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.

Karunyan Back Again

Despite your note as his talk page[1], Karunyan just started editing again, and is back to his same behavior, reverting my edits on the List of Clique characters. Thus far it is the only one, but I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye on him, as I suspect he intends to do it all over again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

He has now done five reverts, so I have reported him to the edit warring noticeboard. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:interaction ban proposal

I understand what you are saying, Ed, but once the article is unlocked, the whole thing is going to start again with DocOfSoc. It happens each and every time. As I stated in my initial post on this at AN/I, DOS needs a mentor so she gets a better idea of how editing in WP (among other things WP) works. Once that article is opened again, and if there *is* an interaction ban in place - she will head right back there and do exactly what she's already been doing. With the ban in place, she will be free to do what she wants to the article so that it reflects her POV and COI and I will be helpless to fix it. I have worked hard (long before DOS came along) to make that article what it is today and to keep it as POV-free as possible. Why should I be forced to just turn my head and allow it to be sabotaged? No one else really edits that article - and no one other than me works to keep it POV-free. If another, trusted, experienced and unbiased editor would commit to keeping the article POV and COI free when she *does* start editing it again, I would be okay with the ban. But until that happens, I can't just say yes to the ban because it would be giving her carte blanche to destroy it. Do you see where I'm coming from? (and I'm open to more suggestions, BTW) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil

"Stubborn" puts it pretty well. I actually mentioned in the report that it wasn't full-on yet but was very close. We have had an ongoing discussion and the NPOV noticeboard for feedback. That s why the stubbornness is starting to be a slow edit war between three editors. It is clear which way consensus is going. However, I did make a mention at his talk page about your notice. He is aggravating me but I don't think he is trying to be disruptive to the point that any block would be necessary.Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Message from Rip2010

Hi, I see you wrote on my talk page. Here's what you wrote...Hello PMDrive1061. If you are watching this page, can you respond on my talk? I can't seem to leave a message for you since your user talk is fully protected and you do not have email enabled. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk)

First of all, y can't u leave a message from PMDrive1061? I just saw his talk page and it's not fully protected. If you want to explain y u wrote this on my talk page, please go ahead. Thanks for ur time, Rip2010 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Rip2010

I had to write to PMDrive1061 at some page where he had recently posted, so I could be sure he was watching the page. I did so on 3 February, since he had recently written to you. Later, on 12 February he unprotected his talk page, and the problem went away. Sorry for the inconvenience. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology in Germany

Hi Ed, further to the recent AE thread, I would be grateful if you could cast your eye over the Moderated discussion transcluded to Talk:Scientology in Germany and share your impressions. Thank you. --JN466 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. I've moved it from the transcluded discussion to the article talk page, per SilkTork's introductory comments in the moderated discussion; I hope that's alright with you (if not, please undo). --JN466 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

UAF edit

Hello, could you take another look at the UAF talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unite_Against_Fascism#Protection

To quote: "The piece ANON keeps inserting is irrelevant and is only there in an attempt to soften the criticism. The Guardian article criticises the UAF for its closeness with anti-semitic Islamist groups, and its silence on modern day anti-semitism. Anon's addition to this paragraph of 'the UAF's website featuring a holocaust survivor' does not refute or even address the section it has been tacked onto. It is not an official UAF response to the criticism, It is Anons addition and Anons response to the criticism. It has not been given by the UAF. If the UAF respond to the criticism that would be fine to include. This should be removed now. Anon tacked it on again just before the lock."

What are your thoughts on this?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out at AN3, this article was getting a huge number of daily edits (over 30) and many daily reverts at the time of protection. If you are inclined to try to give a summary of the various disputed points on the talk page, and what position various people are taking, that would be helpful. If the anon's viewpoint is truly strange, perhaps he has no support. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for reply. The anonymous editor was reverting his addition of the irrelevant material I have highlighted in the above passage. Also, Anon repeatedly added a line stating that the 'edl' are the bnp's 'street fighting wing, this despite no reliable source to back it up, and a police statement stating the opposite and a bnp condemnation of the edl. I have no political leanings in this regard, however, the uaf have been receiving mounting criticism in the press recently and the wiki entry originally reflected none of this. I added just a selection of the controversy surrounding their actions and Anon proclaims me a fascist and attempts to get me sanctioned. The article was then locked after anons very contested revert, hence his/hers complete silence ever since. I tried repeatedly to reason with anon and come to an agreement, but he/she simply would simply do a bit of name calling and then re-add. I request that the article be stepped down to semi-protection so that responsible editors can continue to contribute. Thanks for listening.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That was quick.

