User talk:EdJohnston

Why are you removing Persian from Persian figures?

• Rumi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You and Kansas Bear have gone on and removed Persian from many actual Persian figures for no reason other than MOS:Ethnicity, which makes no sense.

You haven't removed Greek from Socrates, so why this double standard? Rumi and Ibn-Sina are ethnically Persian, and worked in Persian. MOS:Ethnicity has no merit here, as their heritage is very relevant to the figures in question. Even Britannica lists Ibn-Sina as a Persian, and is explained in detail by User:alidoostzadeh. Rumi's page has discussed this thoroughly already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to mention the aggression that Kansas Bear has against IP Users, Wikipedia is a place for these discussions to be had and instead of answering the questions he deleted my comments on his talk page simply stating he won't speak to IP's.

He is reverting articles without reason and applying faulty logic by applying MOS:Ethnicity when it does not apply. He has not given a reason as to why MOS:Ethnicity applies here but not to Socrates for example. The sources on both pages and well as the talk page have already determined these are ethnic Persians and their work was in Persian under Persianate societies. This very much indicates the kind of work these figures did and is similar to how Socrates was ethnically Greek who worked in Greek, making him a figure of that particular group. 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:8C6D:42C2:1616:4D24 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. I don't think I have made any changes to the article myself. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

500/30 ARBPIA lock

Hey, could you please lock this article:Levantine cuisine, so that only 500/30 editors can edit it? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This needs a discussion on the talk page. I assume that scholarly sources must be available regarding the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Protection request

Good afternoon @EdJohnston. I'd seen you've protected Elizabetta Gonzaga's article due to vandalism by 176.200.142.92 and 151.57.174.55. I would like to inform you that both IPs are in fact the LTA abuser Livioandronico2013, who had uploaded with multiple sockpuppets a lot of photographs of famous paintings, sculptures and buildings from Italy and, sometimes, from other parts of the world. Now, recently, they're vandalizing Guidobaldo da Montefeltro –via another IP– for impose its version among other good faith contributions by other users. I'd just reverted him to stable varsion, but he's maybe going to undid me in a near future, like he did with Elizabetta Gonzaga. Could you please protect the article to avoid vandalism by this LTA and, if he continues reverting me, restoring the stable version before his changes, and also restore Elizabetta Gonzaga to this stable version? Thank you in advance for your help and sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards. 81.41.175.237 (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Stable versions were restored by another user, so the only request is for a tempral protection of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro. Regards. 81.41.175.237 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Elizabetta Gonzaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Σπάρτακος/Archive
• meta:User talk:Livioandronico2013
• meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Livioandronico2013
• commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Livioandronico2013

• It looks like there is enough reason to block on sight, if we are sure of the identification with User:Livioandronico2013. All of his named socks appear to be already blocked on the English wiki. IPs have not continued to revert at Guidobaldo da Montefeltro though semiprotection of that article may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Not honestly how to make you understand that. We are talking about photos not users. The photos are of quality and deserve to be in the article. That the user has been blocked is irrelevant. 151.57.78.107 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

So we are supposed to ignore your long-term sockpuppetry due to the high quality of your images? EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

See the pictures for yourself, if you think they are worse, I have nothing to laugh about. But to lose good photos just for personal spite seems a waste to me. 151.57.78.107 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The photos were uploaded before the blockade and are in any case better than the present ones. I was blocked for arguments on FP not for bad photos. If one cares about the article one wants a better photo regardless of the user. 151.57.78.107 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for arguments on FP? Please explain. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Practically on FP photos are voted on, and often criticised, I unfortunately responded badly, I admit, to criticism and was blocked. However the global ban was denied. Anyway we are talking about things happening years ago.151.57.78.107 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)