Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53

ECP Protection for YPG per WP:ARBECR

I have seen you active on this at the talk page HistoryofIran and I am having a long standing issue at the YPG which Turkey sees as terrorist but their NATO allies nor the EU not etc. I suggest an ECP for the People's Defense Units, where an IP wants the POV template at the top of the article seemingly for not having included that the EU, USA, Australia etc. classify the YPG as terrorist as you can see from this discussion downwards. They were invited to provide sources for such an inclusion, but my patience has its limits which comes when there is a remedy like ARBECR. The word terrorist gets included every now and then anyway by some other IP... Talk page access should not be removed if possible as maybe someone has new insights worth their inclusion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The page is now semiprotected three months. Let me know if there is any further warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Consecutive edits question

A long time ago, I did something (don't ask me what it was because I haven't been able to figure it out now) that changed the way contribution histories look. If there are consecutive edits by the same user, instead of showing each entry, it collapses them and shows the number of consecutive edits in brackets to the left, e.g., [3]. If you click on Prev, it shows the changes made by all 3 edits, and if you wish to revert all 3 by clicking on Vandalism, you can. This last part works only if the consecutive edits are the latest edits on the page. If you wish to uncollapse them so that you see all 3 entries, you click on the bracketed number.

In the last few days, although it shows everything normally, I cannot revert all 3 edits after I click on Prev. I can still click on the normal Rollback but then I can't automatically warn the user for vandalism.

I vaguely recollect that you showed me this "feature" years ago to help me out when patrolling WP:AN3, and I was hoping you could help. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23! You must be thinking of User:Alex_Smotrov/histcomb.js. You are probably calling it out with an importScript in your User:Bbb23/vector.js. I didn't notice any recent change in behavior, but then I don't usually do reverts on disputed pages and don't remember ever trying to revert a collapsed string of edits. So you could be right that there was a change. Personally I have reinstated the old version of Vector so am not the best person to ask. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
You're right, I have the histcomb script in my vector.js. It doesn't have a comment telling me what it is. At some point, I started putting in comments so I wouldn't have to rely on memory, which is not very reliable (smiling). I too have reinstated the old version of Vector, but I don't think that's the issue. Nor do I see any recent edits to the script. I guess I should ask the script author for help. Ah well, it's funny how you get used to doing things in a certain way. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Oops, I just noticed that the script author hasn't edited since 2012. Somehow I doubt they'll come back just to help me out. Any suggestion as to who to talk to?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Apart from scripts, preferences has "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" under Recent changes. I forget exactly what it does since I have it off. The place to ask is WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Bbb23 has continued the discussion of reverting multiple changes under histcomb.js at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Script problem. One of the responders there pointed to the section called 'Problems' in Tech News 2023-03 as being a possible cause of the misbehavior of histcomb.js. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Something I noticed

Multiple "new users" have attempted to change referenced information in the Etruscan civilization article, from 4 haplotypes to nine/ten haplotypes.

This has been sporadic enough to avoid page protect. Not sure what can be done, but I felt an Admin should be made aware of this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Etruscan civilization for one month. Let me know if the problems continue. The new users' change from *four* haplotypes to *ten* seems to contradict what is on page 400 of the cited paper by Vernesi et al. This is basically the same observation you made in your edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Troublesome SPA user

Hi Ed, I hope all is well with you. We've been having trouble with a single purpose account user (an appropriate double-meaning), Calvin Bryant, Florida, whose sole purpose in editing WP is to add his artwork to articles for self promotion. Here are his global contributions, which doesn't include all of them. As you can see, this has been going on since May 2019. He's been asked repeatedly to stop, but he's very persistent in re-adding them when they're reverted. This is getting really tiresome. Carlstak (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll invite the user to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Carlstak (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring policy

Hey, I have a request. I don't know if you've noticed but ‎Butwhatdoiknow has been making - or attempting to make - changes to WP:EW. They have to do with one section of the policy. If you look at the revision history, you'll see what changes have actually been made and the latest change they want to make, which I reverted. They want to discuss the issue, even though, in my view, I've already discussed it, and I didn't enjoy the earlier discussions at all. Anyway, AFAIK, no administrator other than me has participated in the discussions. I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me what you think, at least of the latest change. Don't worry. I won't be a bit offended if you disagree with me. I just need another opinion of someone who knows the policy and enforces it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't see that the changes by User:Butwhatdoiknow are an improvement. If they are sure that the policy needs changing, they might try opening an WP:RFC on the policy's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A more specific question

I'm not sure why this discussion is taking place here but if that is how Bbb23 wants to proceed then I'm okay with it for now. Currently in dispute is not about "changes," but one particular change. Here's the history related to that particular change:

1. My edit, with an edit summary saying "separate out second half of compound sentence and move it to the lead paragraph (where it supports first instance of "avoiding reverting")"
2. Bbb23's revert, with an edit summary saying "as I said on the Talk page, the flow is better if this sentence is left at the end, and you didn't get consensus for this change"
3. My talk page post explaining why I thought the edit improved the flow.
4. Bbb23's weeklong silence.
5. My ping to Bbb23.
6. Instead of responding to my rationale for the edit on the Reverting talk page, Bbb23 comes here asking for a review of "changes" (including two that, so far, no one has objected to: [1] & [2]).

So here's my question for EdJohnston: In your opinion, does my edit worsen the flow, not affect the flow, or improve the flow? If you wish, feel free to reply at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Flow. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how such minor tweaks could be an improvement, or remove any misunderstandings. Consider trying to bring in more people to give their opinion. Changing a long-established policy risks trouble even if you personally think you are just fixing the style. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
A well organized section increases the chances that readers will find the information they seek and reduce the chances of conflicting information appearing in two separate places. Unfortunately, much of Wikipedia space is written by accretion and is not well organized. For example, the text that was moved by these two edits: [3] & [4]).
Yes, there is always the hypothetical risk of "trouble" when trying to reorganize text. But that is not a reason to permanently enshrine the status quo. Instead, it is something about which to be vigilant and to deal with when the hypothetical becomes actual. A series of changes made through minor edits make it easier for other editors to spot and raise any actual concerns.
That brings us back to my current minor edit: does it cause actual trouble? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Take a look at the top of Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2022/August. This was a debate over one word in the policy that led to 87,000 bytes of discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure what lesson you want me to take from this. It seems to be an example of a possible "trouble" that might arise when editors seek to improve articles. As I said above, "that [risk] is not a reason to permanently enshrine the status quo."
That said, it might be a reason to not restore my reverted edit if, during the discussion of that specific change, we find that we're spending more time on it than it's worth.
But, so far, you haven't spent any time at all discussing the specific change. Why is that? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it unwise to make stylistic improvements to a major policy unless some serious defect is thus addressed. So if you are searching around for people to agree with you, you won't find any support from me. Better ask someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me so much of your time, here is my takeaway: Bbb23 objected to my edit because it detracted from the flow of the text. You are expressing no opinion regarding whether that is the case or not. Instead, you object to my edit because it does not address a serious defect. Do I have that right?
If I do have it right, one last request: Can you point me to some policy or guideline for the principle that edits to major policy must address serious defects? Or is that just your preference based on your extensive experience as a Wikipedia editor? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
You could just try collaborating with others. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep, that is how I understand it works - BRD. Unfortunately, the editor who reverted my edit is not talking (at least not to me). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Noor Pahlavi

Hello. Hope you're doing well. I was wondering if you could change the target at Noor Pahlavi because it's currently redirected to Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran#Noor Pahlavi, but no such section exists within her father's article. I think the more appropriate target would be Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran#Relationships and marriage, which is where the page on her sister Iman Pahlavi redirects to. I would have done this myself but since you have fully protected the page it's impossible for me to modify it. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 21:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Changed the protected redirect per your request. Thanks for noticing this. Evidently if the proposed merge is to occur, some more material should be added to the target article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I guess if the merge were to happen under a new subsection I would have to notify either you or one of the other admins. I'll keep an eye on the article to see if any such changes occur. Keivan.fTalk 03:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
No you don't need any permission from admins. The AfD closed with a 'merge' verdict but nobody in particular is required to do the work. I just hope that someone gets around to it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Prolific hijacker

I see that your warning at User talk:Chitral view#Please respond and explain why you should not be blocked hasn't stopped that incorrigible hijacker. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

User now blocked. Back in December they requested deletion of their talk page and all its contents. Since then they continued to hijack articles. Suggests an unwillingness to hear any feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible hoax article