This block is truely Wikipedia administrator intervention at its finest. I noticed the edit, saw the title and the changes, and even before i could even finish sighing or making a report at the obvious sock-puppetry someone already took care of it. Good work, keep it up! :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a vague feeling that he would start socking as soon as he was blocked. No big surprise, as it turns out. I wonder if there is some national-pride issue behind his stubbornness. If discussion fails, this could become an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of blocked editor Iaaasi is back again

Good evening, I would like to inform you that User:Iaaasi, whom you blocked for an indefinite period of time has returned under the usernames of User: Iadrian yu, User: Umumu and User:Dicocodino. He is, according to Iaaassi’s habit, engaged in edit warring on the John Hunyadi article, and deleting alternative Hungarian placenames from Transylvania-related articles (hundreds of them) against the old and not easily reached compromise on bolding Hungarian placenames if minority > 20%. He pretends to seek mediation to support his activity ( like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu ) and when his opinion is not supported by the requested editors or admins, he asks another opinion from others under a new name, like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal. As Iaaassi, he is engaged in Wikihounding as editor User:Nmate remarked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miercurea-Ciuc&action=history. As a Bonaparte sockpuppet, he should be blocked asap, ortherwise, he may trigger serious edit war by disregarding long established practices.User:RokarudiRokarudi 23:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As this is already discussed, i just want to say that your accusations incorrect. Feel free to conduct a socketpuppet investigation. iadrian (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, I havent't done any disruptive edits and I am not a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte (Umumu (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Pseudo edit conflict

And that is why I always refresh that page before committing to a course of action after looking into an incident. You propose a slightly different approach than I was going to, but seem to have read the situation at Vitamin D much the same as I did. Thank you for all the good work you do at AN3. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Thank you for your time spent reviewing the Nobility 3RR. I am relatively new to editing on Wikipedia, so am still learning the ropes about these things. It does seem that cartels can exist on Wikipedia, if one or two editors want to maintain a false record and no one else engages. That surprises me. Anyway, thank you for showing me the ropes. I have a better idea of protocol now. Your time is much appreciated. Out of interest, and so that I understand Wikipedia procedures, can you please explain why the party I reported was not warned too? Editor8888 (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Hopefully he won't violate 3rr again. For the record, and as you might have noticed, he deleted my contribution to the discussion from the talk page before you had made your final decision. Thanks for your time though. I know wikipedia can be time consuming (from personal experience, believe it or not). Regards, Mitsube (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyria

Perhaps you could check my edits?

I DID source my edits with independent links, and to studies by Non Assyrian historians, Assyriologists and Iranologists.

I also tried to discuss these issues on the talk page, but got practically no response.

The person i reported then agreed on my own talk page, to accept some of the edits, but these have since been reverted again.

How can i be warned for Edit Warring when i made the edit (with links and references) and my edit was reverted with no discussion, or sourced alternative view being presented by the reverter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You filed a complaint at the 3RR board which is now archived. Be aware that Assyrian topics are a frequent area of controversy on Wikipedia, and several admins are familiar with the issues. You are trying to do a major change in the text of the Assyria article, arguing for a continued Assyrian identity after 612 BC. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. I notice that you are continuing to add your material to the article, though you still have no supporters. This meets the definition of edit warring. If you continue, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		With thanks for your comments at WP:AE a couple of weeks back. They afforded me some solace and reassurance at a time when I was sorely in need of it. JN466 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you've been involved with the block of User:Notpietru ...

