User talk:EdJohnston

New Corticopia account

Hello Ed. Sadly, I just have found another recently created account of Corticopia. The name is Superluminary. I'll tell you how I found this out.

1. A "new user" replaced a map in the article Latin Americans See difference, which was really wierd because the map depicted regions of Latin America in a section about it! (Then I realized the "user" just didn't like the idea that Mexico IS part of North America, a Corticopia bias)

2. I went to the contribution list of that "new user". Found he only edited the article Latin Americans and participated in the talk page of European Union.

3. Reading carefully the disussion in which this "new user" participated, I just found the IP Corticopia was using 76.66.124.5 weeks ago [1] [2] He first edited the article European Union from that IP (reverting it several times), and then discussed in the talk page.

4. Corticopia's IP was challenged to register by one of the respected users to be taken seriously and HE DID, as he admits here (check the last part of his comment) [3]. After registering he went to the article Latin Americans and erased the map that I was talking about. (My guess is that he thought he wouldn't be discovered to be Corticopia)

He is, again, disrupting, spreading bias and of course, trying to avoid scrutinity and blocks not only in Mexico, Latin American-related articles, but also in European articles. He reverted so many times a map in European Union with his anonymous IP.

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There's another account I'm pretty sure was Corticopia, but I did not have the evidence - yet - to prove it. That's User:Highvale. In my experience, he was just making small changes such as moving pictures around in different articles, to create a "background" and give the false idea of a real comitted user.

He has done that before. However! today I found that Corticopia's IP 76.66.124.5 and 216.234.60.106 edited in the same article "Highvale" did. Interesting [4] [5]

We can only wait to see his behaviour, what articles he actually edit and what kind of "changes" he wants to introduce. I'm pretty sure he's gonna add the traditional Corticopia's bias, because as I said I think he is the same. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jakezing

Replied on my talkpage; similarly pessimistic. Worth bringing up at AN? Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I have declined the unblock at User talk:Jakezing#July 2010. So far there is no believable assurance of better behavior. If something more is forthcoming, it might be worth taking this to WP:AN. I have suggested he try contributing to another Wikimedia project for a while, to establish a positive record. If you think the case already deserves to be discussed at a noticeboard, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I;ve seen worse users reformed. I am of a mind that this could be brought up at ANI for further review. I am officially neutral, but a reblock is cheap. He's MORE than met the Wikipedia:Standard offer from my mind, so I don't see why another chance could not be discussed. No real reason not to let the community decide here. --Jayron32 05:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've offered this for review at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Message

Thank you very much for your kind consideration. Thanks again, TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Octavia Nasr

Hi, the editor who was warned twice then blocked for disruptive editing has come off his block and reverted all the contentious edits[6], no Talk participation. Can you have a look please? [7] Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 03:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider filing a new 3RR report. Also, if you can explain on the talk page what the issues are it would be useful. Even if you are the only one willing to discuss, this helps to show admins who is being cooperative and who is not. On an article like this one it may seem that the choice of which commentators to quote is somewhat arbitrary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment article

I am a patient guy and can easily wait a month. Indeed we are already coming off of a month of full protection, for what essentially was a three way dispute between myself, AnonIP and User:Hauskalainen who has been trying to insert some personal research of his into the English history section coupled with removal of some well sourced material because he calls it "myth"[8] without pointing to sources of this opinion. I would be more comfortable if Hauskalainen was also encouraged to take a month off. (Also, it would be nice if these two other editors would change their minds and agree to participate in dispute resolution[9] during this month so that when we return we can find an agreement.)

Explaining my long term presence in this article: I have for a long time been concerned with the issue of systemic editor bias at Wikipedia and a member of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. For this reason I became interested in the effects of systemic editor bias on articles of interest to certain political groups, and began to focus on the effect of gun rights political activism on Wikipedia. I think if you look fairly at the gun related articles in Wikipedia you can confirm that there is a disproportionate number of editors who edit based on personal political viewpoint. I consistently am arguing that we stick to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and meticulously avoid personal political viewpoint. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RE allegations that I have been in violation of 3rr, I deny it and any check will show that I have not had any instances where I changed or reverted material 4 or more times in any 24 period. Freezing the article can actually be a reward to Salty as with the constant freezes he has already gotten, the article has not been updated to reflect judicial ruling on Heller and McDonald. Both are anti-gun control and Salty is rabidly pro-gun control.

The traditional penalty for a freeze on the person guilty of a 3rr violation seems appropriate, whatever the time period of that freeze.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not 100% clear that Salty has made four reverts in 24 hours. My concern with Salty is more that he is dominating the article by editing so frequently. He should reduce his frequency to allow others to participate. If you and Salty would both agree to take a holiday for a certain period, it would be worth considering. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

Dear EdJohnston, I hope you are doing well. In light of your administrative decision which stated that Urdu scripts cannot be added or removed from Bollywood related film articles, I have reverted vandalism by 203.125.115.98. I thought I would let you know. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 00:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Tbma

I think its very unfair to compare my edits with those of Tbma/YMB29, first i have been the main contributor to this article, i have seeked the sources/ disscused in discusion all in line to improve this article, this is not the case with Tbma/YMB29 who just last week consider the whole article a hoax, also today i really displined myself not doing any of the previuslly acts of misconduct, so i think your crttisism of me is utterlly unfair.Posse72 (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs)

The edit warring policy applies to all editors, no matter who is right. You are expected to work to persuade others on the article's talk page, and not fight to get your changes into the article by reverting. There is an entire project, WP:MILHIST, devoted to military history, and you can often get opinions from the members of that project. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the discusion has been long, and User:Tbma dosent take any notice from any kind of argument, and now he uses 3 grade sources, for ex the book Kantakoski, Pekka (1998). Punaiset panssarit - Puna-armeijan panssarijoukot 1918-1945 (Red tanks - the Red Army's armoured forces 1918-1945)is an exelent book on Red army tank units, but it dont cover Battle for Tali-Ihantal more than a cuple of phrases and its both old and inaccurate on the Soviet OOB, newer and better resershed and on a deeper scale is the work of proffesor Otho Manninen who studied Russian archives and Koskimaa, this sources is not even considerd by Tbma.Posse72 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources I have added are almost all pretty recent (past 2000). And even Kantakoski book is from 1999, so it's all published past any Soviet times. Instead of just to agree that the matter is still debatable, last time you started edit war over "Disputed" and "POV" tags on the article. And it is "Disputed" and more editors will question the article as I did (and editors before me). That is why you misidentified me with the previous editor. --Tbma (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And this thing with just 60000 redarmy servicemen is also revisionism at its hight, as previsuslly stated in battle of Tali-Ihantala discusion during the time 28 june-1 july Koskimaa and Manninen stated that there where 13 redarmy division in the battle 10 ordinary rifle divsion 6500x10 =65000 men + 3 Guards (9500 men) division thats 29000 more this excludes independent units as armoured, artilery etc. that well over 100000 men. Tbma uses trick: "but an ordinary Soviet army had only 60000 men", hidding the fact that 21 army was a special army reinforced with 21 division and lots of armoured units to complet its task.Posse72 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

AND dont forget, idid not do any 3rr violation as Tbma!

First you claimed that some sources are "old BS", now you are claiming that it's "revisionism" (btw, your edits are mostly based on a book from 1993). Don't provide me with your own numbers and your own original research - please argue with authors. Most of those authors agree that all those divisions were not at full strength - so the simple multiplying will not work. --Tbma (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See the last statement from Tbma, he accuses Proffesor Otho Manniens work who is uterlly and trough for exampel its based on Russian archives to be MY OWN ORGINAL RESEARCH, this is the problem with Tbma editing in the article.Posse72 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)