User talk:EdJohnston

Need help to avoid edit war at Carpenter (surname)

Hello Ed,

It has been a long time since I last contacted you. Recently an entire section (noted as Y-DNA Project) of the article Carpenter (surname) was removed because an editor feels the reference source for that section is improper. Instead of questioning and citing the source the editor simply deletes it. Over and over. I tried to indicate this and ask for Wiki editor input. Please see: Talk:Carpenter (surname)#Y-DNA section. I have known for some time that this editor really dislikes genealogy and DNA testing citing such as trivia. For the most part over the years I have ignored it or rewritten as needed.
I really do not what to start the formal process of arbitration nor a edit war. I think the editor is wrong blanketing sections of articles without prior notice or indicating something is wrong (in their opinion) regarding a source.
Would you be so kind to review the situation and make an appropriate suggestion or input?

FYI - The citation which the editor objects to and removes an entire article section is...
xx ref name=CC>Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project, accessed August 2, 2009. /ref> xx
And the following may be TMI ...
The core of this reference is the Carpenter Cousins Project at carpentercousins.com. It reads in part, "The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project, the Carpenters' Encyclopedia of Carpenters, and Carpenter Sketches by Gene Zubrinsky are part of the Carpenter Cousins Project."
The Carpenters' Encyclopedia of Carpenters has been published in various formats since 2002 and it is cited dozens of times on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the web.
Carpenter Sketches by Gene Zubrinsky [FASG]] and related articles have been professionally published, cited and such as in the New England Historic Genealogical Society publications. And he cites the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project as part of the Carpenter Cousins Project.
The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project has also been cited elsewhere, as I noted on the talk page of the Wiki article I cited above.

As always, I appreciate your input and help. Regardless of how you decide or help resolve such issues. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Agricolae is probably speaking for mainstream opinion on Wikipedia. The sources are not in scientific journals. This is the kind of thing you might ask about at WP:RSN, to see if the sources are good enough for Wikipedia use. When a disagreement occurs, both of you should follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and not keep reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence

Hi EdJohnston. As you may have seen, there has been some conflict on this page. I hope we can all come to an agreement on the talk page to provide a well-supported edit to this problem. But to be on the safe side, would it be possible if the article page stays on the neutral long-standing version until the page protection ends. The current one is a result of the arbitrary edits currently under discussion? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

You can put in an edit request if you think the talk page shows consensus for your version. Since I don't see any BLP issues or vandalism there isn't an immediate reason to remove this material during the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's still a version resulting from unsupported arbitrary edits and possibly biased compared to the original. Thus I think it's fair to keep the neutral version until consensus is reached. How do I make the edit request? (N0n3up (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

See WP:Edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Return of an edit-warring SPA that you blocked last January

EdJohnston, in January you were kind enough to block Special:Contributions/Mojo3232 (talk), in response to a report which can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive335#User:Mojo3232 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked).

He/she has returned and made exactly the same edit as last time.[1] Please can you help.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have asked Mojo3232 to respond to the complaint. If they do not, some admin action is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Take a look?

Can you take a look? Nothing I've said seems to have gotten through. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Left a note. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Let me know if I can answer any questions. Thank you,"

My most recent talk-page comments were factual in every detail and pertinent to the page's purpose. Yet, they were deleted. One doesn't need a crystal ball to see that they raised points for which the dominant view being imposed here on this site with respect to this topic has no respectable answer. That being the case, such points are, as mine were, being suppressed.

You then disingenuously propose that I Let [you] know if [you] can answer any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed, here's a question: What precisely was wrong in the talk-page additions of mine which were removed?

Suppose that I came along and removed your comments like that whenever the whim struck me--how'd you like it?

Why are you posing as a polite and considerate fellow when in fact you're trying to intimidate me and suppress my points of view?

There: Three questions for you.

Please stop trying to intimidate me when I've done nothing wrong. Please stop deleting my talk-page comments when I've done nothing wrong.

P1

HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, from your own Talk-page, IS someone else pointing out the SAME sort of THING:

---

Need help to avoid edit war at Carpenter (surname)

Hello Ed,

It has been a long time since I last contacted you. Recently an entire section (noted as Y-DNA Project) of the article Carpenter (surname) was removed because an editor feels the reference source for that section is improper. Instead of questioning and citing the source the editor simply deletes it. Over and over. I tried to indicate this and ask for Wiki editor input. Please see: Talk:Carpenter (surname)#Y-DNA section. I have known for some time that this editor really dislikes genealogy and DNA testing citing such as trivia. For the most part over the years I have ignored it or rewritten as needed. I really do not what to start the formal process of arbitration nor a edit war. I think the editor is wrong blanketing sections of articles without prior notice or indicating something is wrong (in their opinion) regarding a source. Would you be so kind to review the situation and make an appropriate suggestion or input?