... I bring to your attention some block evasion on his part, the details of which are here. Cheers,  RGTraynor  17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR thing

Thanks for responding. Yes, this has been a very long term issue, at least in regard to the use of the quote function. RAN claims that ArbCom upheld the inclusion, but it's not that clearly stated. The fact is that the other editor routinely pastes in extensive quotes, or in this case, everything included in the abstract from The New York Times. Here is the citation that he added. My position is that since a link is provided to the exact same content from the newspaper, that using the quote is pointless. It is easily verified from the link included. He keeps saying that ArbCom upheld the use of quotes, which is simply untrue. The ArbCom decision was "6) In the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in Wikipedia:Footnotes covering the content of footnotes, the question of what material – such as quotes – should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content. Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation." They said this was a content issue, and consensus should determine it. The evidence page includes the places where this has been discussed, including that RAN has ignored consensus before, and multiple links to AN/I. My position is that when we have the direct link to the source, which is a very stable link, the use of the copy and paste quote of everything shown is both redundant and my gut feeling is that it skirts copyright violation. That would be the point where he said my ignorance astounded him. The next point he kept reverting was from New York Times archives. First, consider that the newspaper articles involved employed an antiquated style of titling, which included the main title and multiple subtitles, which I feel are unnecessary. The example of which he kept reverting is found here. The main title is "POLICE TRY TO LINK BUDD GIRL'S SLAYER TO 3 OTHER CRIMES". The other 4 or 5 sentences after that are subtitles, which would be reflected if the webpage included a copy of the actual newspaper page. Also note that the portion RAN included as a "quote" encompasses the entire first paragraph of the article. The last issue is his insistence on including blank template parameters. It is simply relevant to the source what parameter is left and what can be removed from the citation. Like I said at the 3RR board, in this specific case, retaining the parameters in case the author of the Times article will suddenly appear, when the actual source itself, which is over 75 years old, does not name the author. Thus the argument presented by RAN and Jack Merridew is moot. It isn't going to happen that a name will suddenly be discovered. This all covers my rationale for refusing to respond to the biased questions RAN posted on Talk:Albert Fish. He's posting general questions about the issue, while the point here is that the questions should be specific to the situation. His questions did not take into consideration the issue specific to the Fish page. I left the quotes he put in that had no links to check, and removed the ones that did provide means of verification. Does this answer your question? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have little interest in the Fish page. My attention was drawn to that page and the 3RR section by the complaint by WHL a few sections above (on that page).

This:

• Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation

is a great quote. It gets right to the heart of the concern that I have with what the participants in WP:ACTOR are doing. That RfC is still stalled and WHL and a few others have objected to closing it and yet have not collaboratively sought to address the concerns.

Please consider closing that discussion and offering a summary, or handing it off to some uninvolved admin to do. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Then pray tell, why are you responding to this thread and inserting yourself into an issue that does not include you? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the ACTOR discussion and concerns issues that are not included in style guidance, despite what RAN insisted. In fact, while RAN insists ArbCom upheld quotes, it actually said it was a content issue, not a matter for ArbCom. But by the by, reasons were stated in the objection to closing the ACTOR discussion, so that is untrue. Please stop inserting this issue into things that are completely and totally unrelated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See your prior post, you specifically referred to me. And see my post, above, I don't care about the Fish page thread, much. However, the quote you offered from that ArbCom case is spot-on regarding the inappropriate hard-coding of stylistic markup into articles that you and a few others associated with WP:ACTOR are still intent upon. I will continue to seek to bring all of those article into line with site-wide consensus. Any honest reading of that RfC will show that site-wide consensus does not support your position and that you've a long history of obstructing efforts by the wider community to bring you into line. Regards, Jack Merridew 02:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
p.s. thanks for the quote.

Ed, I've re-posted a request to close the WP:ACTOR RfC at WP:AN#Stuck RfC @ WT:ACTOR#Filmography and have referred to your suggestion of this approach (on my talk page). Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny that you wholly supported leaving in parameters at the 3RR talk page, even when there is no possibility of the parameter being used? That would be the only reason your name was mentioned. Please desist from making the ACTOR discussion a personal matter, Jack. Your comment regarding "obstructing efforts by the wider community to bring [me] in line" has the tone of a personal attack and is exceedingly incivil, which you've been called for doing regarding me before. And kindly stop trying to hijack this thread which is about something else entirely. If you don't care about the Fish article, then kindly step out of a pertinent discussion about it to try and make it about something else. This is disruptive in regard to solving an issue which you admittedly aren't interested. And please stop following around my edits and launching arguments and disputes wherever I step. It's becoming an issue of wikistalking and that's something I read has been a previous problem from you. And by the way, please stop trying to canvass for someone to close the RfC. Reasons were given with the objections to close it, which you ignored and instead asked why. Those reasons are there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

