User talk:EdJohnston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Md iet at WP:AN3[edit]

Hey, Ed, two reports against this editor have been filed. You blocked him in August of this year and then subsequently alerted him to WP:ARBIP. Based on the reports and the editor's history, I believe he should be topic-banned rather than blocked, but I'm not sure what the scope of the ban should be. I'd appreciate your thoughts.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, EdJohnston, that I Have two reports filed against me. I hope my intentions and attitude toward Wiki is well observed by you. The conditions in which you have to block me earlier were also clear and I was very clear to abide by the decision whatever Wiki felt reasonable.

Now the situation is similar, there is one more editor joined as SPA, seem to be somewhere related with present controversy going on. As you are well aware with history, I request you to have a look at my intentions against the revision being done by me. I have tried to use talk page best to the extent. On the world wide FGM deficiency issue, the fellow is trying to use Wiki as a platform to malign particular community, which seems not fair and they seems to trap me again to make me out of their way reading comments above.

I completely agree with user like User:Qwertyus and User: Anupmehra, who are genuine third party editor and have basics of Wiki norms and helped me lot on making the matter of article to the standard of Wiki.

I am a Wiki fan and think Wiki as a wonder media available to have free, fair, self-correcting, well regularised information, on which one can trust. There are millions of articles and a lot of well-wishers to keep it well managed. I also hope to be one of them, but have limitation of lack of language control and slight short tampered because of my age and a habit of doing instant arguments, when I see something wrong.

I had many warnings from my seniors as they always dislike arguments, I had to suffer on that account remained up to the post of AGM, but they value my knowledge and sincerity toward the subject I pursue.

Being declared Dawoodi Bohra on Wiki, I have disadvantage of being pro DB, but I also have in depth knowledge about the community and at least don’t want to misguide viewer on the subject and should encourage in reforms if I am helpful doing that.

Sorry, I am bit boring but the comment above given by Bbb 23 seems to dishearten me , thinking myself not worth / not of any help to Wiki to achieve its goal. I feel that there should be persons guarding the Wiki topics on which they have internal knowledge, and the topics should also to be up to wiki standard. Being a Fatimid follower I have tried to streamlined all the topics related, and tried to do justice with them. Any way whatever decision Wiki takes, I will honour.--Md iet (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if Summichum is WP:TOPICBANned. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that User:Md iet is personally too close to the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra to be able to edit neutrally. The best action is probably an indefinite topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra broadly construed, and possibly more. This will take some study, so I'll have to come back to this in a few hours when I have some time. Whether the topic of Female circumcision among the Dawoodi Bohra is adequately referenced and whether it should be referred to as Female genital mutilation is a matter for editor consensus, after looking at how the same topic is referred to in other articles. In fact, the first of these titles (circumcision) is currently a redirect to the second, which might suggest that the latter is the standard term on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ed and Bbb23, two reports against me have been filed at WP:AN3 and you have not taken much time on decision you decided. Hope you have studied the reports in depth and considered comments I made here above.

I got dishearten by comments of Bbb23 and appealed. I don't know, I am feeling surprised that what blunder these two WP:AN3 has revealed that you were so convinced and compelled to take a decision in such a hurry.

I have also committment to abide by Wiki norms and tried my best to cooperate with editor like User:Qwertyus and User: AnupMehra, but I am surprised that as suggested by user Occultzone in place of ban on user like Summichum , I made scapegoat, in such a hurry , seems slightly unbelievable.

I request both of you to relook at both of my complain done and consider my case afresh.

I am also trying to prepare a detailed reports on these complains, which would be submitted for Wiki perusal. I accept your verdict in sporting manner. I am not in hurry to edit DB article. If my intended material are genuine it will somehow reach to WIki articles through other routes and I still believe that only true wiki standard material will sustain its place in Wiki, as it have a global watch.--Md iet (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is report on first 3RR complain against me, may like to analyse please:

Report first: [1]

Main issue : Editing regarding FGM

1.All the issue were resolved and final wording were [2] as edited by Qwertyus (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 28 November 2014

2. Even these wording of Qwertyus was not acceptable to User:PolenCelestial and he again reedited it [3].

3.The issue was regarding sentence “A 2011 Internet petition, to be delivered to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, was the first public protest against female circumcision to emerge from the Bohra community.”[...remove link to missing reference..], which was specific about A 2011 Internet petition, which itself is referred as”” , and covered under news media by the heading ‘women go online to fight Bohra circumcision trauma’.

