User talk:EdJohnston

Talkbacks

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

User:Nmatavka restrictions

Hiya EdJohnston,

Sorry to have to do this, but I reverted your closure of the AN discussion and addition of restrictions on the WP:RESTRICT page. I don't really feel terribly strongly about not placing restrictions on the person, but 4-5 days of discussion among 3 editors (one of which was the nominator) seems a bit premature, to say the least. I don't think that the restriction itself is terribly well thought out anyway, but that's a subject more appropriate for AN.

Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs), Mjroots (talk · contribs), HominidMachinae (talk · contribs), Kaldari (talk · contribs), Danger (talk · contribs), and I supported the topic ban. Six editors had supported the topic ban and five-and-a-half days had passed. Community bans from any editing of Wikipedia usually last only two days. This editing restriction, which is less harsh, does not need to last for more. EdJohnston, I endorse your closure of the AN discussion as reasonable and believe Ohms law's reversion without consulting you to be inappropriate. Closes by neutral admins should not be reverted when there has been sufficient time and participation. EdJohnston, would you restore your close? Cunard (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have invited Ohm's law to offer his opinion here of what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, six editors. Five and a half days (how about we just say six days?) Is that enough time and buy in to permanently restrict an otherwise (seemingly) productive editor (at the very least, this certainly isn't a vandal only account)? I really think that y'all are jumping the gun here, for reasons that I added to the section on AN. That being said, I re-opened the section and added my rational, so I've had my say. Whatever happens now, I'm basically content. I think that it would be... unseemly for any of the three if us here to take further actions (in terms of closing the discussion, or whatever), but that's up to you guys.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good faith should usually be extended to good faith contributors. However, User:Nmatavka writes on his userpage: "Hey, my name is Nick, and I've decided to make Wikipedia my own personal playground. As you can see by my abnormally huge language bar, I'm a polyglot, and no, I'm not compensating for anything!" Note the not safe for work link of "anything". Have you reviewed his inappropriate userpage creations and the attack language he wrote at User:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance? Nmatavka's most recent userpage creation contained personal attacks and circumvented community consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp. In light of his behavior, and in light of his decision "to make Wikipedia my own personal playground", the participants of the topic ban discussion have concluded that his disruptive behavior should be curbed. Restricting the creation of further userpages will encourage him to concentrate less on "mak[ing] Wikipedia my own personal playground" and more on building the encyclopedia. I will post a request at ANI for another uninvolved admin to review and close the topic-ban discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Herve Leger

Sorry, I missed your intention at Herve Leger, so I reverted the unusual account before they had a chance to blatantly ignore your requirement that they self-revert. I guess now we have to see what they do next. Looks like these two, err, people, were deliberately trying to be mirror-images of each other. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve the Herve Leger article. We should continue to keep an eye on both of those editors. I thought you were an admin :-). EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
Message added 19:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

militant atheism article talk page threats

I think this is a threat to my well being..

That's my deal - mess with me on WP, and pay in the Real World, and I am not afraid of anything that the realigionsist wanna throw at me' [1]

I have no idea whom this person is.. But this is the second type of threat they have made toward me the first one I removed from my talk page. [2]

Stating that "If I get any further problems from you I am going to complain directly to Father Hopko and the various echelons of the Orthodox Church in the USA with which I am far more familiar than you are likely to ever find out,"

I am OK with this person making comments to Father Hopko as Father Whiteford is already on the article talk page right now. At what point does this person whom obviously is familiar with Wikipedia gets some attention from Wiki people other than me? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa - I just noticed this. .. Out of all of the words, taken out of context, I can see how that would be mistaken for a threat. SO let's slow down for a minute here. I can apologize for the tone there. But what I meant was only pay in the sense of the reputation of the church for these shenanigans. Don't read into it anything more than that. But yes, i think it is OK to hold me accountable to make this clarification. But don't over react all paranoid, either. It means pay in the sense of if you get me censored here then pay the price of the history of the event is that the church is up to its old tricks of censorship. That's all and there is nothing more to it. And I was not the one who put the focus on other users, the other user started to put the focus onto me personally and that is the genesis of personal attacks here. THis is classic ripping out of context. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy of my post to User:Devilishlyhandsome

To aid in understanding of Devilishlyhandsome's response below, I've included a copy of my own post to his talk page, which he has already removed:

=== Personal attack at User talk:LoveMonkey ===

In this edit you threatened off-wiki consequences to User:LoveMonkey from people at the Orthodox Church if he persists in his current position. Not only is this a personal attack on LoveMonkey, your threats place you at risk of a block. Please cease this abuse unless you want to get unfavorable attention from admins. As a brand-new user with very strong opinions you are already in a peculiar position. These comments to LoveMonkey do nothing for your reputation. If you have scholarly information that would help the article you are welcome to present it on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

I appreciate your concern however it is based on a misconception

You are completely misreading my statements and impugning malevolence where there is none. I was not "threatening off-wiki consequences" to him, I have no clue who he is. I was warning what I would do, and in fact have done, which is to begin the process of distancing myself from the ecumenical religious community and from collaboration with religious in my work. I will still have certain personal friends, including RO, and will discuss this development with them. These are my friends and aquaintances and I am entitled to discuss things with them and not have that labeled a "personal attack" on anybody.