Per this discussion, can Battle of Capakhchur be deleted? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If you favor speedy deletion, it would likely require WP:CSD#G3 "hoax" or WP:CSD#G5 "sock". A G3 would probably go along with a block of the article creator, but it would need justification. I did run a check on the latest red-linked contributor, seeing a possible recurrence of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aydın memmedov2000. The check didn't confirm my suspicion so I suggest either WP:PROD or WP:AFD for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated response. Since I can not read Turkish and the 5 listed sources(which appear to be written in Turkish) can not be verified by me, the evidence for a hoax rests on Beshogur's ability to read the sources cited. Per Beshogur, "I can not find such any battle, not in English sources, nor in Turkish sources. It was originally made by an IP user. Sounds pretty much made up to me."
I will inform Beshogur of their options.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks, Captain Raju! Fifteen years.. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dom Aleixo (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dom Aleixo (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppetry 68.129.15.71

Hi Ed. I believe at one point you talked to me to come talk to you again if I could find more founding of an IP abusing several accounts to avoid bans via adding unsourced content and somewhat. (From years ago:[here)

So far I have found they have since been editing under the IP, but as well as several accounts including User:68.129.15.71, User:Akmadomad, User:BigBoyWilliams, User:HerbLightman, User:EuroHorrorGuy, and User:FrankensteinsDad. Here are some quick previous blocks here and here. The user removes material that declared uneeded here (against WP:FILMRELEASE), and have responded to unsourced content or usage of multiple account stating it was a quick mistake or they would find the sources later, then removing any comments on their talk page involving warnings or questions here, here, here, and here.

I know in the past you asked for a smoking gun related to this incident, and I believe outside their very similar talk pages, favored articles (older genre films and their actors), the biggest smoking gun is one of these users removing the warnings from another users article. Here is HerbLightman removing warning tags about being blocked from EuroHorrorGuy's articles. here, here, here and several others in late February 2022.

The user has been active on the site for years and my experience is they have found several loopholes to avoid being block or banned, but have no found a way to contribute to Wikipedia in a consistent constructive manner and has taken to SockPuppetry to avoid general simple bans. How should I approach this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbLightman. I've now blocked four of the accounts you reported as socks, leaving only User:FrankensteinsDad which is stale for checkuser purposes. You can add comments on the SPI if you want. Thanks for your report! I have no comment on the original IP, since CU can't confirm IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
All fair, thanks for the work on it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Artwork

Hello EdJohnston,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Artwork for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was declined. Another editor changed the redirect Artwork to point to Work of art which seems to be a good solution EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a nationalist edit war

At Taiwan thats vandalism by two socks of the same master not an edit war between nationalists. Note that you've locked it on a version that goes against one of the strongest consensuses I know of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Who do you think are the socks? I can run a check if there is a reasonable suspicion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
IMO Seabourn101 and Stephan rostie are ducks, notice how they tag teamed the revert with Seabourn101 stepping in when Stephan rostie got to three reverts even though they hadn't edited since 14 December 2022. Stephan rostie made it absurd, Seabourn101 pushed it even more absurd (but of course in the name of compromise). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back I guess my revert to the version before the edit warring began was a good idea in retrospect. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Its never an easy call, in addition to a whole bunch of socks there is obviously also a lot of very genuine contentious editing. I could always be wrong, it could actually be two editors with opposing political positions who decided that tonight was the night. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The check did not give any conclusive results. Why not wait and see how the article develops under EC protection? EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

SPI

Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. If you've got some free time, could you check a new SPI I filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Virgiliosarvanitis. It involves the possible application of a range block.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This sock report has now been closed by User:Blablubbs with a block of User:Rootcragsar, after some helpful technical input by User:Ktrimi991. Let me know if Virgilioarvanitis returns using new accounts or IPs. Thanks for your report! EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Tarawih Edit-War

Hey Ed,

The Tarawih page is having an edit war, where the minority sect of Muslims are editing the page to satisfy their sect. They keep including information that is slandering the page and not keeping its integrity. This is a usual thing during the month of Ramadan. Could you please protect the page to not allow any user to edit the page? We would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! Inaquout (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an especially bad IP edit? I did issue a two-month semprotection in the past due to an RFPP request (in 2020) but am on the fence this time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Ukraine#National_anthem

Hi, as you are the one who has protected the page, could you make this suggested edit? VSL (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Popes, honorifics

Is there anything concerning the honorifics over Popes, perhaps similiar to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Islamic_honorifics? I have noticed numerous additions to papal articles with the addition of "His Holiness" in the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess GoodDay is reverting it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
See MOS:REVEREND. If you need a discussion, one could probably be opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Style is extremely controversial so I hope this doesn't become a thing. WP:CTOPICS applies to style matters. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I was unsure what the accepted standard was. Thanks Ed!--Kansas Bear (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Old houses

Hi again, the user "Old houses" continues to edit war despite your block earlier on. They are at three reverts in 24 hours again. I am not engaging them any further on this. I have repeatedly insisted on consensus and talking things out more, and was given personal attacks, more reverts, and threats to create multiple accounts in reply (1, 2). ɱ (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Edit - and a discussion about difficulties with the user's conduct has continued here. ɱ (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, Old houses is risking an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. —Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 16:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Persian ethnicity being added to articles

User:Alihd23 has been, since around 20 March, essentially spamming the ethnicity "Persian" into individuals' articles. Some of these article do have ethnicity in the body of the article, but numerous edits have been WP:UNDUE(with multiple ethnicities presented in the body of the articles) or simple additions to the Lead with no source(s) to support "Persian". Is there anything that can be done?

A listing:

  • 21 March 2023 diff hist +18‎ Hammad ibn Salamah
  • 21 March 2023 diff hist +18‎ Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak ‎
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +17‎ Naim ibn Hammad ‎
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +1‎ Al-Tirmidhi
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Ibrahim ibn Ya'qub al-Juzajani
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Idris al-Razi ‎
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +6‎ Al-Tirmidhi
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +7‎ Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Ibn Khuzayma ‎
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Ishaq ibn Rahwayh
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Muhammad al-Bukhari
  • 20 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Abu Mansur al-Maturidi
  • 30 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Qazi Nurullah Shustari
  • 29 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Ibrahim ibn Ya'qub al-Juzajani
  • 27 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Abu Dharr al-Harawi ‎
  • 27 March 2023 diff hist +8‎ Fakhr al-Din al-Razi
  • 27 March 2023 diff hist +2‎ Al-Farghani ‎

User:Alihd23 posted on my talk page asking why I was removing "Persian" to which I informed them of MOS:Ethnicity. Clearly they do not care and resumed adding "Persian" indiscriminately. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Alihd23, instead of answering here, chose to ask me again why I removed Persian ethnicity from the Lead of an article.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Ed Johnson sorry for violating wiki laws and instructions I don't know how to add sources to claims and changes properly but I won't do it again thank you Alihd23 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Aspersions, PAs, and original research, oh my

It appears the discussion between Beshogur and Volgabulgaria has reached the realm of personal attacks.

Volgabulgari doubles down with an WP:Aspersion that Beshogur blocked "my"? and "my friend's account"(Karak1l1c). I had considered posting a NPA warning on Volgabulgari's talk page, but considering their latest comment towards Beshogur "blocking" them and their friend I felt it would simply exacerbate the situation.

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


On second thought, you may want to read the entire discussion. Beshogur may have just proved Volgabulgari is meatpuppeting. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been addressed at the SPI which Volgabulgari was determined to be a sock. Sorry about bothering you with all this Ed. Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad that others were able to sort this out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for POV tag

Hi, I noticed you're the admin who protected People's Anti-Fascist Front - could you add an NPOV dispute tag to the article? There's a dispute over some newly added content, such as the WP:TERRORIST/WP:NPOV violation in the very first sentence of the article. Solblaze (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page to reach agreement about adding POV or other tags. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Alright. Solblaze (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Perennial nuisance Mosquito guy back with new sockpuppet

Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. The perennial nuisance and recurrent pain the Mosquito guy is back with a new sock puppet, ActiveWindows: same articles, same changes, same bad English in edit summaries. Carlstak (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:ActiveWindows is now blocked by User:Firefly per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Themaker1. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, that's good. Thanks, Ed, as always. Carlstak (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you removing Persian from Persian figures?

You and Kansas Bear have gone on and removed Persian from many actual Persian figures for no reason other than MOS:Ethnicity, which makes no sense.