4. When reference name the petition as ‘female circumcision’, portraying the petition as of FGM by User:PolenCelestial is not at all as per Wiki norm, distorting the specific information when general word FGM is already mentioned in previous sentence for user guidance.

5. When I corrected the word, User:PolenCelestial deleted it third time, did 3rd correction on single word [4] inspite of clearcut explanation , warning and reinstated the word FGM, non-existent in citation.

The above sequence clear-cut edit warring by User:PolenCelestial , and admin banning me on the issue, which seem not reasonable at all. Now we can see the effect of banning me. user :summichum has started his vandalism, made majority DB a faction[5], a clear cut lie . .--Md iet (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet, your name is familiar to me because it appears so frequently at the edit warring noticeboard. Besides the specific AN3 complaints, your conduct also raises long-term questions. You usually edit so as to present the Dawoodi Bohra in a favorable manner (e.g. on the female circumcision question) and you also support one side of the succession controversy. Your August 27 block was for warring at 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). Your personal loyalties seem to prevent you from editing neutrally where the Dawoodi Bohra are concerned. Your statement above doesn't persuade me that you recognize any problem with your edits, or that you will behave differently in the future. So I'm declining to lift the topic ban. As it states in the ban message, you have the right of appeal at WP:AE and you can also go to Arbcom. Let me know if you need any assistance in filling out the appeal template. As you pursue your appeals, you should consider the wisdom of speaking very clearly and limiting your posts to 200 words. Concentrate on your own behavior and don't blame others for the situation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been editing along with 'Md iet' and it has been hard for me to collaborate edits on Dawoodi Bohra related articles what he primarily chooses to contribute about. Topic ban appears to be a reasonable thing. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I have expressed my limitations and conditions prevailing, to act in this manner. This was not done with intention to disharmonise Wiki activity, only to avoid Wiki to be used a platform for propaganda by some wasted interest. I feel that I was very aggressive/impassion, and that has caused the above situation. I also agree that being DB, I have natural tilt toward DB and that has to be aggressively controlled while editing, and till consensus is reached I have to restrain myself . Even though things are very true, but may not looked true in Wikipedia manner. I have taken support in this regard from both User:Qwertyus and User: Anupmehra, and also appreciated their efforts in this regard. When my friend Anupmehra is not supporting me, whom I had faith, I am further compelled of advice of EdJohnston on 'concentrate on your own behaviour and don't blame others for the situation, and now understood that although my intentions were right, but it should also look right to others, and my aggressive nature has made all the differences. I have strong apology for my aggressive behaviour to Wiki team, whom I have discouraged unknowingly. I promise all, for further strict control on my actions and voluntarily would not do any editing on DB related pages and will only put comments on related talk pages, till User:EdJohnston himself don't recommend it for DB editing. I have decided not to use my any rights, I accept User:EdJohnston decision with full respect.--Md iet (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Your topic ban includes related talk pages. Thus, commenting on them would be a violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Bbb23, I Understood the ban, these talk page commenting, I talking about is even after somebody else clear my ban.--Md iet (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel that WIki system shall take care of selective partisan activities if being done. It is my humble request to my fellow editors of taking care of aggressive editing done by a single fellow referred by me above, and restrict the activity by making those article controlled, up to date where fair consensus prevailed.--Md iet (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your continual guidance and advice, may I request you to share some guidance/alert to User:Summichum also (give a chance to learn as of us), to stop nuisance at Wiki and start getting consensus at talk pages before aggressive editing done on articles.--Md iet (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
User X has started his nuisance at Wiki in a manner of a perfect opposition to DB related articles. I respect his social uplift criteria, but he has intentionally removed many useful information reader may like to read, on plea of one or another to promote his partisan activities. He has used blogs from sources like Miligazzete and which are notable for publishing material of hatred among community and sectionalising politics. You may visit his editions and notices; many of them are being deleted. He is perfect case opposite of COI, may please advise him accordingly.

