User talk:EdJohnston

How anonymous editors can leave messages If you want to leave a message for me and you are unable to edit this page, post at User talk:EdJohnston/Anontalk where I will see your comment.

Esoglou vio AGAIN

I actually was not going to report this and or just ignore it however Esoglou decided to accuse me of edit vio on my talkpage [1]. I can only guess this is to cover up the fact that Esoglou actually committed the restriction vio with this edit here. [2] This dif from him [3] is where he made an edit to the article under section 5 of the article. Section 5 is under the header 'Eastern Orthodox Church, look at the article table of contents. Again I was just going to ignore what he put in the article after I restored the subsection header about the Eastern Orthodox practice of hesychasm being rejected by the West. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please take this to some other admin or to WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I need to know what other Administrator you would suggest since you have been the one responsible for the agreement and enforcement in the past. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use your own judgment. The previous restrictions are in WP:RESTRICT and any admin can enforce them. It seems to me that a misunderstanding about the table of contents would not be that hard to rectify. Why don't you ask Esoglou if the problem still exists, and if so, can he recommend a solution. It should not be unreasonable to expect the two of you to work out differences of this magnitude. If you ask Esoglou and he is completely uncooperative, then you might consider other steps. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

Ed, I'm not sure that RIR is living up to their end of the bargain. I can't act because I'm WP:INVOLVED, but you might want to take a look at it and do whatever you think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The agreement was not to keep reverting the 'attack ads' phrasing but to abide by the result of an RfC. That deal seems to be holding. I am not happy to see continued warring on the article but it seems to be about something else. One option to limit this would be a month of full protection. Do you think that would be wise? EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless certain editors are banned from editing the article, full protection will only give the article a respite from the ongoing, almost interminable, disruption. Obviously, though, it's easier to lock the article than it is to implement a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to quit editing the article until 12:01 p.m. PST, my local time, on December 27, 2012, but I will continue to monitor and make suggestions on the Talk Page as well as the RFC pages. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That 3RR report I made

Seems sorted,I've commented there now that it can be declined. Thanks for reminding me, appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Given that I feel a personal need to remain logged out of Wikipedia for the present following the ANI episode I have therefore blanked my user page including a recent reply to you which you may not have seen:

Thank you for the link (whether he's a PhD, MD, or whatever is clearly immaterial here, btw) and the pertinent question. At a very rapid glance, the article does indeed seem similar in approach to, say, a chapter of a book providing a reasoned summary of the literature, together with some viewpoint comments, and therefore, imo at least, effectively meeting WP:MEDRS. Whether or not it's an appropriate source for clinical claims such as these I'm not altogether sure right now. My own preference (and this is admittedly a personal one) would be to use a review like this in a thoughtful editorial way in conjunction with the Cochrane reviews and other meta-analyses etc. (Fwiw, I never opposed use of this source for the more general information currently provided in the first sentence: ie Several meta-analyses have shown psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy to be effective, with outcomes comparable or greater than other kinds of psychotherapy or antidepressant drugs).

Perhaps I should make a general disclaimer here: I do actually have an open mind on the relative benefits of therapies, and recognize that they may be effective irrespective of the scientific validity of their theoretical constructs. My only concern in starting the talk page thread was to try to improve the way the current evidence is reported in the article. WP:MEDRS does seem to me to be the right guideline to follow for that (even though it isn't pertinent for many other parts of the page).

I'd also like to thank you for the dialogue which has helped revive my feelings about contributing to Wikipedia after some somewhat painful thoughts tonight (it's now several hours past my normal bedtime). Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again, —MistyMorn (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Cache

Hi Ed,

Thanks for reading through the 3RR. Am I still able to contribute to the talk page? Or just avoid that article? Is Ring getting a similar statement? Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You could still use the talk page. If you accept the deal I'll then decide how to approach Ring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DRN Bitcoin case

FYI: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Bitcoin as an investment (DRN case filed on a page that you had protected).