You haven't removed Greek from Socrates, so why this double standard? Rumi and Ibn-Sina are ethnically Persian, and worked in Persian. MOS:Ethnicity has no merit here, as their heritage is very relevant to the figures in question. Even Britannica lists Ibn-Sina as a Persian, and is explained in detail by User:alidoostzadeh. Rumi's page has discussed this thoroughly already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to mention the aggression that Kansas Bear has against IP Users, Wikipedia is a place for these discussions to be had and instead of answering the questions he deleted my comments on his talk page simply stating he won't speak to IP's.
He is reverting articles without reason and applying faulty logic by applying MOS:Ethnicity when it does not apply. He has not given a reason as to why MOS:Ethnicity applies here but not to Socrates for example. The sources on both pages and well as the talk page have already determined these are ethnic Persians and their work was in Persian under Persianate societies. This very much indicates the kind of work these figures did and is similar to how Socrates was ethnically Greek who worked in Greek, making him a figure of that particular group. 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. I don't think I have made any changes to the article myself. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

500/30 ARBPIA lock

Hey, could you please lock this article:Levantine cuisine, so that only 500/30 editors can edit it? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This needs a discussion on the talk page. I assume that scholarly sources must be available regarding the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Protection request

Good afternoon @EdJohnston. I'd seen you've protected Elizabetta Gonzaga's article due to vandalism by 176.200.142.92 and 151.57.174.55. I would like to inform you that both IPs are in fact the LTA abuser Livioandronico2013, who had uploaded with multiple sockpuppets a lot of photographs of famous paintings, sculptures and buildings from Italy and, sometimes, from other parts of the world. Now, recently, they're vandalizing Guidobaldo da Montefeltro –via another IP– for impose its version among other good faith contributions by other users. I'd just reverted him to stable varsion, but he's maybe going to undid me in a near future, like he did with Elizabetta Gonzaga. Could you please protect the article to avoid vandalism by this LTA and, if he continues reverting me, restoring the stable version before his changes, and also restore Elizabetta Gonzaga to this stable version? Thank you in advance for your help and sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards. 81.41.175.237 (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Stable versions were restored by another user, so the only request is for a tempral protection of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro. Regards. 81.41.175.237 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Not honestly how to make you understand that. We are talking about photos not users. The photos are of quality and deserve to be in the article. That the user has been blocked is irrelevant. 151.57.78.107 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
So we are supposed to ignore your long-term sockpuppetry due to the high quality of your images? EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
See the pictures for yourself, if you think they are worse, I have nothing to laugh about. But to lose good photos just for personal spite seems a waste to me. 151.57.78.107 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The photos were uploaded before the blockade and are in any case better than the present ones. I was blocked for arguments on FP not for bad photos. If one cares about the article one wants a better photo regardless of the user. 151.57.78.107 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Blocked for arguments on FP? Please explain. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Practically on FP photos are voted on, and often criticised, I unfortunately responded badly, I admit, to criticism and was blocked. However the global ban was denied. Anyway we are talking about things happening years ago.151.57.78.107 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request of Geographyinitiative

I wanted to ask your opinion on this one. You blocked them (quite correctly) in 2020, after a pattern of disruption. They've been contributing to Wiktionary since then, apparently without any major issues (they had some self-requested blocks there, but none for cause since 2020), and are willing to agree to a set of conditions I think do address the ways in which they behave disruptively. Given that, would you object to a "last chance" unblock for them, subject of course to those conditions? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please use your own judgment. If you think the editor can contribute without further problems on enwiki, given a suitable restriction, then go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Unprotect 'Economy of Dhaka' page?

I am trying to update the GDP of Dhaka city. The original data was created by me but those links are now broken. I see the protection is because of possible "nationalist" motives. I can assure you that I have no such motives. I just sit on the relevant data, scientifically developed, and would like to update the entry. Stakacan (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the article states that Dhaka represents 40% of Bangladesh's economy. It is around 30%. Stakacan (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
We have had a lot of trouble with sockpuppetry on the South Asian cities. This appeared to be due to civic boosterism (the proponents of city A wanted to show it as ranking higher than city B). It is better to keep the protection. If you want to propose changes in the numbers, offer them on the talk page and include the supporting references. Then some other editor with the needed permissions can make the change. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Random IP users attacking another

Greetings. Long time. There's a situation at this IP user page. What's happening is, the same person behind multiple IP accounts keep attacking that user. Now I remember a situation like this several years ago that an anonymous individual was tripping up his cord to change IP addresses just to vandalize at the Sony Pictures article and other pages just to have his way. When you get a chance, please look into this. Thanks. King Shadeed (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This might be dealt with by semiprotection but I would need more data about the problem. In particular, the full names of any of the affected articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Request

That's not me. I don't know how the check user procedure working but clearly it is false in this case. Blubluman was my sockpuppet and every account in my sockpuppet archives belong to me excluding Historyofarmenia01. But any of these new accounts doesn't belong to me. @EdJohnston: Is there any chance to prove this? Also why I would take same name for sockpuppetry? It doesn't make any sense. 95.70.246.173 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

An editor is removing the claim of Jat ethnicity for Abu Hanifa

Vizualnoiise (talk · contribs) has, since 15 April 2023, been removing the mention of Jat ethnicity(referenced by reliable sources) from the Abu Hanifa article.

They have numerous warnings on their talk page, to which I have added a {{3rr}}. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You’re the Pakistani that has numerous accounts that is changing it. I gave you the reliable source “Al Bukahri”
you’re changing the info to what you wish he was not what he is! Stop with the lies. Andre wink is more reliable than that of Al Bukhari? Are you crazy! I will make a complaint about you. You are doing the same exact thing as me, but putting falsified information! With numerous accounts to make it look like it’s more than one person changing it! Vizualnoiise (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • "You’re the Pakistani that has numerous accounts that is changing it."
LMAO. Well, I am not Pakistani and this is the only account I operate.
  • "you’re changing the info to what you wish he was not what he is."
No. I am showing what reliable secondary sources call him. Nothing more. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Why are you putting that he’s Jatt? Are you Andre wink? All the Islamic scholars say he’s Persian why would you change that? Why are you taking away my history man. This isn’t fair I can’t believe you. I sent you the Hadith by Al Bukhari that talks about Abu Hanifa. Let me tell you you’re not a reliable source. No one cares about what Andre wink says. You don’t have superiority over Al Bukhari. I will never stop changing it. Why is it I get blocked, but you can continue your charade of wishful thinking. You’re not even middle eastern. Go deal with American history. No one in the Middle East cares about what Andre wink thinks believe me, sorry to burst your bubble. Everyone knows he’s Persian. He could have been a Persian from Afghanistan or present day Iran. Because I don’t know if you this Tajiks and Afghans are also Iranian. Now stop changing my history with this BS! Vizualnoiise (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Range block

Hi, Ed. There's an unblock request at UTRS from an editor using the IP address 2600:4040:2929:fb00:642e:8232:70fc:1f68, relating to a block you placed on the /38 range. I am currently editing on my phone, which makes doing a lot of checking fiddly and awkward, so I am much less confident than I would otherwise be, but it looks to me as though blocking 2600:4040:2800::/40 might be enough. Can you have a look, and see what you think? JBW (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yamla While I was writing the above message to Ed, you declined the UTRS appeal. If you have done enough checking to be sure the full /38 block is needed, then perhaps you can confirm that here, so that both Ed and I can forget about it and move on to other things. JBW (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
My reply to UTRS appeal #76075 was just the default template pushing them to request an account via WP:ACC. I haven't double-checked your math on the /38 vs /40 but am very happy to do so. Without giving away too much private information, it looks like there's reason to consider a wider block believe it or not, perhaps /36 or even /32, but I only have a few log entries on that rather than specific actionable information. I very strongly suspect EdJohnston can quickly indicate if the /38 is (still?) necessary or if it could be restricted down. Happy to use my checkuser tools if necessary and appropriate (I haven't yet, saw no need when pointing them at WP:ACC). --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Would be glad to hear whatever Yamla can find out. My own judgment on the necessity of the block was just what I observed from running Special:Contributions on the same address with different widths; I don't remember looking at the CU log. I also agree that what we have now (a /38) might not be wide enough. I have no objection if the editor involved wants to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look later today and post back here with my findings. --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

2600:4040:2929:FB00:642E:8232:70FC:1F68 is Verizon Business and the full range would be /24. You can read the complaint that lead to the block here. Previous attempts to resolve the problem failed. A quick look at the report shows the IP addresses in question this time around are 2600:4040:2836:6200:da5c:97de:5be5:4634 and 2600:4040:2836:6200:42c9:2e2d:7e11:7961 and 2600:4040:282c:ec00:dc18:ba4d:7902:d3a. The smallest range that would capture those addresses would be (calculating calculating calculating)2600:4040:2800:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/39, only slightly smaller than the blocked range. Now, the report implies these IP addresses were used by the same person. Checkuser data strongly implies the addresses in 2600:4040:2836:6200::/64 are a match; I can't make the same claim about the other addresses. I'm not saying they aren't, though. There's at least one sockpuppeteer operating from this range; privacy requirements prohibit me from identifying them, but they aren't one of the really bad LTA's. A fair number of constructive editors. This person is almost certainly behind other attempts to edit List of programs broadcast by The CW and List of Amazon Freevee original programming and List of Peacock original programming and a few similar articles; I found many attempts across many IP addresses that are  Highly likely to be the same person. I initially hoped semi-protection on a few articles would be sufficient, but it just wouldn't have stopped this user. I believe this user does not have an account (at least, not one that's been active recently).