It is more than a week, I have realised my fault and assured you that I will not do editing on articles related to DB till you propose it again. It is my request that you may consider me of participating on DB related talk page and others at least, whenever you feel I am eligible for it.--Md iet (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There looks to be a lot of sockpuppetry about Dawoodi Bohra articles. So long as problems continue, it is not time to relax any sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reply, and taking care of the article so nicely. I further request to have a another look at the miscreant, doing repeated offensive activities even after reminders from Wiki Admin, and using purely partisan sources to do editing targeted for Shia community as whole.--Md iet (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


You have put page Bhargava under protection. dispute is about whether bhargavas are Brahmans or vaishy. Sevaral persons have given references which show bhargavs are Brahmans, but your page still writes them as Vaishy. Why ? It looks wikipedia has blocked all editors who called bhargavs brahman and allow only those who call them Vaishy. You shuld stop this non sense. bhargava are brahmans. You should correct the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhargava is under WP:GS/Caste. The community has authorized sanctions for these articles, since they often suffer from promotional editing and bad sources. If you have WP:Reliable sources to add about the Bhargavas, feel free to provide them and to make your argument on the talk page. As an IP you can still edit the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have given 10 citations on page Bhargava which state that Bhargava is a Brahmin community. But Sitush has rejected all. please look in to this.Bhargavaflame (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC):
It is quite painful that you put sanctions on my efforts to reach consensus on caste of Bhargavas, whether they are Brahmins or Vaishys. All the sources given in English language, 10 of them, have been rejected as unreliable for different reasons, most of them for the reason of poor English ! Sources written in Hindi of cource, you won't accept here. So for reliablity, the major requirement now is that source should be written in 'chaste English'. I never knew it. I never found this requirement mentioned any where. You should mention this requirement often so that non-English country editors could decide whether to write some thing on Wikipedia at all. By demanding sources in chaste English, you have only made fun of editors and authors from non-English countries, rather than looking seriously for verifiable and reliable sources on any page. If chaste-English is the first requitement for any source, I am afraid, I'll have to withdraw from here as Indian History authors may not have written in British chaste English. Please advise.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

Hello EdJohnston, I've noticed you warned editor Uishaki about his Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban[6] in the past, he has violated it[7] again and he's edit warring on this article regarding Israel related content. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, sorry to interrupt you with this, but i can't take it somewhere else now since it would be forum-phishing. The user continues with the edit war activity while violating the topic ban and won't stop, as always, until he's warned. Is there anything you can do? Thanks. Infantom (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Question re WP:ANI#User:Fleetham- Tendentious editor continues reverting[edit]

Hi EdJohnston, do you know why the WP:ANI#User:Fleetham was never formally closed/resolved?

I saw your comment, in which you noted that Fleetham was editwarring in November, but I didnt know you are an administrator, and so didnt ask earlier. May I ask why you did not formally close the case? why did the recognition of 5 reverts in 24 h not have any consequences ? We never got a resolution.

Fleetham continues to pursue WP:POV and after repeatedly announcing to revert a section in question, he did it, refuses discussion, reiterates WP:IDONTHEAR and, if his behavior is pointed out, accuses others of WP:PA or ironically "unwillingness to discuss". To me this looks like an abuse of process.

Today, he violated WP:3R: [8] [9] [10]

Today's edit war warnings: by me by Ladislav Mecir

With this in mind, please advise what to do next. I ve looked at WP:DDE. Can WP:ANI#User:Fleetham be rolled up again ?(I have no experience in this) or do you suggest WP:RFC/U ?

I hesitate to report this only to 3RRN, because it's more than 3RR, but a persistent pattern of a WP:DE and a 24 h, 1 week or 1 month block is unlikely to help. Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't advise that you reopen the ANI. It's too long for someone without awareness of the dispute to be tempted to participate. Why not see if any regular editor of Talk:Bitcoin wants to join you in a discussion of how to solve this? I noticed User:Laser brain made a comment in the ANI. He is an admin and is also experienced with content work. If he is too busy, perhaps you can find some other experienced editor. I'd recommend creating an WP:RFC to solve whatever dispute is most pressing. A content RfC is less painful than an WP:RFC/U and it should be easier to get people to participate. If agreement is reached in an RfC and, for any reason, User:Fleetham won't accept the result then it is easy for admins to proceed from there. Bitcoin is a difficult article and it's not surprising to have disputes there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, and so quickly. I see why no ANI. So you do not advise 3RRN ?
Can you please say why you did not formally close the case? Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
ANI reports often expire without action if they are long or if it seems there is some case for both sides. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

EW report[edit]

