User talk:EdJohnston

Regarding edit warring notice report

Hello, I hope this finds you well.

I am contacting you regarding a recent edit warring report I have filed for U:JulesAgathias. The action you have taken to this was "both users warned", which deeply disappointed me as I've made a very clear case that what Jules engages in is little more than vandalism.

I'd like to make the matter clearer and shorter to you; I have added information to the article, regarding a wide scope (background, battle, aftermath, etc) and have added citations to every single bit I have written. Jules then edited the article, and removed certain bits of information that I added; all specifically pertaining to number strengths of the Ottoman army, and wrote a message on my talk page saying "they do not constitute sources". I then went over the matter and re-added the information, this time taking care to add the citations with page numbers included in them.

Jules then made a revert once again. And I dutifully assumed he still has an issue with clarity or formatting, to that end I re-added the information and made the wording on the citations clearer, and included links to archive.org where the user can verify the information himself instead of deleting it outright. Jules then made another revert, and here I went to discuss the matter with him on his talk page. The response made by Jules in his talk page can be seen here, and I'll quote it in full;

"According to Mustapha Pasha" constitutes as much of a source as Napoleon's own correspondances or memoirs. They, in both cases, remain personal (and contemporary) takes reported, not assertions by modern historians. The former do not take precedence over the latter. And yes, I did read Connelly, Pawly and Isenberg's books (in case you didn't notice, some of the page references in the articles were done by myself). I also read the portion of Richet and Furet's "French Revolution" discussing the battle. I don't know if you did, but you should. In the latter, it is written that the Ottoman army was 18,000-strong (I don't know where the 15,000 came from but it is certainly not from that book; I don't know if you were the one to add it) and they highlight that according to Seid Mustafa (so Mustapha Pasha), only 8,000 of the Ottoman soldiers were in a condition to face the French at the time (likely also referencing the correspondance). They were certainly close but not quite right as Mustapha actually had stated only 7,000 men were, which is why removed the former about the 8,000 and maintained the 7,000 claim as it was actually what Mustapha said. The suggestion was that some of the men who faced the French troops at Abukir suffered from disease by the time the Ottoman army landed at Aboukir Bay. However, nowhere was it suggested in the sources on the page and the ones you yourself linked, that 7,000 troops represented the strength of the Ottoman army. We clearly know more than 7,000 men were there considering the casualties. The choice of putting that first and foremost in the infobox (and above Connelly and Pawly's estimates at that) is not strange?! I also purchased Strathern's book after your edits (I properly linked it in the references at the end of the article as you hadn't done so, which you then removed again seemingly......). I read the portion relating to Abukir. Strathern reported what Mustapha had stated to Smith about the state of his army (having just a few thousand men in his force fit to fight the enemy) just like the French historians mentioned above did. Those weren't personal estimates on the Ottoman strength he gave. Regarding British involvement: there was a lack of consistency. Britain is not listed as a belligerent in the infobox next to the Ottoman Empire. You can add it, which then justifies adding Smith to the commander section or leave both Britain and Smith out. I chose to do the latter until it was addressed in the Talk Page. That was my only issue in that regard, so you do what do what you see fit"

Jules first issue with the information I cited is that it is "primary" and does not take precedence over academic sources; to this end, I had actually cited both primary and academic sources, so he is wrong on this count. 2nd of all, Jules mentions other information on the article in the following statement; "I also read the portion of Richet and Furet's "French Revolution" discussing the battle. I don't know if you did, but you should. In the latter, it is written that the Ottoman army was 18,000-strong "I don't know where the 15,000 came from but it is certainly not from that book; I don't know if you were the one to add it", this was not added by me, it was added by some other user, which Jules had deleted. Jules claims this is fake information, and claims to have red the source material it came from, but judging from his track record so far in refusing to read citations I include and in light of something interesting I'll mention later I strongly doubt that Jules has actually verified whether that information is wrong or not or even have read Richet & Furet's "French Revolution". Jules' 3rd gripe is a lot of SYNTH and original research, which does not belong in a wikipedia page (I do not want to add any numbers from my pocket or such, only ones mentioned in sources, primary or secondary). Jules ends his paragraph by conceding that he was wrong about British participation in the battle (before, he would remove it and claim that no where in my sources it is mentioned that the British participated in any direct capacity in the battle, even though I had plastered an archive.org link in his face with the page number so he can read contemporary letters showing otherwise, but he finally conceded when I had actually copied the contents of this letter to the page, so in a sense Jules had helped grow the article's informational capacity with his biased edit warring).