Sir, I noticed you have semi-protected this page, which is probably a good idea given the 3RR violation committed on it by an ownership editor (Beyond My Ken). But I noticed you gave the reaosn that there is COI by IP socks, which I assume you mean me. I'd like to ask you to clarify what that means. I've never touched that article before, have nothing to do with it, and your welcome to run a checkuser. I follow WikiProject Films which said the article needs improvement. I read the deletion nom and I agree it's got inconsistencies. In the nom discussion this was said by the nominater:

"Accuracy is in question because there are inconsistencies. Variety review is the most notable review, but the remainder of "Reception" section is wierd: "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews." But then the reviews listed as having occurred during the "earlier festival run" include 3 reviews that it looks like were written during the theatrical run according to the cites. Then it says the film got "generally positive reviews" during its festival run "with certain notable exceptions." However, no exceptions are provided. So on second thought maybe there is some COI going on here? I think it needs fresh editors if we're keeping." To this, Beyond My Ken answered: "That's a fair point -- the reception section was subject to a good amount of back-and-forth editing as the sockpuppets tried to put the film in the best possible light, and other editors, including myself, tried to keep the section as accurate and neutral as possible. This is almost certainly the cause of the discontinuities that you point out. I agree that fresh editors with fresh eyes would be a good idea."

So Beyond agreed that there were what he called "inconsistencies" in the article's data due to "back-and-froth" editing that he was involved in. He agreed that a fresh editor (not him) should fix. But when a fresh editor goes in and corrected these contradictions, Beyond 3RRed me by saying that he will not "allow" the article to be edited that way. "Allow" was the word he used.

I feel I accurately and honestly in good faith tried to fix the contradictions that Beyond My Ken seems to have introduced into the article. If I am wrong p[lease clarify how:

Inconsistencies I saw:

The Varirety review of the movie was positive. (DeBruge is a Top Critic with RT that means he controls how his reviews are posted.) Before I edited it, this article read like the Variety review was (in Beyond My Ken's words) a semi-uncomplimentary review. Phrses from the review were cherry picked to make it sound bad. (For exmaple, Nothing in the review criticized the movies plot at all, yet Beyond My Ken wrote that it did. That was just bad information. I corrected this and wrote, in good faith, what RT and Metacritic said.

Second, Beyond had written it so it said that the film only received positive reviews during it's festival run. But like was pointed out in the deletion nom, the examples given weren't during the fest run. Beyond also said there were notable exceptions, but there aren't. So I fixed this.

The result was that Beyond swooped in and 3RRed. Again if my facts are wrong please clarify how. Thank you. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the article has, with good reason, been semi-protected, if you have suggestions for changes that will improve the article, please make them to the talk page where they can be discussed. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did. You ignore them and only want your version. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you made changes, and they were not helpful to the article Please discuss your proposed changes first. I'm not at all adverse to improvements. For instance, an IP editor from your range introduced information about the film's home video release, and that was an improvement. Unfortunately, your changes seem to me to be detrimental to the article.

In any case, the place to talk about this is not here, but on the article talk page. I will say, though, that I'm not terribly interested in hearing re-hashed arguments about my "bias" or how I "introduced errors" or whatever, those are inaccurate and inflammatory, and unproductive, so please don't bother to post those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And the is Wikipedia, so I am permitted to make the changes without getting your permission your royal highness. You admitted the rticle had bad info, I fixed it. The rraosning is above. If you can poke a hole it in, be my guest. Otherwise, this is clearly just a man who thinks he owns an article . Seriously man what is your glitch? Why are you so hung up on this. That articles been almost completely edited be you lately and yet you accuse others of controlling it? Is this your movie or something? 208.88.120.86 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I never "admitted" to anything like that. This particular discussion seems fruitless. if you're interested in collegial and cooperative editing, you know where to go, but I'm disengaging from any further conversation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