I see them stable on /64 ranges and then hop to a new one. At the moment, an anon-only block on 2600:4040:2800:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/42 would catch the ones I'm fairly certain about. I have no reason to believe they are actually confined within that space, though, particularly as checkuser data doesn't go back all that far. A range larger than /64 should be anon-only (as this is). We could play whack-a-mole with /64 blocks but this would only slow them down a little, so a larger range is called for. My gut says a /42 block won't work, it's too narrow. On the other hand, I see no compelling reason to expand the range beyond /38; checkuser logs imply they were targeting other users there.

In summary: /38 is not unreasonable, if anon-only. A smaller /42 range could be tried but my experience shows that wouldn't work. Rapid-response /64 blocks could work but would only be minor speed-bumps. Page protection isn't going to be enough (but could be used in combination). This isn't a specific LTA or at least, not one active via their account recently.

Within the privacy restrictions imposed on me, I'm happy to answer follow-up questions. This was a lot of data to page through and not easy to summarise. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla: EdJohnston's a CU, you could email him the full details.-- Ponyobons mots 20:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Not much more to see, happy to email EdJohnston the key identifying information if he's interested. Ed, let me know. :) --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I would be willing to look at Yamla‘s findings, either via email or on the CU wiki is he wants to post them there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

. --Yamla (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


Well, thanks to all of you (Ed, Yamla, and Ponyo) for following this up. As I indicated in my original post, I was not by any means confident that my initial impression was right, and it looks as though it definitely wasn't. JBW (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Ed, I mentioned you at WP:ANI#Martdj, Martin Kulldorff, and odd crusade.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Help regarding global lock

@Md Sunnat Ali Mollik The account is locked globally. How to get rid of global lock need your help Please suggest what can I do. 45.250.228.45 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Md Sunnat Ali Mollik/Archive for why your registered account is blocked. User:Yamla has blocked the IP that you used to comment here. Your best bet would be to log in to your registered account and use WP:UTRS to appeal. However your chances of success there appear small. Socks were created on both the Bengali and English wikipedias. You continued to abuse multiple accounts after you realized it was against policy. It seems unlikely you would have had a recent change of heart, so it's unclear why Wikipedia would have any reason to unblock you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Ástor Piazzolla" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ástor Piazzolla has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 13 § Ástor Piazzolla until a consensus is reached. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Armenian flag spamming

This issue appears to be resolved. User:Samuel Khuspov has been blocked as a sock by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Ed, I stumbled across these two articles(Battle of Bulair & Battle of Kardzhali that mentioned a Andranik Ozanian in their infoboxes, and who does not appear to be mentioned in either article.

Andranik Ozanian appeared in both infoboxes, initially, with a Bulgarian flag next to his name. Certain editors then took it upon themselves to change said flag to the flag of Armenia, blatantly ignoring the fact that Armenia did not exist as a nation state in 1913(battle of Bulair) or 1912(battle of Kardzhali). Maybe these editors should read First Republic of Armenia?

  • FedayiChristian (talk · contribs) seems to have been behind most of the changing of flags to Armenian, despite battles occurring before the creation of Armenia as a nation state. Stopped editing 9 July 2023
  • ArturMusheghtyan (talk · contribs) appears to be spamming Armenian flags into battle articles that date well before the establishment of an Armenian nation. Is still actively editing.
  • TTskukataun (talk · contribs) restored Andranik Ozanian to the battle of Bulair article, when the article makes no mention of him! Stopped editing 13 July 2023.
  • Samuel Khuspov (talk · contribs) appears about every other week to restore anachronistic flag of Armenia to battle articles. Has recently editing as of 26 July 2023.

Not sure if these editors are one and the same, a coordinated effort, or just coincidence. I have refrained from posting warnings since I have no idea what warning(s) to post on their talk pages. Sorry to have such a convoluted issue, but maybe some fresh eyes can see this better than me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have notified ArturMusheghtyan and Samuel Khuspov. All four of the accounts listed above have less than 500 edits so don't comply with the community restriction that only allows extended-confirmed editors to work in AA2. Please let me know if you see further problems. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Ed.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Apparently, ArturMusheghtyan has chosen to ignore your post on their talk page and instead restore the anachronistic flag of Armenia to battle articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Diomond Eagle

Hi Edj, Hope you're doing well. Please address this request once. Fade258 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:The Diomond Eagle is now blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SMUTSS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Replying from the 3RR Report.

I wasn't sure if I was allowed to continue the conversation on there once it was closed, since that was the first time I've ever had to report someone. "Yes, I'm very grateful for the User who protected the page, thank the deity. And hopefully, it won't occur otherwise on other related articles. Thanks. Does user violate 3RR or is it unnecessary to pursue that, whether or not they were to register an account and continue behavior? That was my next concern." I just primarily wanted to ascertain that. If that unregistered user had been reverting continuously with newly spawned unregistered code names, or that one time a solid IP address that lasted for a brief chunk of time, could those all be connected and tied to the 3RR warning/block in some way for punishment, or was punishment not qualified from last night's excessive reverts? (At least 6, from their new account.) And if they were to register a username, that reverts to the same old habits, could those also be connected to that track record if they were to be reprimanded on the protected page?

If you want, I can copy and paste this all back on the discussion instead of your talk page. Sorry if I'm bothering you with all of these questions. Thanks in advance.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 18:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This is about a report at WP:AN3. Unlikely that you will persuade the IP editor to respond in a positive manner. Best just to deal with this with semiprotections as needed. It's usually not worth it to try to block a very transient IP, even if they break 3RR. If they create a *username* it would be a whole new ball game. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Dubious claims by editor who may be a sockpuppet

Hi Ed, could you possibly take at look at this CheckUser request I've made at SPI? I think all the pertinent links are there. As another editor has said, if this new account has outed themselves as a sock, they should be blocked. On the other hand, "even if it's not actually true, they're either trying to trick us into thinking they're an indefinitely blocked user or they actually are; in either case, probably WP:NOTHERE." This Sam.WikiKiwi sockmaster had 24 socks, including François-Ávila, the one who added the original section at issue in the Vikings article:

François-Ávila (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

Viking123456789 claims in his About the section "intermixing with the Slavs" post on the Vikings talk page to have written the content as a bad-faith hoax when he was "a teen in their angst".

Viking123456789 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It's all a bit strange, whatever the case. Carlstak (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced changes by User:DilutedHereticX

/* Original section title was: A concern */

I have just revert user:DilutedHereticX on the Justin I article.[5] This is not the first time I have reverted an edit of theirs. DilutedHereticX has been adding unsourced birth, death, years, or battle/siege dates, to numerous articles.

This is simply the tip of the iceberg.

I am not sure why they are clearly adding unsourced months, days, years, to articles. Can you help? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear. I notified the editor on their talk page and suggested they reply here. In my opinion they are risking an indefinite block. Previously, they were blocked from file space by another admin. They never communicate, and seem unlikely to be a benefit to Wikipedia. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Ed, DilutedHeretic has been back editing since 25 September and with this edit and this edit, I believe they have given their answer. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The user is now blocked, thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain what this means, please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Motion:_Removal_of_Unused_Contentious_Topics,_Shakespeare_authorship_question_(October_2023) Tom Reedy (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom has decided to abolish their sanctions from the WP:ARBSAQ case, but with the proviso that any sanctions on individuals that were previously issued remain in effect. In the future it is possible that some trouble may still occur on this topic. If so, admins can use their normal authority to deal with any tendentious editing that may occur. If normal discussion fails, you are able to report such things at WP:ANI or to any admins who may be interested. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Drag Race Italia (season 3) under protection for destructive edits?

You protected the page without delving deeper into the topic. Read the discussion(Talk page), you will find the explanation of these interventions. This is all very questionable. 2A02:B127:8F05:ABA8:BD99:FC74:1EB6:9AEA (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The article was semiprotected due to a complaint at WP:AN3 on 14 October. At that time I observed that you were continuing to revert from multiple IP addresses without ever posting on Talk. Now that one of your IPs has joined the discussion, I hope you will wait for agreement before trying to change the article again. If you don't do so, the semiprotection may need to be restored. I hope you will consider creating an account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

An old concern

I posted a concern, back in July, over a group of editors that were adding anachronistic Armenian flags and adding Andranik Ozanian to infoboxes.