To close all of this, I would like to mention once again that Jules' talk page is filled with edit warring complaints and accusations of bias. I am not here to fight petty wars over people who imbibe the concoction of nationalism, I wanted to, and took pride in adding more to Wikipedia articles, and remove misinfo wherever I found it, to help inform readers. Jules to me is an outrage against the idea of a neutral informational library or platform, he's trying to push his biases in a variety of pages regarding French history or French matters, and I was deeply disappointed to know that I was warned over my conduct even though I had attempted to discuss this matter with Jules, and responded to him diligently, while he dismissively and conveniently claimed that the "reply function" to my thread was "blocked", and went ahead and continued pruning things out of the article.

Best, looking forward to hear from you on this. Sormando (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

If you see there is a dispute, it is never the right thing to keep on reverting. That is when you should be undertaking the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's no point really. I'd probably find someone as un-enthusiastic and careless about this as you are. it's fine, let this "neutral" platform be under the mercy of fervent POV pushers and nationalists.

Good day. Sormando (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing warning for a user

Hello. Thanks for your help here The User:Akshaypatill deleted the section again + deleted another edit from user at the same time on the same talk page! Thanks for following up. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The AN3 complaint has now been closed by another admin here. I left a comment in the thread. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Cathyoates and Possible CoI edits, again

• Cathyoates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex the Astronaut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Megan Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Discussion on my talk in March, 2021

Refer to your own archive, here. The same editor has recently edited at Alex the Astronaut see diff and at Megan Washington (and associated album article), see diff. A person named Cathy Oates is owner/chief manager of Original Matters talent agency. Washington and Alex the Astronaut are clients. Since July 2021 that person is also Head of Marketing for Warner Music Australia. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• User:Deb has left a COI warning at User talk:Cathyoates#Possible CoI edits, II. You also started a discussion at Talk:Megan Washington#Connected contributor that appears promising. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Retirement from Wikipedia by User:RapMonstaXY

After five years, what a long journey it has been. I am now going to retire from editing on Wikipedia. I feel like I don't wanna contribute anymore. Goodbye. (ps pls permanently block me as I am retired.) RapMonstaXY (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you are going. If you wish to be blocked, try one of the admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Continued topic ban violation by USaamo

• USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Two-nation theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As you are already aware, you had topic banned USaamo from "from the topic of wars between India and Pakistan".[1]

Until now he has violated it multiple times,[2][3] as recently as May 2022.

He just violated this topic ban again on Two-nation theory right here by removing content about "sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971", the same page (Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020.[4]

Either a block or expansion of his topic ban is clearly warranted now per my explanation here about 2 weeks ago, as well as this recent topic ban violation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I am leaving a note for USaamo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have replied to this editor about his accusations when he showed up at that report and my reply is still the same to that extent. [5]

As to this report, I don't understand how do a mere mention about a conflict and that too undue POV pushing and based on original research in an article make it India Pakistan war topic when it's actually an article about pre-independence phenomenon that was there before the existence of the states of India and Pakistan. At best it's the matter of clarification whether topic ban applies to it or not and as I've always abided by it, I intend to abide by it in future as well.

Having said this I have reservations over the behaviour of User:Aman.kumar.goel which is like WP:WIKIHOUNDING me everywhere on Wikipedia which needs to be stopped! USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Your reply confirms that you violated the topic ban after you have been already told enough times that the topic ban is broadly construed. This is not even the first time that you have violated your topic ban. Your false accusation of wikihounding shows your own battleground mentality. I am editing this article for years, and that's how I observed your edits. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Does User:USaamo's editing at Two-nation theory concern the wars between India and Pakistan? I assume that the two-nation theory is a political, not a military issue? EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)