I have just reverted one of the edit by SandyGeorgia[11], as I thought that we also keep withdrawn report, just like you had mentioned once[12] before. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it odd that it is taking (so far) five hours for an AN3 to be actioned? In the intermin, over at WP:ENI, an admin protected the article and sent all the students off to a sandbox, after the which the edit-warring student finally made his first ever talk page post, pleading to have "his" article back, since he needs to submit it tomorrow for a grade. Ah, the fun. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if the student is blocked at this late stage, since in my experience, students never return once their course work is submitted, and the article is now protected. But I removed the AN3 out of general frustration that it was still there when I came back from a nice long dinner out:) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for writing and explaining SandyGeorgia, I only informed EdJohnston so that he can know the reason behind my edit and you may further discuss over here as others hardly ever use the board's talk(page) for discussing about edit-warring cases. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yea, I understood that ... I was just taking advantage of your ping to chat with EdJohnston, since I so rarely get to spend time with the more sane among us :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Most likely this issue is now addressed. In most cases, getting a five-hour response at WP:AN3 would be very good. Your arguments suggest we should respond more vigorously when misguided article edits happen as a result of student programs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on The Captive[edit]

Hey man, not sure who else to go to, but there's a big issue going on.

There have been many acts of vandalism on the page for The Captive (2014 film). I'd suggest that the page be protected for a while to get things under control since I can't do any reporting at the moment. Please respond if you can. Thanks. Theironminer (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Theironminer: I notice that another admin applied a short semiprotection which has now expired. Since I know nothing about the subject of this article, I cannot tell which edits are vandalism. Can you supply a diff? EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I've now semiprotected for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - Theironminer (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement templates[edit]

What if same page falls under 2 types arbcom sanctions, you can insert both templates on the user's talk(page) as a reminder? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hard to answer this without knowing which article you are talking about. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Ayurveda, under Wikipedia:ARB/PS and Wikipedia:ARBIND. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Better to use WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Also John should log his action on Wikipedia:ARBIND? Just like he had logged on Wikipedia:ARB/PS. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
In answer to the question you withdrew, I see no reason why you would log the same action in more than one case. That may cause confusion, due to the rule that people have to be notified of the particular case before being sanctioned under it. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for writing, inserted the question back for ease. I agree too. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 MLS Cup Playoffs[edit]

Could you please revert the flag decorations as well? There's a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why it's not necessary. Anon has finally started to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe you have consensus to revert the flags, you could do it yourself. Otherwise, open a discussion and wait for the result. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage editing- Asking for an advice[edit]

  • User:DeCausa is repeatedly deleting / hiding my editing in Six-Day_War talkpage. His reason: "There is no point in taking up extensive space on this page; no one else is engaging with you on it'. My view: it is a live list of quotes (and growing) which is supporting the ongoing argument in the previous section. I warned him that you offend wp:TPO :" you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.
  • What for is this list of quotes?
    • I inserted this direct quote of a respectable wp:rs: "Nasser responded by taking three successive steps that made war virtually inevitable". User:DeCausa is against it and claims that " there is no scholarly consensus whether one side was at fault more than the other in increasing those tensions", but he is not supporting his claim despite my repeated reminders. So I decided to provide a list of quotes who support the "inevitable" claim, in order to show User:DeCausa that a significant number (may be majority) of wp:rs is for the "inevitable" claim and against his claim.
  • Consensus: At the moment, there are 2 users for his claim (User:DeCausa, User:Dailycare), and 3 for my claim (User:Ykantor, User:Tzahy, User:WarKosign ). However, they can call other editors on demand, so eventually the consensus will not be for my claim.
  • -I am not looking to win, but rather to present those 2 opposed views in the article, according to the rule, provided both are well supported. The present article is misleading and leaving opened the possibility that unprovoked Israel attacked Egypt.
    • User:DeCausa want to exile the war's reasons to other existing article, so this article will not deal with the war reasons. But since other (mentioned) featured articles includes the war reasons too, he is not right, in my opinion.
  • Am I right when asking User:DeCausa not to edit / modify/ hide my talkpage edit? if so, will it be possible for you to tell him to stop this talkpage modification? Ykantor (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

EJ, I'm not sure it's clear from Ykantor's post which section he's complaining about. For info, it's this section at the top of which he has stated "Please keep for quotes only". I've collapsed it but left intact on the talk page. DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The quotes are now in a collapse box at Talk:Six-Day War#inevitable- quotes]. Surely that option will be adequate for now. Per WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I interpret that as saying that the use of collapse boxes depends on editor consensus. If people complain that the quotes take up too much room then consider putting them in the talk page archive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Ykantor (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Please visit my talk page. I am surprised by the events. May please analyse the case. I hope you will believe on me and do the needful please.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, hope you might have had time to read and analyze my explanations. I am banned for the fault which I have not not done. Please may read them, if not yet done so. Your subsequent block(proved unjustified by me) has also expired. Please have me your final verdict, as I am serving a punishment for a fault which I did not not do at all. May please have some time for reply.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Qazxcv1234, I don't understand the comments at your talk page. But so long as you can stay completely away from articles with any connection to the Dawoodi Bohra, you should be fine. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft merge[edit]

Hello EdJohnston, would please take a look at discussions HERE and HERE and then HERE? I've already requested it to Mark Arsten, but apparently he is away, so I came here to you to help merging Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film) into The Jungle Book (2015 film) per discussions. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF, are we sure that principal photography has begun? The post in seems inconclusive. The phrase 'in production' for a movie that uses animation could mean more than one thing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually production has begun in November as Russo brothers visited the set, while in December the comingsoon post is saying it's underway. There are some other sources also saying the film's in production. And about "in-production," it's mean "underway." It has already been an issue but was settled. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 06:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Now check this out. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 03:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
When are you going to do this? --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 10:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Why not ask some other admin? If principal photography had actually begun you'd expect to have a clear statement. And there is no point in doing a histmerge if the article continues to be redirected frequently. If you want to find someone else to look at this, post a move request at WP:RMTR. When doing so leave a note that a histmerge is needed. (A histmerge may not be possible anyway due to parallel histories). EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
But you can do this, so why don't you? Principal photography has actually begun, and look at the first edit in the article, Favre1fan93 moved the page to draft. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Please ask someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Avono topic ban[edit]

So you know, I mentioned the topic ban against Avono as part of the arbitration evidence. While I am not naming you or suggesting your overall conduct was problematic, if you wish to respond there feel free.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It is unclear how I could respond. It seems that you disagree with the result, but I don't know where to go from there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't have to respond. I am not suggesting any action be taken against you or anything, just felt it would be appropriate to notify you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

CSG International[edit]

Hi Ed. I was wondering if you had the time/interest to consider the draft I've shared on the Talk page. It's a pretty straightforward article where I'm reducing promotionalism, adding missing legal disputes and just improving the overall quality/sourcing/comprehensiveness in preparation for a GAN. CorporateM (Talk) 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello EdJohnston, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Turan22 socks?[edit]

I have noticed an increase in "new" editors pushing an Uzbek POV.[13][14]blocked by you[15] Siktirgitir, in particular, is blanket reverting user:Edward321 over multiple articles. All these "editors" seem to be making edits typical of Turan22. Any suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The history of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī is starting to look like a sock parade. Do you want to file these accounts at SPI? If as many as six accounts (including one who has been here since 2013) wind up needing to be blocked it will be appropriate to have an SPI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Surprise, surprise, one of the original socks has reverted you.[16] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC

Move away the Iranian people from category of an Ulugh Beg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangar07 (talkcontribs)

User:Siktirgitir might not be the same person as Turan22. He does leave edit summaries and has a distinctive writing style. Some IP data suggests that people who take an interest in these articles come from both Tashkent and Sweden. I'm unsure on whether O.Turani could be connected. He has an existing SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/O.Turani. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Siktirgitir appears to be a meatpuppet or simply vendetta reverting. I have never encountered O.Turani, as far as I can recall. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont know who this turan22 is? I am working on my own I do have a life besides editing wikipedia articles which kansasbear which many of you doenst seem to have sadly, Siktirgitir (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)siktirgitir

What the proper forum to report this post by Siktirgitir? [17] Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


I feel an obligation to notify you about this ANI thread [18], because you were the sanctioning and closing administrator here. To my shame, I forget completely about this previous ANI discussion that had happen more than a year ago, although I remember this user (I did not interact with him also around a year). All the best, My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What's now about the compas page?[edit]

These serial protections are not effective; you need to control those IP# who at will are disturbing pages with valid references while they often have a website reference. You've been asking for sound references and you accept that anybody come to remove them? The compas references are all over in scholars' books. I don't think Wikipedia readers should wait any longer to read the whole compas articles in its integrality because of some people with no case? I have never requested any protection because there is no need when articles comes with sounds references. I would appreciate it if you could reinstate the page. Merry ChristmasPintade (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please use Talk:Compas to get consensus for any changes that you think are advisable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)