Note: although the case currently says "Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments" DRN generally welcomes brief statements by admins who had previous dealings with the page or the editors, even if the discussion has not been officially opened. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning

By mistake I used 2 computers, but most of my posts have been from this computer, and I will be strict with it from now on. I agree that the matter should be discussed as you pointed out, and some people have already voiced their opinions on the talk page. Thank you for the intervention.187.36.81.70 (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cisplatine War

Daniel Stowell cites as a reference for his statement the following: "Ron Seckinger, The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 59-73." The book "Balancing Evils Judiciously" focuses on Zeph Kingsley, but throughout the book Stowell explains on events mentioned in the Kingsley writings. One of these is the war between Brazil and what Kingsley calls "the Free Republic of Buenos Ayres" (i.e., the Cisplatine War). This is the full text of Stowell's statement:

• "The war between Brazil and the Republic of Buenos Aires stemmed from a longstanding Spanish and Portuguese rivlary over the Banda Oriental, the area of modern Uruguay. In 1816 Portuguese troops from Brazil occuppied the area during the Spanish American wars of independence. In 1821 the area was incorporated into Brazil as the Cisplatine Province. In 1825, the Republic of Buenos Aires took advantage of a rebellion in the area to claim the Banda Oriental as part of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. This action amounted to a declaration of war, and Brazil reciprocated six weeks later. Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait, the war went disastrously for Brazil. Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries."

So, as you can see, my actions are perfectly justified as the information is accurate and well-sourced. The IP editor, on the other hand, bases his arguments on original research and his self-proclaimed nationalist agenda ([4]). I know you meant well, but now is a good time to please correct your mistake, block the editor for edit warring, and restore the material. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please add this information to the article talk page. It is not up to the admins to make a decision in a content matter. Nothing forces any given source to be included in the article, especially one that seems to be giving only a high-level summary. If there is a dispute on whether the Stowell source is good for this assertion, the matter can be raised at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As you can see here ([5]) and here ([6]), the IP editor does not actually dispute the veracity of Stowell's statement. He only wants the article to present things how he wants it, based on his nationalist perspective. Based on this situation, it is a good time for an administrator to step in. Again I suggest you to please enforce the 3RR block and let the IP editor think about his actions. By not enforcing the block, you are pretty much telling him "it's all good, go ahead and continue with your nationalist position". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that User:Lecen could be helpful in this discussion, since he is the main author of some featured articles on Brazilian history. Can someone get hold of the Ron Seckinger book that you mentioned above? If Stowell is actually relying on Seckinger for his information about the Cisplatine War, then going to the real source could be beneficial. You could also ask User:Cambalachero for his opinion. From a look at his user page, he is more likely to be connected with Argentina than with Brazil. If we have people participating with a variety of different national affiliations, we should worry less about nationalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Lecen constantly demonstrates an unstable behavior and a problem of Hispanophobia. Added that he has openly stated he does not know much about the war. Therefore, I prefer to avoid dealing with that editor. As for the article, if you (the administrator) will not block the disruptive IP editor, then I simply prefer to step away before I am the one ending up with the block. Ultimately, it's the article which loses a valuable piece of information. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This may seem frivolous, but could you consider working on an article where you don't dislike so many of the other editors? If you can't find anyone to support you on the talk page, taking things to AN3 is unlikely to get what you want. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I dislike Lecen's behavior, not him as a person. By the way, since when is he considered a one-person majority? Cambalachero agrees with me that the text is relevant; we only disagree as to where it should be placed. That's 2 and 2, if you want to play sides, but that's not what Wikipedia or this matter is about. The IP editor claims that the information is incorrect because the Ph.D. historian did not get a Ph.D. in "military history". The IP editor next decides that Stowell is not an "expert" because Stowell's statement does not agree with his opinion on the conflict. He proclaims that he has other sources to demonstrate otherwise, and yet up to now only provides his original research. This is all just plain absurd.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cisplatine War, part II

Contrary to what the poster MarshalN20 is claiming, I am a responsible poster, and I stand for neutrality and impartiality as much as possible. Don't distort what I said MarshalN20. I did not say Stowell is a good source. He is not. It does not come from someone expert on the subject, nor from a military historian, he never wrote about the Cisplatine War, nor is the book written by him (the book is not specifically about the conflict).

As a proof of my willingness to compromise, I agreed on posting it as suggested by Cambalachero, i.e, not as a big-quote text, which is entirely misleading. And I am not basing it on "original research", as falsely claimed by MarshalN20, I based it on facts. If the Brazilian army was weak, so was the Argentine army. If the Brazilian army did not have control of events, neither did the United Provinces army. They did not expel Brazilian troops stationed in Uruguay nor did they put an end to the blockade: on the contrary, by the end of the conflict the United Provinces lacked a fleet.

MarshalN20 posted this from Stowell: "Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait". As one can see, Kingsley gave apparently a positive portrait of Brazil during that conflict. One can see Kingsley had a positive portrait. As mentioned Stowell is not an expert on the subject, posting his opinion as a big-text quote is misleading, so much so that Lecen has agreed with me on it.

A final note, I'm not a nationalist. I just don't want anti-Brazilian sentiment to distort what happened. My comment in the page of MarshalN20 relates to the fact that from what his editing suggests, if the United Provinces had paraded in the capital of Brazil like Brazilian troops did in Buenos Aires, he would not hesitate in posting a pic of it. I've never cared to post a depiction of the Brazilian troops in Buenos Aires during the Platine War, because I'm not a nationalist. And this is what I was trying to show to him.187.36.81.70 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Over the past couple of days I've encountered two cases where people used outright hate sites as sources on article talk pages. As you can imagine, I find that unacceptable. Where would I report something like this? The articles were ARBPIA related, but I'm not sure which exact remedy they are violating. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any more details? EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

One example is this, where Dailycare uses radioislam.net. It's a well known hate site, but even if someone doesn't know that, a cursory look would suffice. I pointed out here that he might want to look a bit closer at what he's using, for which he accused me here of objecting to it just because it has the word "Islam" in the URL, but continued to argue it's ok to use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:Dailycare#Mentioned. He is only using this website as a convenience link for a passage from Simha Flapan's book that the hate site claims to be hosting. One might take this to WP:RS/N if needed, but I imagine some admins would take action directly if the problem continues. To avoid the drama he should consider getting a copy of the physical book. If you want to change the accounting for Arab-Israeli history on a major article like United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine it would be wise to do some reading from a variety of historical works to assure you can write a neutral account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, NMMNG asked for assistance to verify the contents of Flapan's book. I did a quick search and came up with that hit, where the text appears to be in-line with the text NMMNG wants to "verify". I didn't do a search about the nature of Radio Islam and didn't propose that the site be used as a source in the article. There are now three other sources in that discussion thread in addition to the one discussed here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have to use a hate site as a source because there is no alternative? Though I won't revert your change, I think you're exposing yourself to cricitism unnecessarily. If you feel that the content of Flapan's book is important to the article you should have other ways of getting access to it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, no I'm not saying that as we have other sources in that discussion as well, two of which I've produced myself. What I an saying is that was the first reference I came across when looking at the issue. I've now over-struck the text from this site on that talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for striking out the material from radioislam.net. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad I had to come here for him to strike that out (without acknowledging there's problem with the site, unfortunately). Am I to understand that in the normal process of editing an encyclopedia I'm expected to open links with stuff like "The Jews behind Islamophobia", "What is this Jewish carnage really about?", "The Victories of Revisionism by Robert Faurisson", "The Jewish hand behind the internet", etc, right on the top of the sidebar? It's not like this stuff is hidden. I'd have to question the competence of someone who doesn't realize what this site is, and then when that's pointed out refuses to acknowledge it (he actually said I should thank him for it). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I trust that Dailycare is aware of the risk to his own reputation of using that kind of a site as a source for anything. Still, he took action when requested. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So basically you're saying this kind of stuff is acceptable, or at least that there's no point in reporting it somewhere? I wasn't going to report this specific incident, as I noted on that talk page, but I would like to know for future reference. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the only person whose opinion counts. You might search through past policy discussions and see if you can find anything. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin

I've requested that the page be reduced to semi-protection at RFPP, which should keep socking in bay.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been declined. I suggested at RFPP that you take the request to ANI to gather a consensus if you still think the reduction to semi is wise. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Quack check

Hi, EdJohnston ... would you have time to look into this ? User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Reminder_to_self? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking-- I'm fairly confident on this one but understand the evidence is thin-- I'll keep an eye on it, and ping you if any copyvio issues appear (but I don't do images). If copyvio issues aren't occurring, it's not a big deal anyway ... Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint

Ed, I have put in the diffs. I'm afraid that I have literally never done this before, and I don't know to which box you are referring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. This is Edit warring 101, and its all new to me. Facepalm 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I reformatted this. I'm sure it still isn't right. But I see you've warned our erstwhile editor. Perhaps he will get the message. If not, I'll be back. -- The Terminator 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)