User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Drac2000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Caleb Murdock again

Please see this thread. Unfortunately his topic ban actually gave him permission to edit on the talk page, which he's doing in the form of personal attacks, which is a repetition of the actions for which he was blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? Is it OK to remove personal attacks? His personal attacks had been removed, he restored them, and he was blocked for doing so. Now he's done it again. The attacks themselves are a blockable offense in his situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody will regard Caleb's recent edits as improving his reputation on Wikipedia. But he didn't restore the personal attack against a named person that was originally removed by 2over0. There is nothing wrong with what you did, but his latest remark may not actually be a personal attack. (The question of whether something is a 'threat' or a 'warning' is constantly being raised, so it's not unusual to see that opinion being expressed). It seems to me he is just venting at the moment on the article talk page, and we can safely ignore him, unless anyone has actual plans to improve the Seth Material article. In that case, admins should do whatever is necessary to be sure those people can work without interference. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I get your point. "Personal attack" might be the wrong policy violation to mention. Such statements are failures to AGF, and as such he should receive a warning for that and for poisoning the well against me. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, will you please tell Brangifer and Guyonthesubway to stop removing text from the Seth Material talk page? They don't have the right to do that. Certainly, they don't have a right to remove the comments of Oasisoftheheart and 70.186.173.82 (who isn't necessarily a sock puppet if that person has never created an account). Thank you.

And by the way, if the article isn't being improved, that's not my fault. Brangifer and Guyonthesubway certainly don't have the knowledge to improve it! Oh, I forgot -- knowledge doesn't count for anything on Wikipedia.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

An appeal to reevaluate the current Kim Gu article

Sennen's edit in bold: Also known by his pen name Baekbeom (백범 白凡), he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history and also by some Koreans as an assassin, robber and traitor.

While I agree with the decision, Sennen's current edit is a clear distortion of the original article. This is the sentence he sourced from http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1854.html: Kim Gu was called the 'Assassin, Robber, Traitor' in North Korea prior to his visit to Pyongyang-. This is what he conveniently left out; after which he became 'Patriot Kim Gu'. The insulting comments by North Korea were made when Kim Gu was alive and had fallen out of favor with the communists (poltical enemies at that time). This is not open to interpretation. Cherrypicking a sentence does not prove that he is regarded as an assassin, robber and traitor in modern Korean history. Notice how Sennen completely ignores North Korea's praise, where he is championed as a patriot when he later visits the North Korean capital. And even then, such information is irrevelent to how he is viewed in modern Korean history. His use of "by some Koreans" implies that there is a divide between those who believe him to be those things and those who do not (which there isn't - Korean historiography revere him as a hero). It's an outdated quote, it does not correlate to how the people think of him now.

I urge you to review the content just once more. Akkies (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am frustrated that the discussion at Talk:Kim Gu does not reveal much usage of common sense by the editors. What we have is a slightly scary historical figure, who was revered by some and condemned by others. So far, so good. Just try to compromise on some reasonable language that reflects the sources. If the sources are only in Korean, then try to translate the relevant passages as best you can and see what the other editors think. Surely there are some Korean-language encyclopedias that have summarized the career of Kim Gu? Oftentimes, the usage of encyclopedias as references in Wikipedia is frowned upon, but if you look at what the encyclopedias say, you might get some ideas for how to summarize his career in a neutral way. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be totally fine if the source actually says what Sennen has put forth, but it doesn't. Akkies (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I try to get some 3rd party perspective. Akkies (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please ban Sennen goroshi from wikipedia for breaching rules bu editing every single Korean articles under his own POV, he always argued article should be balance but he's the real troll who edits with his personal opinions. Why wikipedia is helping troll like Sennen goroshi? does Sennen goroshi funds wikipedia?--Korsentry 14:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Korsentry, I refuse to get into any drama on another user's talk page. If you are serious about requesting that I am blocked from editing or you have any suspicions that I have not been blocked due to me financially backing wikipedia, then please take this elsewhere - ANI or wherever you wish. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Return of 5W/Ronn

So you said a good first step would be for their staffer(s) to create an account, but I think they beat you to the punch. I'm not sure whether to file a sockpuppet report or just let the user be for now. --Mosmof (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In the closure at AN3 I asked for an effort at good faith and I think the behavior of User:Babasalichai falls well short of that. 5W Public Relations and Ronn Torossian are now fully protected. If there is any sincere argument to be made that would justify adding more promotional language or removing some of the criticism they can offer it on the respective talk pages. I don't perceive they have any interest in consensus. They already seem to know what the WP:TRUTH is and according to them we're just being unfair. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Dear EdJohnston, I hope you are doing well. I noticed today that User:Shshshsh removed an Urdu script from the Bollywood film article Veer-Zaara. This is a breach of the agreement you established after the 3RR case here and here. I thought I would bring this to your attention. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong. I did not remove, I reverted a user who added it (Diff) on the same day, so what Anupam had told you is misleading and incorrect. If it cannot be removed, then it cannot be added either. BTW, from what I remember and see you said we could not remove/add such scripts until the 31st of March and not until consensus was reached because consensus to add them actually never happened in the first place. Don't worry, it does not mean I will go on removing scripts. I have better things to do. Take care, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY violations?