It appears one of them FedayiChristian has reappeared after a 3 month hiatus and readded Andranik Ozanian and Armenian flag to the Battle of Bulair article.

Another interesting tidbit, user:German Guy2784 who was blocked as a sock of Samuel Khuspov, made the same edits as FedayiChristian on Battle of Bulair. Not sure if this is sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I left a note for FedayiChristian. Things are not perfectly simple any more because a review of WP:GS/AA shows that the community sanction for this area was changed on September 8. It would take further thought to see whether these battle articles fall under the revised sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on the edits made by this new user? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Sock of German Guy2784, blocked by Ponyo.
Honestly, I doubt FedayiChristian is going to respond. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrt to Economy of Kolkata

Hey, would it possible for you to lower the protection on Economy of Kolkata, the sockpuppetry that you referenced in your protection reason was circa 2021, it's been two years without any reports (I think) and doesn't really make sense have the article be indefinitely extended protected :) -- Sohom (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

OK but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blscholljim/Archive for the prior problems. I'll reduce it to semiprotection for now. Hopefully you will keep the article on your watchlist to see what happens. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor reverting repeatedly to restore his badly written version at Featured Article Nicholas Hoult

Nottedeluce is now indef blocked for continuing the edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. Having trouble with an editor calling himself Nottedeluce at the BLP Nicholas Hoult, who keeps reverting necessary copyedits of his last revision. English is not his native tongue, and he's introduced many blatant grammatical and style errors, such as redundancies and italicizing quotations. Another editor helpfully fixed the text, correcting the errors and fixing the badly written English, and was instantly reverted.

I started fixing his errors manually, and quickly realized that there were too many to make it worthwhile, so I restored the good version, only to see it instantly reverted. At this point, within a couple of hours he's reverted me twice, and the other editor once, leaving such edit summaries as his last: "My English is not correct. It is not my native language. For me it is a good article. DON'T DISREGARD THE WORK OF OTHERS!!" He's getting out of hand. I have left a notice at the article talk page. Carlstak (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, he seems to have calmed down, at least for now. Carlstak (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
And... now he's back at it. By my count, he's made 5 reverts in about 15 hours, and likely to make more, if his behavior so far is any indication. He's not responded to the ongoing discussion at the article talk page as of this writing. Carlstak (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Nottedeluce has been blocked 24 hours by User:Aoidh for edit warring. If the behavior continues a longer block seems likely. Notteldeluce has not left a talk page comment since 2015. His edit summaries indicate he might be having difficulty with English. Whatever his limitations may be, he ought to be willing to respond to concerns about his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Yes, one would think. Could be a maturity issue, too. Carlstak (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The block did get a talk page comment from the editor, and I tried to explain why they were blocked and how to avoid being blocked moving forward. I'm hoping the block and the explanation will help ensure they cease edit warring moving forward, but I guess we'll see. - Aoidh (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Aoidh, you went above and beyond the admin's call of duty, I think, with your detailed explanation on his talk page. His responses there don't sound very promising, though. I expect that as soon as his block ends, even if he stops reverting, he'll go right back to adding problematic edits that create a lot of extra work for other editors if they are left in place, and won't understand why other editors remove or change them. I will have more confidence in his future as an editor if he uses the article talk page, but I still have doubts that he "gets" it. As you say, we'll see. Thanks again. Carlstak (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
PS: personally, I don't think the editor is competent enough to be editing a Featured Article, especially with major changes to its structure and style. Carlstak (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:0:0:0:0/64

Hi Ed! In the last report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard you decided that the IP range appeared too wide to justify blocking, and told me to notify you if I notice any registered socks. However, this time I found the narrower IP range, 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs), which has been making controversial edits to grammar and wordings. This is very similar to Nguyentrongphu's editing style, which were mostly, if not all, unnecessary minor changes. See a more detailed report here. Given that their changes were unnecessary and controversial, has been occurring for a year now and I see no sign of other user in the narrower IP range this time, do you think a block is appropriate for this? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've now blocked Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:117F:95BE:0:0:0:0/64 for three months for block evasion, with the tag 'Apparently User:Nguyentrongphu; see my talk page. Consistent long-term behavior')'. Let me know if you see him using any other ranges. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Nguyentrongphu is still able to post at Meta if he wants to respond. See his comment on my Meta user talk. He claims that the filer of the complaint against him, User talk:Đại Việt quốc has been running socks on the Vietnamese wikipedia and cites an SPI in the Vietnamese language. There is also a mention of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChanComThemPho/Archive. I've not looked into that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppeting

Hi Ed, I think you told me to approach if you if I find any more possible sockpuppeting of User:HerbLightman. I think User:68.129.16.246 based on their edits of Euro and classic horror film articles. Same patterns of adding filmography notes and same "google a source" type of citations. Is there any further content I can provide to help with this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

See also your prior behavioral report from March 3: [7]. Last time around you reported 68.129.15.71 (talk · contribs) who was a different IP from the range 68.129.*.*. That IP stopped editing in August 2022. Here's an older ANI report from 2017 about adding unsourced material. The two recent IPs may be the same guy. Their addresses show they are both Verizon Business customers from the New York City area. CU won't help with IPs, so behavior needs to be used. Let me know if you see any registered accounts that exhibit the same pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure. The IP seems to use the same source (in a similar form (citing books by just copying and pasting content without page numbers here and here. Similar edits of just adding trivia to filmographies. (i.e: this "Filmed in England" and here "Adapted from play". As BigBoyWilliams, adding several alternative titles without sources: here, and here as the IP here. Like the other accounts, they also just like to delete warnings on their page, and do not like to respond. here on the IP and here as HerbLightman. Do you require more specific ones? or. . Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I have left a note for the IP editor here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I have not deleted any warnings from my talk page that I am aware of. I always try to add references for everything I edit on wikipedia but I'm not an expert yet on which sources are more reliable than others, but I try to do my best. If I'm told not to use a certain reference source, I don't use it any more, I'm not interested in edit warring with other editors. I only have this one account, so I have no idea why the complainant called me a sock puppet. I've been collecting and researching old horror films and serials for many years, and I am just interested in making the wikipedia articles more accurate. I also like to correct grammatical or spelling errors where I find them. 68.129.16.246 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Ed, I don't mean to steal your thunder, but it's very obvious, to me at least. I've blocked the IP for 4 months, the length of time they've been editing. BTW, they have removed a warning from their Talk page, not that that's very important.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Bbb23, thanks for taking care of this. This user appears to be someone who is well-intentioned, but is very sure they are correct about everything and don't see why they should have to provide sources. Most likely this is the same person who was reported as the IP 68.129.15.71 in 2017. The 2017 IP edits from the same /16 range as the one you just blocked, 68.129.16.246 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the Protection on Zamorin page

I had sent a Page Protection request on Zamorin page due to persistent disruptive edits from the same anonymous IP, thank you for protecting it. But the reported IP managed to sneak in a last minute edit, by removing sourced content added by other users and vandalizing it.