---

I don't think "it's just me" and I really don't appreciate being treated like I'm some sort of social "problem" being discussed by superior members of the "("helping") élite". i.e., you and your exchanges w/Reedy.

Proximity1 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This must be a reply to the admin warning which I left. You are entitled to your opinions, but if you make any more personal attacks at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Kianoush Rostami - Edit war and cultural whitewashing

I have left discussion notices on the Wiki page for the Summer Olympics and nobody has replied. I have again and again tried to engage in discussions with editors and moderators about Kianoush Rostami's Kurdish identity being mentioned on his page and nobody wants to reply. Kianoush Rostami's ethnicity has to be acknowledged. It is a travesty that Iranian cultural whitewashing is allowed to continue on wikipedia. None of the Iranian editors want to discuss the issue with me - so why is it that their edits get protected, when originally it was the edits that kept his Kurdish ethnicity, to which he explicitly dedicated his victories on his Instagram page? Why are you allowing his ethnicity to remain hidden? Tehsojiro (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You must be familiar with the Wikipedia page about WP:Reliable sources. If you think Instagram is reliable for this point you could ask a question at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but my guess is that you won't get support there. If his Kurdish identity is an important matter, wouldn't it have been covered somewhere in the regular press? You should be careful about making personal attacks, such as this comment about 'the racist viewpoint of the Iranian users'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Joohnny braavoo1

• Joohnny braavoo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a brief "discussion" with this editor, it has become painfully clear this person has a poor grasp of English, is writing original research[2] and synthesis[3] into articles simply to push a Turkic POV. Their response, to my concerns, blantantly shows a lack of maturity to understand and comprehend their actions. I believe they lack the competency in language, POV, and maturity to edit this encyclopedia properly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Earlier, Joohnny braavoo attempted to call the Sarbadars a Turkic dynasty, simply because one of their chiefs was a Turk.[4] What can clearly be understood from the source[5] is that the Sarbadars were a group of brigands of different ethnicities and were not a dynasty.[6] And yet, Joohnny braavoo decided this information made them Turkic, even to the point of edit warring over it.[7][8]

Joohnny braavoo has even POV pushed Huns and Xiongnu into the article.[9] A clearly indication of undue weight and POV pushing. Please note, Joohnny braavoo made a similar mention on my talk page about the Xiongnu, You get disturbed because they may are a xiongnu tribe?. Which has nothing to do with my concerns of original research or synthesis.

Current said editor appears to have a problem with editors of differing views:

• "you must be a butthurt i think"
• "many butthurts in wikipedia i see

Battleground comments:

• "i see that many iranian have problems whit turks?--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• "every page has reference so be quiet japanian --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I left a note for Joohnny braavoo1. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User Dfroberg

• Dfroberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, EdJohnston. We've just had an account opened by Dfroberg (talk · contribs) who claims to be the Chief Technical Officer of al-Madsar. I'd prefer not to start the process of communicating with the user, establishing the legitimacy of his claim, or informing him of COI issues (mainly due to my own IRL time constraints). At this stage, he's feeding editors information about the organisation that can't be used. It would be nice to nip this in the bud before overenthusiastic editors start trying to develop the Al-Masdar News article and other Syria-related articles based on the new account's say-so. I suspect that I started the ball rolling by persistently querying the issue of who the Board of Directors for the e-news site/zine actually are. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Since User:Dfroberg announces his affiliation here I don't yet see a cause for concern. He has not tried to edit any of the articles that may be in dispute. He *has* commented at Talk:Al-Masdar News. If he is the person responsible for adding the members of the Board of Directors to al-Masdar's own web site that is a good thing. I understand that we may have concerns about using this publication as a source of facts for articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I only just noticed that the entire page on a-M has been changed, and a number of new redirects have been created (as evidenced by the last archived capture of the page, plus my last look at the page yesterday evening). If he isn't who he claims to be, he is certainly a member of the team working on their behalf. I have no problems with his disclosure, but I will be keeping my eye out the ensure that he doesn't try to influence whether the site is a reliable source, or use Wikipedia and the article and RSN talk pages as an additional blog-like outlet. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I actually did submit an edit to the AMN *egg on face*, the edits on the website is a direct result of the many questions people brought up in aM-talk and WP:RS. Dfroberg (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Archiving an edit-warring issue without a result

• Bret Stephens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Lowercase sigmabot III with this edit has dumped this issue into Archive341 -- although there has been no result yet. Do you know whether this is normal behaviour, or a bot error? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes reports do expire from the board without a closure. The reverts from May 1 that were listed in the report are now stale. Looking at the substance of the dispute, I notice that User:Aldaron favored 'climate change denial' while others wanted to describe Stephens as a climate change skeptic. The article now describes him as holding 'contrarian views on climate change' which (to my eye) fits the sources better. If this problem restarts, you might want to consider an WP:RFC, but for the moment it appears settled. The topic of climate change is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)