Would you please take a look at these diffs? [1] [2] [3] [4]

I've been reviewing the policies and I believe that Smatprt's strategy of wedging in references to the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly Oxfordism) into other articles violates WP:ONEWAY, and I also think it's misclassified as to the particular genre of WP:FRINGE it is. It appears that he's following my edits and reverting them. I've reverted one of them, but I don't want to get in a revert war and would appreciate your perspective before I do anything further. I've notified two others, Verbal and ScienceApologist, to get their opinions. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I am not "following" Tom. I have these pages on my watchlist as I have edited them. In fact, it appears that Tom is trying to delete or reclassify all mentions of the SAQ minority viewpoint from various wikipedia articles which I have edited: [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] and [[8]]. Regarding the first and second links, Historical revisionism and Fringe theory, the regular editors of the HR page had never suggested that that the example was improper in any way, but here is a link to a related discussion where a consensus developed that the SAQ was an example of a Fringe Theory/Historical revisionism [[9]]. And here is a link to a mainstream reference that uses the term "revisionist" in describing the SAQ [[10]] (paragraph 5), and one that uses the same term in reference to authorship questions in general [[11]] (second to last paragraph). Tom is clearly using my edit history, following me around to pages he has never participated in, and reverting my edits. This behavior started after I filed a RFC/u against him. Is this a case of WP:STALK or WP:HARASS? I'd appreciate some input on this. Smatprt (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not planning to take further actions regarding Shakespeare authorship matters. I suggest following the usual steps of WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't say that I blame you. And I apologize for the role I played in your decision making process. I know you tried your best to help. In any case, thanks for responding back so quickly. And best of luck on your endeavors. Smatprt (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warriors wearing their socks into battle

Hi, Ed. 2 days ago, a new SPA account named User:DarkHorseSki was created and began repeatedly inserting unsourced content into the Coffee Party USA article. Every edit had the effect of inserting content about an unrelated "Real" Coffee Party possibly run by "Campaign for Liberty" - apparently some sort of Ron Paul offshoot. Anyway, I reported DarkHorseSki for edit warring, and you gave him a short block here. Now up pops brand new account User:JnMalin, who immediately picks up where blocked-DarkHorseSki left off. Worse, he has created an unsourced Real coffee party competing article; redirected Coffee Party disambigs to it, and is now edit warring there, too, against other editors. My first impulse is to file a sockpuppet report and request an article speedy-delete (Category G5 - creations by a blocked user), but I have a feeling those would be futile steps in a battle I'm not looking forward to joining. Have any advice? Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion. I took some action. If there are actual reliable sources which connect this 'new' coffee party to Ron Paul perhaps some material could be added to the Campaign for Liberty article. Then there could be reason to create a redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action, and for the follow-up attention you've given the matter. Apparently to DarkHorseSki/JnMalin, you have done so because you and I have some sort of relationship. (I'll bet you chuckled at that. My perception is that you handle administrative duties evenhandedly, and where there is room for difference in personal opinion, yours has actually run contrary to mine.) Recent comments by the problematic editor today indicate to me that he plans to ratchet up the disruption. He simultaneously said Admins were making up rules as they went along; admitted he will abusively sockpuppeteer; he'll canvass like-minded people to join him in disruption on Wikipedia; and will re-instate previously deleted content without needing to first justify it. I do not share FisherQueen's optimism about where this is heading. I do appreciate your efforts. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Avicenna_sis @ 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I think the other editor needs to reach consensus before remove the whole contents of the articles. 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revws (talk • contribs)

The need to get consensus applies to all parties. Please make an effort to discuss, instead of removing his comments from your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the comments to another appropriate place. I don't see such policy that I need his permission in the link you provided. Revws (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I only moved not removed his comments.Revws (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger

Please see the revision history. Jonathansamuel is still active there. UserVOBO (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD template removed from PP page

An AfD template was removed from Miss Universe 2010 with this edit. The page has since been protected from editing. The deletion discussion appears to be on-going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Universe 2010. Would you mind re-adding the template, if no one else has done so yet? I've made the same request to Cirt, and at the AfD page. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the noticeboard

I don't think that when a banned editor returns without permission to provoke an editor it's fair to impose sanctions on the other party. They added a lot of false warnings, reported me with no real reason (like yesterday, in fact he broke 3RR and twice, not me). If you have questions about his accusations, I am ready to answer those, but I didn't want to address all the points there as it's a specific noticeboard.
You should realize that he had nothing to lose all along and was here to disrupt. I didn't even comment on the misleading way he presented the content dispute. It would send a very wrong message especially in the Eastern European area, if a banned editor could return to provoke, then report others, make serious changes in the most controversial articles without serious discussion etc. He's already banned, he "risked" a fake account only. Squash Racket (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools

Revws (talk · contribs) is now back from his ban, and has decided the best way to deal with the issue is just to AfD the list page. He failed to put the notice on my Talk page (not a problem as I had the page watch listed), on the AfD as well as beeing the Nom he also added a Delete line. I have placed a comment on the AfD highlighting that I think it is WP:POINTy nom from a WP:SPA, stuck out his "Delete" as the Nom and tagged his comments with the SPA tag. He without a edit sum reverted the changes - I have put them back, however can you please keep a watch on the page.

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Codf1977 not just stuck out the "Delete", but also delete and changed my comments. [12],[13]Obvioulsy, a disruptive behavior. Shouldn't User:Codf1977 be blocked? Revws (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice try but if you look what I did was revert the changes back to a previous version better difs to show would be [14] when I reverted the changes. Any change to the nom text was accidental and not intentional and were changed to the exact words you your self used in a previous version. You are a WP:SPA as your account exists only to edit articles on University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee with the one exception of this edit this morning where you revert an edit of mine for no obviously good reason ! Codf1977 (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977, you don't need to strike out Revws 'Delete' vote. The admin who closes the AfD will be able to figure out the situation. Also, tagging Revws' vote as an SPA is not necessary. You may add any clarifications within your own comment. For instance, you could link to the ANI discussion if you wish. Your vote would be more persuasive if you would discuss the substance of the issue. For instance, does such a list exist for other universities? EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)