Thank you for semi-protecting this article. I've been trying to write up an AN/I report about it for 45 minutes, but my %&%#@ browser kept losing it in progress. My apologies for the preemptory tone I took with the IP, but it seemed like much too much of a coincidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A brand new editor, User:DivaOfDan, created just fifteen minutes ago, posted to Talk:Yesterday Was a Lie, referring in the first person to the changes made to the article and reiterating the same arguments as above. This is obviously the IP. Creating accounts for immediate use is something the sockmaster does quite readily and without compunction for the niceties, so the evidence is mounting up that this is the same guy -- same article, same arguments, same MO. Do I need to go file another SPI, or can he be blocked on the available evidence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, checkuser me. I have nothing to do with any sockfarm. Obviously I am that IP - I've edited under anonymous IPs for years but I just made that account because a page I edited in good faith was semi-locked due to Beyond's god complex and irrational belief that he owns the article. Now the guy sprays suspected sock tags on my user page without permission? What a jerk. Why the hell bother with Wikipedia when nazis like this are here controlling artilces? I tried to do something good and contributive and all I get is grief and sock tags placed on me. Ya;ll can fuck off. DivaOfDan (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: So he's told me to "fuck off" on my talk page, told me to "piss off" on the article talk page and called me a "douchbag", slapped a "sorrywrongnumber" suspected sock template on my user page, and called me a nazi with a god complex here. Is that enough to block the account for incivility and disruptive editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this. DivaOfDan (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Tim Song blocked indef as a sock of Sorrywrongnumber. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New Development in Newman Luke's edit war

User Newman Luke has taken advantage of the Passover holiday, as you know, to make new attempts upon the Judaism articles. What you may not know is that he has created a new ADMINSTRATIVE section called WP:OWNING.Mzk1 (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

[2] I reverted Alexikoua here, because he added that while there was no consensus. In the talkpage I told him repeatedly that what he wanted to add was mainly the conclusion of 2 interviews, but instead he ignored me and added it "per talkpage". You told me 2 weeks ago to act after getting consensus, but other users don't seem to follow consensus.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

[3] he added that(without consensus), was reverted [4], and he reverted back to his version [5]. Isn't that disruptive according to that link you posted in my talkpage WP:BRD?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Zjari: in a weird wp:idontlikeit claim denies an anthropological&social conclusion by a prestigious journal. Also, mystiriously insists that this is just the result of an interview, but it' s clear that this is the conclusion of the author's research in general.

In a similar fashion he rejects that a fictional Albanian-Pelasgian historical claim isn't called Protochronism, while this is clear by the term's definition.Alexikoua (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not wp:idontlikeit, because we have been discussing this for many days, and suddenly you decide without any consensus to act as if you had consensus, when here [6] I explained thoroughly to you that this is the conclusion of 2 interviews with 2 people of no special status. It isn't a general conclusion it is a conclusion of those 2 interviews.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Same situation in Skanderbeg, where Zjarri defends the personality's racial purity by receting an entire 18 book bibliography[[7]][[8]] (saying that he is revert ready). I've not made any edits there but the behavior of this new user is extremelly agressive following me around in every article I've created the last 2 weeks: [[9]][[10]][[11]], moreover he participated on a harrasing report against me [[12]] 6 days after his account creation.Alexikoua (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this many times about those source being copies from stories, 1910 textbooks and folk myths. Also remember that DS has already warned you not to accuse me. And I haven't been following you, they're in the scope of Albania TF so obviously as a person interested in Albania TF, I'll try to improve new articles regarding it. Is that a harrasing report or a report showing you edit-warring? --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan to continue this discussion(basically defending myself against your 20th accusation), I'm sure EdJohnston is not interested in your accusations(for which you have been warned by an admin not to continue). Immediately after I explain to you the errors of your addition, instead of replying to me with arguments you start accusing me. That shows a lot, about the validity of your argument.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just remind you that you initiated this discussion to complain against me. Please calm down, being member of a wikiproject doesn't justify such an aggresion. Alexikoua (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, and I'm just mentioning to EdJohnston that in accordance to WP:BRD there is disruption, that's all. I'm not the one who came here, recycling old accusations(for which there have been warnings by admins)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC).