns me. So I suggest not to make Kafka the scapegoat but rather make this point clear about what is this categorical removing of Jews. I have made the point clear on the Talk:Czechs, and editors understood my point about Kafka and everybody "was happy" until the user in question had the chance to "clean up" the Jews again from the article after it was unblocked.
I fully support any discussion about this topic but honestly I don't remember making a decision to join Wikipedia in order to spend time to stand up for the Jews, as that is where the situation surprisingly seems to bring me.--Der Golem (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please observe the need for consensus. And perhaps you can tell me whether Gregor Mendel was German or Czech! (At present our article calls him Silesian; I think he used to be Austrian). Although the debate may seem trivial, admins will have to intervene if people won't follow WP:Dispute resolution. Nationality in many parts of Europe is difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- People such as Gregor Mendel, Gustav Mahler or Ferdinand Porsche are considered Germans or Austrians, because they originated from the neighboring German or Austrian society, and they were generally listed as such in their lifetime, so they are now. That is very different with Kafka, who was a Bohemian Jew. Bohemian Jews or Czech Jews are listed as Bohemians or Czechs just like German Jews are listed as Germans or Italian Jews are listed as Italians. But I am not here to rescue Kafka from being declared stateless on Wikipedia. Neither am I trying to declare that Kafka was a pure, typical Czech, just like I am not claiming that Ashkenazi Jewish Einstein was a pure and typical German. But I noticed, looking at the articles of European nations, that the consensus is that Jews are indeed included in their country of origin if they are significant. Therefore I don't believe that people can be excluded from the article on Czechs because they are Jewish if they are included in articles about other European nations.
- This is not about Kafka. I am not trying to change or make a consensus about Kafka's "Czechness". I am trying to stand behind the already existing consensus that Jews are included in articles on various nations and just apply this consensus on the article on Czechs.--Der Golem (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can you link to where this consensus was reached? And even if Kafka is eligible for inclusion, shouldn't the local editors at Talk:Czechs get to decide which of the eligible people get included in the picture? EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is not about Kafka. I am not trying to change or make a consensus about Kafka's "Czechness". I am trying to stand behind the already existing consensus that Jews are included in articles on various nations and just apply this consensus on the article on Czechs.--Der Golem (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- "A link?" That is a general knowledge, look up articles about European nations, they have numerous Jews in the infoboxes. Typical examples would be Einstein and Marx, both Jews included in Germans article. There's your link.
- To answer the Kafka question: yes of course should "local editors at Talk:Czechs get to decide which of the eligible people get included in the picture". But that is why I explained recently that this is not about Kafka but about this editor's problem with Jews in general. Editors on the talkpage have supported several other Jews to be included but the user in question can and has removed them anyway. And because in practice the few other editors have things to do in their life, they don't come back to re-add the Jews. In this way, one persistent racist editor can actually achieve his/her goal of removing specifically Jews on purpose. But this is not your problem; you just followed the rules because that is how Wikipedia works. I get it. I don't care about Jews, just making a point here for no reason.
- Obviously, also persistent disruptive editors will vanish sooner or later, so this makes no difference on the long run and the article will return to its neutral state at some point.
- Have fun editing. Cheers--Der Golem (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this doesn't solve the problem about edit warring at Czechs. If you expect to be justified in a further change, you'll need a WP:Request for comment with a verdict in your favor. Saying 'general knowledge' is like hand-waving. If you think Liongrande is being disruptive you can try opening a WP:RFC/U. If you are hoping to come out of this looking more credible than Liongrande you should avoid the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for all those suggestions, I see pursuing them would solve the problem effectively - if I had the time to do so, I would have done it already. I'm simply backing away from this; as I said, I'm not here to stand up for the Jews and their right not to be declared stateless on one Wikipedia article by one racist editor and his sock puppets. The editor in question is a sock puppet of an account that openly suggested categorically excluding Jews, resulting in a backlash by other editors and was blocked for racist edits. Subsequently, he/she expressed that he/she doesn't understand why they were blocked. So he/she simply opened another account. You can check their IPs as an admin. Unfortunately I don't have the time to put up with the bureaucracy to prove myself credible as Wikipedia is a sporadic hobby/entertainment for me these days...thus my lax tone in recent discussions.
- As I said, a disruptive editor will vanish, so will his/her edit warring. It would just be sooner if the topic was relevant enough so that someone would care enough to do something about it. I don't anymore. In the meantime, one article on the internet will be free of all Jews until that person has something better to do in their life. That is not a disaster.
- Have a nice day :) --Der Golem (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this doesn't solve the problem about edit warring at Czechs. If you expect to be justified in a further change, you'll need a WP:Request for comment with a verdict in your favor. Saying 'general knowledge' is like hand-waving. If you think Liongrande is being disruptive you can try opening a WP:RFC/U. If you are hoping to come out of this looking more credible than Liongrande you should avoid the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| Thank you very much! Bearian (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC) |
Mpc755 back
Hi Ed, you might like to know that immediately after his block expired, user Mpc755 came back with this new piece of original research, in the line of his previous edits for which he was blocked. I have reverted and put a 3rd level warning on his talk page. - DVdm (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Forgot to ping user @Callanecc:. - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thx and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this?
Hi EdJohnston! I filed earlier a 3RR report that you also commented on Kww's Talk Page[77]. As the result[78], Kww first decided to give me a warning for edit warring. After I explained him that 1) I have not been involved in any edit war, 2) nobody has been accusing me of such thing, and 3) user QuackGuru hasn't received any warning from Kww even the diffs demonstrated QuackGuru's edit warring behaviour, he changed his warning to:
"The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block'."[79]
.
I don't think that I'm receiving a fair and neutral treatment here. I never pushed any POVs at my 3RR report, and if you take a quick look at it, you can see that I was the only one who didn't participate any of those lengthy point-of-view discussions there. Therefore, I think that the warning he gave me is completely groundless and arbitrary.
Also, user QuackGuru reported me at WP:ANI on the basis of following him to other articles[80]. Kww seems to have involved himself there as well, and resulted that one for QuackGuru as well (without any explanation). The whole report QuackGuru made is totally absurd: I told him that I haven't followed him to any articles, and I even asked him for a complete list of the supposed articles that I have been following him to. He refused to answer me. Still Kww involved himself in there and resulted it against me without any explanations.
At the moment, I think we are editing three same articles a with QuackGuru: Chiropractic, Traditional Chinese medicine, and Acupuncture. Compared to the total number of articles that I have been editing, those three articles form a tiny minority.
In my opinion, Kww's actions are arbitrary and I'm not receiving fair and just treatment. Could you please take a brief look into this? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am sympathetic to User:Kww's conclusion, though he did not spell out his reasoning in detail. You've already tried to engage him in a discussion, which seems like a good idea. The Chiropractic, Traditional Chinese medicine and Acupuncture articles are the source of constant trouble. I certainly think that admins would be justified using the WP:ARBPS sanctions to enforce proper editing there. The worse the quality of discussion and the more reverting that is going on, the stronger would be the argument for using the sanctions. Editors who are in disagreement could move things in a better direction if they would open RfCs on the contested points and then wait for the result before doing further reverts. At present there are no RfC templates on the talk pages of any of these three articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your answer! I just hope that the atmosphere at the aforementioned articles would get back to normal. I still don't find it reasonable that I am being warned for POV-pushing even I never did such a thing, or "following QuackGuru to other articles even there are just three articles in common that we both are editing (and I have mainly engaged by discussing new sources at Talk pages).
- I also think that threatening with indefinite block is quite unreasonable in this case.
- Anyway, I don't want to sound like a broken record so enough about it. Thanks for your answer still, and I must say that I am not quite familiar with RfC but I'll delve into it with better time! Thanks for the advice and cheers! ;) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. I am now being constantly harassed by user QuackGuru who has been involved in the previous incidents. He has started bombing me with different allegations at my User Space:
- First here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayaguru-Shishya&diff=609840207&oldid=609838731
- Second here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#WP:IDHT_violation
Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are in a dispute with QuackGuru, so it is not a big surprise that he posts on your talk page. Why not agree to wait for an RfC before changing the tag again? Your immediate removal of posts from your own talk suggests you are not much interested in discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree for a RfC sure, but the tone of QuackGuru's message on my Talk Page was all but constructing: Do you agree you won't restore the NPOV tag against consensus again? That's a highly loaded question. In my point of view, the tag hasn't broken consensus. I also explained him that nobody has been actually objecting the tag in the link he gave me, unlike he still keeps claiming.
- Thanks for your answer still, I appreciate that! And sorry to bother you constantly! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Help requested
Hello Ed,
At the end of January you handled a 3RR complaint related to the Ripple (payment protocol) article. The immediate cause was a 3RR incident, but the underlying cause was a content dispute. You expressed the expectation that the editors involved would be able to work this out among themselves. Unfortunately we seem to be no nearer a solution today. The dispute is centered around User:PirateButtercup and myself. The other day I asked User:Chrisarnesen, who had been involved with the previous dispute but not with this one, for help, and he forwarded the request to some others. I have a feeling we may need the help of a neutral third party. I'm not sure if ArbCom is the right place for that, I've never come into contact with it. What I think is needed is some constructive diplomacy, not sanctions, rulings or anything. If you can give some good advice on what to do next, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I'll leave a message on the Ripple talk page linking to this message here, so people are aware of it.
- Now continuing at Talk:Ripple (payment protocol)#Outside help. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Range contribs
Hey. About a month ago, you asked me about my range contribs tool. It looks like X! ported over their tool to here and it seems to work pretty well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Message added 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Your message on my Talk Page
Hello Ed,
This is in response to your message on my Talk. I have used exclusively one user-account to edit which is this that I have made those edits with and am using now. As to my alleged use of sock-puppetry with IP's I did make a couple of edits when I was logged out (I do not keep myself constantly logged into WIKI) in a bit of haste. Every edit that you will see in the revision page is from IP's 117.194*. That is on account of my Net connection having a moving IP and not a fixed one. (As this is a large city and so is the network there will be many more users with edits made from 117.194* on various pages of WIKI. The IPs keep moving each time for each user when he/she logs onto the Net and its almost never the same except for the first two numbers.) However those made from those IPs on the two concerned pages are mine I concede. By definition, I have not indulged in sock-puppetry, the reason being that I know for a fact that what I have been claiming on that page is correct. My apologies if that were to be still considered sock-puppetry.
Furthermore, please look at this message I left on the Talk of User:VSmith, an admin I have interacted with prior, long before I was reported and you conveyed the same to me. I have clearly mentioned there that a couple of my edits have appeared under 117.194*. I reported User:Smsarmad and the other user User:Maharashtra1 (to User:VSmith) along with a London-based IP 81.157* for repeated vandalism, removal of reliable references, and sock-puppetry. You can see for yourself from that edit that I did concede on my own that those edits were made by me without logging into that account.
These nationalists insert all kinds of BS in the analogous India articles and yet remove reliable references from those like the two in contention here. My issue was primarily with the Gallup poll at http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx which shows pakistan as a heavily 'unfavored' nation in the US. I put up that as a reference for that pakistan is disliked (along with an article from huffingtonpost.com). The user keeps deleting them from two different usernames and one IP.
I again apologize that I did not show the patience in logging in and making the edits that I wanted to every time. Looking back at the revision history of the page [[81]] its been reverted again and again. I would not have been making those edits in the first place if a well-referenced claim like that was not being repeatedly deleted which I hope you shall appreciate.
Moreover I am pretty sure that Ssarmad and Maharashtra1 are the same user editing from 81.157*. I am posting this response of mine on the ANI page as well I believe WIKI would be just with me in the light of what it can see in this matter.
SumerianPrince (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- SumerianPrince, you are replying to this. I'm not going to evaluate your content arguments. You are expected to persuade the other editors that you are correct. If you continue to revert without waiting for others to agree with you you will most likely be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ed, as regards the 'sock puppetry' part, I assure you I will be logged in every time I make an edit in future. If very inconvenient at that juncture, I shall prolong it, to a point when it shall be feasible. Seeing WIKI the way I do I have not indulged in S.P the way I have seen countless cases on here and shall never do so. That is all I can say regarding that.
- As for this particular dispute I again am giving you this link from GALLUP at http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx that shows pak with a fav rating of over 80% and 14% otherwise which is the third worst.
- Since I have been threatened to be most likely blocked and I do love editing on WIKI I shall MOST CERTAINLY NOT continue with the warring that I was indulging in a few hours earlier. But what I don't understand is what there is to discuss about a comprehensive, legitimate, and perfectly reliable reference.
- While I am being approached sideways, are you going to spare the other party who has most likely been guilty on all counts that I am being considered so, AND been reverting edits/references that meet RS? Just asking. SumerianPrince (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Then kindly advise
Ok Ed, I would like you to kindly tell me as to what I should do regarding the comment and the corresponding reference that I was trying to put up on the page, and I say this after having read your notification about the South Asian nations.
If you are not willing to moderate or decide that is fine with me. What is not is that in all likelihood a very valid reference with a very clear assertion is going awaste. Am not aware if you looked up the link but that clearly shows a near-extreme dislike/hate for pak in the US. What irked the other party was India doing almost as well as his own nation did poorly and that is something he couldn't clearly stomach. I hope you appreciate that I had already approached an Admin on this and had no intention of indulging in a back and forth reversion war whatsoever.
SumerianPrince (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's my guess that you may avoid sanctions if you will agree not to change any articles related to India or Pakistan for 14 days. If you agree to this, let us know in the complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I shall not be editing on any of those articles. In fact I rarely do. I have replied where you asked me to. I had said I do not intend to edit-war in the typical sense that 90% of them do occur on WIKI (I have seen plenty and visited countless banned users' profiles). Good number of times, they were actually wrong (in the sense that they were indulging in OR or POV-pushing or using sources that were not RS), which explains to a great degree why they were warring and even using S.P's.
- In this case nobody seems to say anything about whether the site/ref itself is an RS or not. It looks like a wrongful edit can be pushed through (or a righteous one deleted) by merely not edit-warring; whilst a justified/legitimate edit might never make it just because the concerned editor happened to get into a brief edit-war when that E.W itself was on account of the dishonesty of the other party. Anyway I guess I have done enough explaining and pleading. SumerianPrince (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- What would save you from a block is a promise not to edit India or Pakistan-related article for 14 days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- The exact same promise/word given any number of times means the same I beleive. In the message prior, I have said, that I shall not be editing on any of the India or Pakistan related articles. Just one thing to clarify though - I believe you mean the political/geopolitical ones (the kind where this all started) - I do edit on Hinduism-related articles and pages on Indian places etc far more. I hope I can continue editing in them (they do not come into the picture here I understand). Or can I not edit on those too? SumerianPrince (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to accept the deal, then you need to abstain from *anything* related to India or Pakistan for 14 days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- The exact same promise/word given any number of times means the same I beleive. In the message prior, I have said, that I shall not be editing on any of the India or Pakistan related articles. Just one thing to clarify though - I believe you mean the political/geopolitical ones (the kind where this all started) - I do edit on Hinduism-related articles and pages on Indian places etc far more. I hope I can continue editing in them (they do not come into the picture here I understand). Or can I not edit on those too? SumerianPrince (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- What would save you from a block is a promise not to edit India or Pakistan-related article for 14 days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thread that you copied to WT:RM: is it an RfC?
I prefer not to remove the green (although I would happily go with another colour if you want to change it), as I do not want it to look as if the text was placed there by the editors who text I have copied. It may be that an RfC would be a good idea, but I currently do not have time to shepherd such a discussion so although I would participate in such an RfC I will not initiate one :-\ . -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- So why bother copying the thread if you don't intend that anything should come of it? You already put a closure box on the WT:AT discussion. It could make more sense to let the discussion finish in its original location. Then you could leave a comment at WT:RM advising people to participate at WT:AT if they have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is for a change to the wording in the RM procedure not the AT policy that is being discussed and it is better such discussions happens on the talk page of the procedure rather than some other place. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Bittergrey
I have kept Sarek in the loop on this. If it comes to offering him a deal, I will be notifying the relevant people and probably starting a thread on AN or AN/I to reach some sort of community consensus on it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ed. It was great to meet you face-to-face at the Wikipedia conference.
I've been looking for someone to review my Request Edit here. The current article contains a lot of content that is not actually supported by the sources, unsourced, or off-topic, etc.
I was wondering if you had time to take a look. I know it's difficult to compare the two versions and review the content, but I also know of no better way to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Quick question
In the new discretionary sanctions, is it no longer necessary to log a notification of the sanctions?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you give a notice using
{{subst:alert|topic}}and if you verify that your change triggered the edit filter then your work is done. Logging is not required. If the system is working right then your first attempt to save the message on the person's talk will give you a filter notice. I did some experiments by notifying User talk:ThisIsaTest that you can still see in his talk page history. The full rules are in WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. Notices under the old system remain in effect for one year starting May 2014. After expiry of a previous notice a new one is required, but notice may be given no more than once a year. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)- When you say filter notice, do you mean it trips an actual filter? If so, I don't see any evidence in ThisIsaTest's filter log. The filter notice isn't discussed on the sanctions page, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The filter hits show up in his talk page history, and the events go in the logs of the admins who leave them. His own filter log is for notices that he issues himself. See two entries in the history of User talk:ThisIsaTest that are marked Tag: discretionary sanctions alert. If you look at the top of any history page for a user talk, there is a box labeled 'Tag filter' in which you can type 'Discretionary sanctions alert' to search for notices. The log of all the notices ever issued is here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, that's complicated. I'll have to write it down somewhere because I'll never remember. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just try notifying User:ThisIsaTest using
{{subst:alert|b}}. It is self-explanatory from there. Nothing can go wrong unless you try to append a long message to the basic alert. If you want to leave a long message you can do so in a following post. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just try notifying User:ThisIsaTest using
- Wow, that's complicated. I'll have to write it down somewhere because I'll never remember. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The filter hits show up in his talk page history, and the events go in the logs of the admins who leave them. His own filter log is for notices that he issues himself. See two entries in the history of User talk:ThisIsaTest that are marked Tag: discretionary sanctions alert. If you look at the top of any history page for a user talk, there is a box labeled 'Tag filter' in which you can type 'Discretionary sanctions alert' to search for notices. The log of all the notices ever issued is here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- When you say filter notice, do you mean it trips an actual filter? If so, I don't see any evidence in ThisIsaTest's filter log. The filter notice isn't discussed on the sanctions page, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)