I will be frank and truthful and let them know that this engineered demonization of me, which your "warning" brings to fruition, is grounds for concluding my longstanding friendship with them as religious persons. As "threatened" I am throwing in the towel on all of the apologia which I have been providing for the church. Those days are over. I will be frank and truthful and tell them that the church is all about dogma and demonizing its opponents and is so good at it they even pull that agenda off on WP.

This shift in my own personal thinking is not a "consequence" to the other user at all. Please reconsider your view of it as such. Also, I have every right to inform my RO friends and aquaintences such as Father Thomas.

This shift, BTW, is as much a result of research for the article as it is the rough treatment (threats of investigation, accusations, now warnings). But it is a done deal. I will inform Father Thomas. The WP user will not become known and is therefore not suffering consequences.

So this matter is now over as far as I am concerned: a typical Christian paranoia about dissent has now led to an unpleasant warning which is very unfair. Unless you acknowledge that on second reading you see that my statement was no threat, I will consider myself to have been subjected to an unadjusted suppression, at WP, because of RO,and that is that.

I will however never sit down again at explicitly ecumenical interfaith dinners, unless I receive an adjustment which would be a reconsideration on your part and a retraction of the warning or a clear statement from the church that this is an incident of (a) a chilling effect on free speech (b) at the instance of an evangelical motive.

In other words, the church may lay the blame more on WP than on the church. But es it stands, you have placed a one-sided, conclusory and unfair warning on the innocent party. You are giving me a bad rap. I won't be the first thoughtful editor to leave WP disatisfied with failure to meet its lofty goals, but then it wouldn't be the first time I have been disappointed by WP.

My experience of WP is pretty much now ruined unless you acknowledge jumping to conclusions, LM apologizes, or some overwhelming consensus vindicates me. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, I don't expect it to happen. I will probably have no choice but to find other venues which are more resilient to the kind of gambit which has been successfully employed here on Militant atheism, whether or not there is a reconsdieration or apology, both of which I believe I am owed. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Reconsiseration on my own part.

Having just now noticed the complaint you did receive, I withdraw the suggestion that you jumped to conclusions or jumped the gun. It looks bad, out of context. I think your warning was probably a pretty level headed response if you were short on time. But in context, and if you delve into this matter more deeply, time permitting, you will see that by consequences I mean only exposure of truth of the matter to the light of day. Part of the truth is noting that I am getting a bum rap for "personal attack" it is actually LoveMonkey who started the personlization of the work by insinuating that I was engaged in illegal socking as a POV-driven ploy to silence me and there was hinting around that I would be check usered which means that where I work would become disclosed and he could use this information to and the information would become available that I was interested in Militant atheism which would (a) force me to completely revise and shift all of my professional alliances because many people I do work with would freak out and (b) force me to just go ahead and publicly, in my own real name, defend the atheists, although i myself am not one. and (c) notify my friends and colleagues that my hand was forced because of an engineered controversy at WP/Militant athiesm in which LoveMonkey artfully shifted the debate from the editing and the article to me personally.

But yes so far your actions are not inappropriate because my wording there could be taken the wrong way. I think I have, and if I did not, I do apologize for that poor choice of words because they could be taken the wrong way and not as an assertion of the basic human right to seek redress in the court of public opinion. But in context, not really, and, more importantly, now that I am clearly, unambiguously and credibly explaining my exact meaning, which is lawful, ethical and appropriate consequences, there should be no further hearing of these auto-victimization complaints from LoveMonkey, who should himself be scrutinized for policy violations and personal attacks. As far as I am concerned, I am apologizing for hastily written harsh wording which could be misinterpreted,out of context, but which, in light of this clarification, are of no interest now for any purpose except for the purposes of a POV warrior. So let's keep our eye on the ball here which is to seek Truth (in verifiable reliable secondary sources) and not to pander to a childish round of accusations and victim posturing. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

Hello,

I want to file a complaint against Lawrencekhoo, BigK HeX and Dark Charles. They remove sourced material and include poorly sourced material in a blatant effort to damage the integrity of the Austrian School article. They cite a bogus consensus, which doesn't exist. The issue has been bullied through before, as can be seen on the talk page. I want to know how it can be okay to gather a bunch of friends and destroy WP articles simply by reverting a real editor's work enough times that he faces the 3 revert rule. Why is this allowed, even when appeals are made for it t stop? Misessus (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We have talked previously at User talk:Misessus#Austrian wars. I suggested then that you could make some uncontroversial improvements to articles on Austrian economists. If you have done so, please let me know. If this is just episode #79 in your previous crusade, I won't get involved. At least two other admins have recently commented on your talk page and that is probably sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