He did the same in the Samantan page too, but it was swiftly reverted and reported by other editors. Could you revert the page once to any of the previous edits by any of the other editors, before the IP vandalized it? Thank you again for the page protection! HölderlinRem1 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The problems at Samantan don't yet appear to be serious enough to justify protection. User:Sitush is one of the people active at Samantan and he has a good understanding of sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned the wrong article, I meant the Zamorin page. The anonymous IP sneaked in a last minute edit on the Zamorin page before the page was protected. He removed the entire passage in the lead with sources after it was finalized. I meant to ask if you could revert the Zamorin page once to any of the previous versions by any of the other editors.
The same anonymous IP tried vandalizing the Samantan page, but like you said it was stopped by other editors such as Outlander07. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead paragraph was finalized after discussion in December 2023, but now the anonymous IP reverted it to his preferred version by overriding the edits of many other editors. Hence I filed the RPP request. An hour before it was granted, he made a final edit that took it back to what it was before the discussions happened. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I have responsibly edited the lead section to remove unsourced caste promotion and redundant content.
Talk section is also added for constructive discussion where he is not engaging with references and sources, rather accusing other users who oppose his caste promotions.
It is important to note that his blatant accusations against me have been previously reviewed and dismissed by moderators. I urge you to refrain from repeating these unfounded claims and focus on constructive dialogue to enhance the article’s quality. 2600:4040:4527:3B00:BD5D:7C85:3ABA:7D42 (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
1. Unsourced? There were two sources attached to the paragraph, both of which said that the Zamorin was originally the "Samantha Eradi chiefs of Eranad." You also agreed to this in the December 2023 Talk Page discussion, your own quote from above:
"...the Samanthan Nair Eradis of Nediyiruppu (originally autonomous chiefs of Eranadu) demonstrated their political independence under the title of Zamorin."
2. Dismissed by other moderators? The only one who was dismissed was you who had your vandalization reverted by editor Outlander07 on the Samantan page, who also said that you were a Adithya Kiran sock puppet.
The lead is agreed by editors in common. You wanted to mention the "last king committed suicide and burnt himself in the palace" stuff, which doesn't belong in the lead as the fate of a single king is not a summary of the article by any means. But okay, I agreed with you to keep it there.
I'm asking for the origins of the Zamorin to be mentioned in the lead, as it is directly connected with his dynasty, in a single sentence, with 2 sources attached. And you keep deleting it, and the edits made by other editors over months to your preferred version? HölderlinRem1 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I have tagged some admins for their view on the page. The anonymous IP keep deleting the origins of the Zamorin, and replacing it with the same "final king committed suicide and burnt himself" line. The fate of one king is not a summary of the article at all, and should not be in the lead. The origins of the dynasty are far more important, and he keep deleting it.
This entire discussion, which has been going on for 2 months, is only because of that 1 sentence: the Zamorin was originally the Samantha Eradi chief of Eranad, before becoming the Zamorin.
Both sources state this, and the anonymous IP himself accepted this, which is how we got to an agreed lead in December 2023.
Now he's back with another anonymous IP, and reverting it back to what it was before the December 2023 discussions. Is that how it's done?
I asked for page protection for this very reason, and it was granted by admin. But the anonymous IP sneaked in a final revert before the protection was applied. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The requested line has been re-added with sources, so the lead is now complete. Thank you, we can finally close this discussion. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Page protection required for edit warring

The protection template was just removed from Awdal but a relative protection pp urgently needs to be added as the risk of edit warring from anonymous IP accounts and uder accounts are extremely high as has been going on for the past few months up until a temporary full restriction for edit warring expired last evening.

MustafaO (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

User:ScottishFinnishRadish has restored the semiprotection on Awdal. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, EdJohnston!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 TT me 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's greetings


Christmas postcard featuring Santa Claus using a zeppelin to deliver gifts, by Ellen Clapsaddle, 1909
~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~
Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas1}} to send this message.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Hello EdJohnston:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

IP from France

Hello. Back on 30 January, based on a report at ANI, you blocked 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:0:0:0:0/64 for two-weeks due to disruptive editing, unsourced editing, unexplained content removal, and to encourage communication. The block expired on 13 February and the IP did not communicate and has resumed their disruptive editing. Would you reinstate the block for a longer duration?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The same /64 is now re-blocked for another three months. Let me know if the problems continue. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
It appears they are evading the block at 2A01:CB00:28:5A00:0:0:0:0/64.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 03:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I've blocked the new /64 for two months for block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Range of IPs canvassing


IPs geolocate back to LA.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Vanessa Bryant

Hi @EdJohnston - I'm sorry I did not notice the noticeboard pertaining discussion about Vanessa Bryant until it was closed. I've added to the discussion on her talk page about my thoughts on this though.

Have a nice day! Clear Looking Glass (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ununtrium redirect page protection

Hello. The redirect page of Ununtrium to Nihonium is still protected, even though even the Nihonium page remains unprotected and there’s no reason for anyone to vandalize a random redirect page. Please unprotect it. CharlieEdited (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've unprotected Ununtrium per your suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

POV anachronistic flag pushers

New users, and one I have mentioned before, have added Andranik Ozanian and the Armenian flag to articles in which Ozanian is not mentioned and during times when the Armenian flag doesn't exist.

With the battle of Sarikamish, page protection would be prudent, but with an editor like FedayiChristian waiting 5 months to make another inaccurate POV addition to an article, page protection is meaningless. FedayiChristian is of that same group you pinged over my previous concern.

The IPs which have targeted battle of Bulair have been addressed by Favonian by blocks. Since FedayiChristian chose not to respond to your talk page message back in October 2023, perhaps a indef block is warranted? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked FedayiChristian and left messages for the others. There might be socking going on but it appears simpler to take action based on behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks Ed.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I have now blocked User:Lutz.cy for long term nationalist edit warring, after they resumed their contributions on 18 March without ever responding to the complaint. Their edits are (as before) being constantly undone by others. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

IP return

Hi, just to let you know 82.22.44.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back to the same type of edits after the expiry of your block from this discussion at ANI. FozzieHey (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The IP is now reblocked for another three months. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Should I notify?

Hey Ed. Thanks for blocking the sock of BWNH. I noticed you hadn't notified the sock that they had been blocked. Do you want me to leave them a talk page message on your behalf, or do you want me to leave it alone? Thanks again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Please go ahead and leave them a notice. We are talking about this SPI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright then, thanks. I'll leave a block notice. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:HD86

Sorry to bother you with this Ed. But user:HD86 has been engaging in disruptive editing along with a fair dose of personal attacks. Their only edits since 21 March 2024 have been to Aleppo, Aleppo talk page, and my talk page(after I posted a 3rr on their talk page). I also posted on their talk page that it appeared they had taken the information from the Ali Janbulad article, though I am not absolutely sure of that.

  • After a few more reverts I post a 3rr on HD86's talk page[14] and then I am told on my talk page, "And by the way, I certainly added much more info and citations to that article than you did, so it would have been better if you copied the references yourself at least to show that you are a positive contributer. That would have been a better use of your time."[15] Thus, now is it my responsibility to reference HD86's addition to the Aleppo article.
  • I would say HD86 is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They've refused time and again to add a source to their unsourced addition. They have wasted 5 edits on the Aleppo talk page, 4 reverts on the Aleppo article, and 3 edits on my talk page, instead of addressing the issue of adding an unsourced sentence to the Aleppo article. Clearly an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It was their inability to hear what another editor says that got them banned from my talk page.


Ignore this concern Ed. Aintabli filed a report at WP:ANI. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A.I TOOLS ANALYSIS OF SINGH ET AL'S RESEARCH

These comments belong at Talk:Sinhalese people. It is not up to admins to decide on content. And wanting to use the output of an AI tool in Wikipedia articles is unlikely to inspire confidence. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Singh et al's article was downloaded as PDF from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

And uploaded to chatpdf.com for AI to analyse and interpret the research findings.

www.chatpdf.com is an AI Tool that can accurately scan the PDF document and highlight important points. This was its conclusion

"1. The study analyzed the genetic data of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, revealing a close genetic affinity between the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, irrespective of their linguistic differences. 2. Genetic analysis indicated a significant genetic homogeneity between the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, likely due to long-term geographic proximity facilitating substantial gene flow. 3. The research identified traces of common genetic ancestry between the Sinhalese and the Maratha population, suggesting shared roots through fine-grained genetic analysis. 4. Despite linguistic distinctions, the genetic analysis of the Sinhalese population adds a significant chapter to the genetic landscape of South Asia. 5. The study highlighted the presence of excess sharing of smaller genetic segments between the Sinhalese and the Maratha, indicating a deeply rooted common genetic ancestry. 6. While the D statistics test showed non-significant results, the genetic data supported a closer genetic relationship between the Sinhalese and the Maratha population. 7. The genetic analysis of the Sinhalese population provides valuable insights into the population history of Sri Lanka, showcasing a unique genetic heritage. 8. The study emphasized the need for more ancient DNA research and Y chromosomal sequencing to determine migration timelines and further understand the genetic history of the Sinhalese. 9. The genetic homogeneity observed among the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils challenges conventional notions of genetic differentiation based on linguistic affiliations in South Asia. 10. Overall, the research underscores the complex interplay of genetic, linguistic, and historical factors shaping the genetic landscape of the Sinhalese population in Sri Lanka.


The following question was also asked to the AI tool

Q. does this research indicate a higher gene flow to Sinhalese from northern India or southern India?

AI's answer : - The research indicates a higher genetic affinity of the Sinhalese population with North Indian populations rather than South Indian populations. Genetic analysis of the Sinhalese suggests a closer relationship with North Indian populations, supporting the hypothesis of a North Indian origin for the Sri Lankan Sinhalese . Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


THE ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA ON SINHALESE PEOPLE IN THE GENETIC SECTION STATING THERE WAS HIGHER GENE FLOW FROM SOUTH INDIA TO SINHALESE POPULATION IS INCORRECT Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A concern about edits at Ptolemaic Kingdom

Gtolrmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Gtolrmy has made 5 edits. Aside from their edit on the Ptolemy article, every single edit on the Ptolemaic Kingdom article has removed references and referenced information. They hardly given any explanation in the edit summary. I'm not sure what can be done about this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Warned the editor. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Some people never learn. Latest edit by Gtolrmy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Gtolrmy is now blocked for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Student editors lack basic editing skills

Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. Can you advise me of the proper place to bring the recurrent addition of unencyclopedic, unsourced, and misformatted text by students at College of the Holy Cross to the attention of someone who will rein these students in and teach them how to write encyclopedic content, find reliable sources for the information, and properly format it? I would think that if someone is supervising the students it would be the instructor and Wiki Ed staff shown at the course page for "Introduction to Classical Archaeology", but it seems those basics of Wikipedia editing are not being imparted to the students, judging by the low-grade content they have been adding to the Phoenicia article. Here's a sample of text added:

Food has come a long way over the past few centuries, but despite this modern age still relates to the Phoenician diet. Phoenicians also began their mornings with cereals but was instead boiled like modern-day oatmeal... If it was not boiled it was in the form of bread or flat cakes, and instead of sugary add-ons like lucky charms, Phoenicians added pulses for flavor like peas, lentils, chickpeas, and board beans. Along with adding these greens to their cereals, Phoenicians were also huge fans of vegetables overall, which were harvested in their vegetable gardens. These homegrown vegetables went great with fish, their main source of protein.

Even when one of the students actually cites sources, the text is badly written and the markup is misformatted. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have seen this problem discussed, but don't remember where. You might consider posting at WP:AN and ask where you should follow up. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. I try to avoid AN, but might post there as a last resort. Carlstak (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Not to pile-on, but like Carlstak, I have found student edits at Samanid Epigraphic Ware less than constructive. The opening sentence was a mish-mash of copy & paste, while the references encompass entire journal articles(20-30 pages). --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking at Samanid Epigraphic Ware to perceive the problem you describe, I noticed that one of the recent editors was User:Ian (Wiki Ed). He might be able to advise how to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Anna Panagiotopoulou

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Panagiotopoulou&oldid=1224190278 και oxi Anna Panagiotopoulou 2A02:587:CC0C:1000:A48C:7F4D:6CF8:410F (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are my adminstats, for no particular reason

Admin statistics

Action Count

Edits 81145

Edits+Deleted 82834

Pages deleted 2347

Revisions deleted 27

Pages restored 79

Pages protected 4418

Pages unprotected 83

Protections modified 705

Users blocked 4926

Users reblocked 217

Users unblocked 116

User rights modified 28

Users created 46

WP:BLUDGEON issue

Would you be able to look at the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellenized Middle East? It appears, at least to me, that user:Aearthrise is bludgeoning the process. Thanks --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not yet any reason for admin intervention. The relisting comment by User:Liz was helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Armbrust The Homunculus 15:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Armbrust. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Edits reverted

I don't know how I feel about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP from France (since they are still active). They removed a sourced edit [17] here. The actor clearly appears in the film (at the 5:32 mark [18]). But, that is not the point, they seem to go rage mode as seen at Sukumari filmography here [19] @Aadirulez8: (they don't seem to care about non-Telugu content/promote non-Telugu actors as Telugu actors in the lead). I wish they had an account, undoing other people's edits in favor of their own, seems like that editor is establishing dominance. The worst part is half of their edits seem to put the right films albeit unsourced so they are both a boon and not at the same time.

Basically, I feel some edits are being undone (i.e. removing an actors film from their filmography), just because the IP removes it even though that actors appeared in the film, which can be annoying sometimes. DareshMohan (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly needs to be reported back. Let the IP be blocked by administrator. If a user wants to edit from the IP, they could create an account and do so. So, it will also be tracked efficiently. With IP been shared, there can multiple bad actors. Aadirulez8 (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I did here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive361#IP now in Algeria. Their edits are clear because they are all edits to Telugu actors and all tagged as visual edits. DareshMohan (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Noticing that an IP from the same /64 range that I blocked per ANI in January has come back with a hgh reate of edits and no communication or provision of sources for their changes, I've gone ahead with a six month block of Special:Contributions/2A02:842A:1BF:1901::/64. If anyone sees the same pattern of edits from other IP ranges please let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Question

Is Wikidata a reliable source for Wikipedia?

Per this edit added by user:Prakashs27.

User:Prakashs27 has also been adding birth, death, battle dates, and coronation dates using questionable sources, when they actually use sources. They have also used this source.

They added a date for the battle of Guadalete, ignoring an entire paragraph that discusses the possible dates of battle. AND, taking the date they decided upon(19 July 711), changed the date of death for Roderic, with no references.

User:Prakashs27 has warnings on their talk page for their editing from 6 different editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Almost forgot! User:Prakashs27 also changed the date of the battle of Tarain using Cynthia Talbot (2015). The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj and the Indian Past, 1200–2000, p. 47, except that Talbot makes no mention of any date for the battle. to which I removed the date and the misrepresentation of the Talbot source. In response user:Prakashs27 used Wikidata for a source(as mentioned above). --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed on Yevgeny Prigozhin

hey there - i don't intend to make any edits, but i was wondering if the page Yevgeny Prigozhin is still intended to be indefinitely extended confirmed protected. it was protected by you in february of 2023 due to an edit war going on at the time, and is still protected. is this intentionally left as extended confirmed or is it around the right time to remove those restrictions? 198.187.154.2 (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

See the 3RR case where I applied the protection. This has also been logged in WP:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War#2023. Per the wording of WP:GS/RUSUKR nobody who is not extended confirmed can edit articles which fall in this topic area. So this page is unlikely to be free of ECP any time soon. (Prigozhin, though he is deceased, remains clearly associated with the Ukraine war, so the Ukraine sanctions still apply). You are still free to propose changes on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
ooh, gotcha! yeah, i don't intend to edit the page but i've been curious about learning these wikipedia policies - thank you! 198.187.154.2 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Al Madeena Cherpulassery

Could this be deleted as already was, sock got back after while: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Madeena_Cherpulassery&action=history 93.140.190.14 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The redirect is currently deleted. Another admin has indefinitely protected the redirect against re-creation except by WP:ECR editors. I hope that will be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk)

Semi-protection of Khalil al-Hayya

Hi, as the page falls under a contentious topic with a 30-500 restriction (WP:PIA), I am curious as to why it wasn't extended-protected per arbitration enforcement? Also, you noted in the WP:AN3 section the existence of a partial rangeblock (on a much wider range), but I am confused as it doesn't seem to be related to that incident at all. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Upgraded to indefinite EC protection per your suggestion. The earlier range block was mentioned for reference; perhaps it's just a coincidence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Yeah, the disruption that led to the range block seems to have been pretty unrelated. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

SPI case(s)

Hello Ed; hope you are doing well.

The userpage of Lumbarschen, who was identified as a sockpuppet in WP:SPI/Arbe21 21 § 30 August 2024, remains to be tagged per WP:SOCKTAG. A clerk will probably notice it before the case is archived, but I thought of letting you know.

I would also like to ask whether the rest of the accounts mentioned in the comment section of the aforementioned case – Henrikurti and Randomuser2412 – were checked for "possible" links? They are reported in a different case (see WP:SPI/NormalguyfromUK § 20 August 2024), but the evidence in relation to Arbe21 21, is compelling. There is some additional suspicious activity that wasn't mentioned; such as Lumbarschen appearing a day after the creation of Skanderbeg's Serbian campaign by Henrikurti, to contest its deletion (diff). Though, this is not necessarily due to sockpuppetry; there are additional possibilities to consider. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

HerbLightman alias

Hi Ed,

Sorry to bug you. I recently cleaned out a filmography of Jesus Franco. I feel like an editor with similar editing patterns of User:HerbLightman has come in and made changes to more European genre filmography articles through the User:49Bottles account. Not sure if it needs more time or eyes, but figured I'd point it out. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Whups looks like we both did this around the same time here. Hope it does not complicate things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Symphony_Regalia

User was recently site blocked indefinitely from the Japanese wiki for brute forcing edits without consulting the Talk page first (this disruptive cross wiki activity started roughly a month after their initial edits on the EN counterpart), sockpuppetry, harassing JP editors who were against their behaviour with false accusations, as well as maliciously reverting edits of said editors (which coincidentally happened during the edit block request).

This user was under the scrutiny of an RfC and an edit block request, both of which were ignored by said user, except for the socks. User was continuing their edits on the English pages during the duration of both incidences. This user engages in aggressive POV-pushing and does not engage in Talks nor do they present information when pressed, as noted here, here and here. I would like to know what measures could be taken against this user. 14.192.210.103 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This IP user is an involved editor spreading false allegations. A CheckUser was performed and the sock puppet allegations were not substantiated.
I was blocked based on a comment request where only 3 people gave input, but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities. On Japanese Wikipedia I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart (on Japanese Wikipedia the Nanking Massacre is named "The Nanking Incident" and many of the genocide allegations are scrubbed from the article).
None of this is relevant as I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the CU request by a JP admin mentions "an abnormal amount of logins within a short timeframe" for those accounts, which was the basis of the block by another JP admin. It should be noted that the socks were created days later after your initial edit on the subject, all of which were involved in the same subject matter.
You were requested for comments on both the RfC and the edit block request to defend yourself, would you kindly explain why you chose not to do so? 14.192.210.103 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Conundrum

Hey Ed, hope you are doing well. I have a conundrum.

I have been unable to find this journal article:

  • Jeannin, Jean-Paul. "Jean de Luxembourg, seigneur de Haubourdin, dit le Bâtard de Saint-Pol." Revue Historique, vol. 147, 1923, pp. 145-175.

I checked Jstor more ways than I care to relate and found nothing. Revue Historique link


I have also been unable to find any mention of Jean, Lord of Haubourdin, Bastard of Luxembourg / Bastard of Saint-Pol, or Hennequin in this book:

  • Allmand, Christopher. The Hundred Years War: England and France at War c.1300–1450. Cambridge University Press, 1988, no page number given

It is searchable/viewable via Wikipedia's library link with Cambridge


AND, I have been unable to verify the existance of this book:

  • Browning, Reed. The Duke of Burgundy: Philip the Good. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1978, no page number given

World Cat has no record of it
Isbn search brings back weird stuff or books by Richard Vaughan and William R. Tyler

Would you, or anyone reading this, be willing to do a search for this information? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello KB. We have an article at Jean de Luxembourg (1400-1466). Why not explain on the article's talk page what you're looking for? I looked at Revue Historique, and their contents seem to be available through JSTOR, including 1923. Is your concern that there is no article in the Revue matching the reference? If Jean fought in the Hundred Years War there ought to be coverage. There is an actual historian named Reed Browning but I couldn't find a book by him about the Duke of Burgundy EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Some of these references were added by User:TorreyTree within the last few days. You could ask them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • "Why not explain on the article's talk page what you're looking for?"
The majority of editors don't check much less respond to queries on article talk pages.
  • "Is your concern that there is no article in the Revue matching the reference?"
My concern is I can't find the article used as a reference in the Revue Historique journals. I was hoping that I had simply missed it. As for the book by Reed Browning, I was hoping I was missing something there as well. It would appear not. I will inquire with TorreyTree for further information. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sock complaint about Sevens Football

One more sock-attacked page "sevens football" needs deletion, see my log Cenderabird (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are insisting that Sevens Football should be a redirect to Sevens Football Association and not be its own article. Has this been discussed anywhere? I notice that some of the past editors of Sevens Football are now blocked but I'm not well-informed about any sock issues that may exist. You could link to any SPI reports. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I put three months of semiprotection on Sevens Football Association. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Also can this page get protected please:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_Kerala# 93.143.217.6 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Check

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FK_Mlad%C3%A1_Boleslav&diff=prev&oldid=1244608500

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FromCzech (he breaks the above rule by supporting sock-made edit...)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing,_good_or_bad 93.143.217.6 (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
  • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
  • We plan to use the following schedule:
    • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
    • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
    • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
  • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
  • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
  • The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Slip-up regarding topic ban

This message comes to inform you that I slipped up with regards to the topic ban. During the course of visiting the Nikolai Tikhonov page, I noticed there was no date for the lede image and then (as a matter of habit) edited the infobox to reflect that the photo depicted Tikhonov in 1985. Almost immediately afterward, it occurred to me that such an edit was in violation of the topic ban and I promptly reverted said edit. You'll find that the timestamp of such edits reflects this.

Everything I have just said to you is 100% true and is not intended to justify a calculated attempt to bypass the topic ban that was recently opposed. If possible, please cut me a break regarding this mistake on my part in this one instance. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Emiya1980, thanks for your note. I won't be taking any action on your slip-up myself. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
This is also really pushing at the edge of the topic ban, since in an article with an infobox, the addition of an image is going to be to that infobox. Grandpallama (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Does participating in this discussion violate my topic ban?Emiya1980 (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
No, you should be able to contribute at Talk:AT&T so long as you stay away from mentioning the infobox. I notice that you just self-reverted your change to the first sentence of the article. That seems wise. Not because of your topic ban but because such a change would be a magnet for edit wars. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mistreated and Inhumanity blocking to Royiswariii and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Royiswariii Talk! 05:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The case request has been declined as premature because other dispute resolution steps would need to be used first before requesting arbitration. SilverLocust 💬 10:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, User:SilverLocust. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Query about outcome of edit warring report

Hello, Thank you for looking into the report I made about user 'Zombie girl509' reverting an edit made to Melissa McBride's Wikipedia page.

Please can I ask why I am receiving a warning? I cited reliable sources to prove that the information I edited is accurate, and I provided explanations for this edit. Zombie girl509 has been reverting this with no explanation as to why, even after I reached out to communicate about it. I have been trying to provide accurate information while it seems to me that Zombie girl509 has been reverting this with malicious intent. I reached out on Zombie girl509's 'Talk' page and I posted on the article talk page about the edit, but I received no response. If there's something else I should have done, please let me know. Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears you have reverted about four times since October 12. If my count is correct then your behavior can be described as long-term edit warring. So it is not just the other party who is at fault. You did the right thing by opening a talk page discussion. Usually, when there is a complaint of edit warring the admins only look at who is continuing to revert, unless the thing being reverted is blatant vandalism or misinformation. So being right is not a defence here. Let's see what User:Zombie girl509 does next. Be careful about phrases like 'malicious intent' since they don't seem to be trying to make the article worse. They could be sincere in thinking their version is better. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I appreciate and understand your explanation.
Thank you for your advice about the phrase 'malicious intent'. My concern stems from cultural context, which is external discourse surrounding Melissa McBride's role in The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon, which is the subject of this edit. The context is that despite the fact that her part is widely described as 'Lead role' and that she is an Executive Producer, a minority of social media users have been known to express hateful discourse about her and the character she plays in this programme. This includes attempts to downplay her role. These specific edit reversions seem, to me, to align with the behaviour that is seen on other platforms. I do believe that removing 'Executive Producer' and changing 'Lead role' to 'Main cast' is misinformation, especially as I have cited sources that prove the information in my edit to be accurate. But I appreciate that this may be a coincidence and that this specific user may be sincere. Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Zombie girl509 has been blocked 48 hours for continuing the war after being warned at AN3 to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm writing to ask for guidance on how to proceed as the other user has reverted this edit again and has not responded to any of my attempts at communication. Following their reversion, the information now on the page has removed and changed the correct information, which is proved by the two sources that are cited. Since the other user is not engaging in discussion to reach consensus and is continuing to revert the edit, despite the information I added being proved by the cited sources, please can you advise how to proceed? Thank you very much for your help. Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
You could ask at a film-related Wikiproject. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, please could you tell me what that is? Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:FILM. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Zombie girl509 has continued to revert the edit, with no communication, despite that another user and I are in agreement about the edit. Please advise. Asdfghjkl38 (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring IP at Fort Mose

Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. We're having trouble with an edit-warring IP at the Fort Mose article who insists on making unsourced changes to sourced content and adding misspelled proper names. Carlstak (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I semiprotected Fort Mose one month due to the unsourced IP changes and the edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. I think he'll come around to respecting other editors. He's no dummy.;-) Carlstak (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Dear Carlstalk,
This is completely unfair. My edits were very legit. Why did you erase all I did? And your words "Learn English" are very inappropriate. What kind of Wikipedia user you think you are by erasing others contributions and writing them what you wrote? Please reconsider. 31.164.184.21 (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore all I did is to provide more sources. Francisco Menéndez was considered spanish you like it or not. 31.164.184.21 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
You seem to be confused. You did not add any references to the article. Get your story straight. Of course Francisco Menéndez was considered Spanish. It's confusing to readers to say he was "Spanish Mandinga" without clarification, which an actual source would provide. And really, by now surely you know that we capitalize the word "Spanish" in English, but you persist in not capitalizing it. Carlstak (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
This edit presents Spanish in uppercase letters, which is noteworthy. Moreover, it should be emphasised that this matter does not pertain to the ongoing discourse. It is imperative that Spanish be articulated with precision in those sentences, as this practice mitigates the risk of misidentification. 194.230.146.181 (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_53&oldid=1260496794"