I thought there was insufficient information on Fyodorov in the article to warrant him having a whole picture. Especially when the biographical section doesn't even include pictures of young Konstantin or anything similar. If a future version includes considerably more information about Fyodorov, it should go back. As it stands, it merely says they worked in the same institute, which merits a link alone, I think. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In like manner, the Russian version includes pictures of his relatives, coworkers, and similar thinkers because it actually has quantities of relevant text for the image to accompany. Otherwise, it seems gratuitous. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas - Reply

Hi there ED, VASCO here, longtime no "see",

some trouble here, as i agree with Raul on this one. The only difference between him and me is i have started endless discussions on this, saying that Spanish and English (this being EN.WIKI) speak about the clubs' names with and without the "Real", 50/50 really (well, except Real Madrid C.F. and Real Sociedad), no one seems to believe me, saying that it is the COMMONNAME when it's not all that crystal-clear.

Besides, we could still use the full name in the storyline, leaving box duly compressed. After all of this, am i also a candidate for blocking? LOL!

Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• In an unrelated matter, could you change C.D. Málaga back to the original CD Málaga? It has created endless redirects in players and team articles, all because of two dots (FC Barcelona does not have those, as Valencia CF, Sevilla FC, etc, etc). Thanks - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am so happy to hear that you and Raulseixas are now friends! If you want C.D. changed to CD please open a move discussion; I am totally confused as to which is better for referring to the club in English text. You must be saying that the majority of Wikipedia articles use 'CD'. Can you give examples? EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Loja CD, CD Logroñés (and this was a top flight club before it folded), RCD Mallorca, RCD Espanyol, at this the last three use dots in their original form (and the same goes for the FC's, the CF's and akin), it just does not show in their WP name - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Interesting", the user to whom you sent the message related to the C.D. Málaga article, did not even bother to answer you or me, and he's been active here... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I did a 'Whatlinkshere' to see how many articles link to CD Malaga as opposed to C.D. Malaga. It appears that CD Malaga is the overwhelming choice. If we don't get any response from User:Djln in 24 hours it might be time to consider a move. Do you know if CD versus C.D. has ever been discussed at WT:FOOTY? EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I remember once discussing with a chap over Panathinaikos FC (it was written like that when i first started editing WP, then the dots were inserted, now they have been removed again!), he said it had to do with how the club was named today. Not very logical in my opinion, for all i've stated before (i.e. FC Barcelona being written with the dots originally, and not having them here).

Oh, and it seems User:Satori Son - another admin i frequently reach out to - has done the job...thank you both and happy weekend! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for fixing my page move screw up at International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research. – ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No prob. If they wanted us to spell it right, they should have picked a shorter name! EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you.

My apologies, but I inadvertantly created an article that already existed. el-Melek ez-Zahir needs to be deleted, since Az-Zahir Ghazi already exists. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the advice that I'd been reported for edit-warring. I assume I'll get clobbered but I don't like taking unfairness lying down. Opbeith (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a new article I'm writing

Hi. We interacted a couple of months ago, when I added "Ayn Rand" to the {{uw-sanctions}} template. I'm currently working on a biographical article on George E. Crothers — an important alumnus, trustee, and benefactor of my alma mater, Stanford University (and not to be confused with George Crothers, the Irish cricket player). Once the page is in decent shape, I'm planning to nominate it for DYK. If you have any time to go take a look (User:Richwales/Drafts/George E. Crothers) and give me feedback, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Good luck with the article! EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got some followup comments/questions on my talk. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Greater Armenia (political concept)

Would it be possible for you to protect the article Greater Armenia (political concept)? It appears that two anon IPs are edit warring over the article and have not tried to use the talk page. User:Takabeg has initiated a discussion on the talk page, but as of yet neither anon IP has felt the need to participate. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected. I have also added {{ArbCom ruling notice}} to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Webó

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

i would like to get your assistance if possible in this article, vandalism of the highest order, and i think it's probably the UK "user" that has been on my case for more than one year, after i protected some pages/blocked some IPs due to vandalism.

First, i thought it was just an overzealous Stoke City F.C. fan who "wanted" the player to play for his club, but after his last edit (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Web%C3%B3&diff=442825158&oldid=442810246), this is getting personal i believe. He removed my references, even those that had nothing to do with the "transfer" to Stoke City (which has not happened, i just visited that team's website), then removed all my other additions overall, and THE ENTIRE set of categories and interwikis.

Please help, any assistance you decide is fine by me! No point in blocking that IP i believe, because if he is who i think he is, he has TONS of them.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks to be a case of conventional vandalism so I've applied semiprotection at Pierre Webó. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please warn

Hello Ed. Floccinauci (talk · contribs) has violated 1RR in Ahava article ([3],[4]). Could you please formally warn him about ARBPIA sanctions? Thank you. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)