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.

Talk back

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Gobonobo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darkness Shines

Has DS a received warning at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan? I have noticed you have given them out. I also noticed that you are an administrator and an uninvolved editor. I would request that you consider warning him based on his actions, his misuse of the template, and edit warring like behavior. Crtew (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at User talk:CarrieVS#Thanx. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Am we allowed to take ourselves off this listing? Since I was never warned, I didn't even know about these special isles of Wikipedia and the whole thing was done incorrectly, it doesn't seem fair. Several of us had the same concern, which was while we deleted ourselves when DS reversed my strikethrough. Crtew (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If people try to take themselves off the list themselves they may be blocked, so I don't advise that. Go to an admin noticeboard before trying that, or wait for the current informal discussions to reach a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

At the moment I'm looking at RFC/U, AN/I and AE, and I'm not really sure which to file. I've never done this before and it's a little daunting. However, several people have told me they had similar bad experienced after I posted my own, which makes me think and RFC/U would be appropriate. You say "if he continues" for the AE. Which would you suggest I work on? Crtew (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Another admin has now removed DS's warnings from the WP:ARBIPA log, including your warning. If DS won't accept this result, it will probably go to WP:Arbitration enforcement. AE can issue bans of all kinds if it seems they are necessary. For example, if someone appeared to be using poor judgment when giving warnings about Discretionary sanctions they could be banned from issuing such warnings. Why not let the issue settle down for a while. A word to the wise may be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your advice. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What should I brace myself for?

Read this very terse conversation. Darkness Shines says that next time he is going to file an AE case (which is dismissed if the guy had not been given notification) and then he will point to the "fiasco" (ensuing the warning he gave me while being involved in an issue and pretending to be an uninvolved administrator without clearly telling me the reason for leaving the warning).

Just as a precautionary measure I am asking this while it's still a hot issue, what should I do if such a situation arises? I am starting to feel picked on and harassed by DS! Arbitration Enforcement because of a minor content dispute which has barely received any outside input even after my repeated tries (along the lines of WP:BRD) at the ORN and talk?? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No comment at this time. Wait and see. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

I've been blocked for violating the 3RR. Then I proved that I haven't violated the 3RR. Then the admins changed the charges. Wouldn't it be the case of unblocking me, giving me a chance to defend myself from the new charges and then blocking me again if that was the case? It's like locking someone up for murder, then after it is proven he wasn't the suspect, the charges are changed to robbery, but he is kept in jail without any trial. And it seems that no admin have actually read the ANEW. Isn't it like a judge just sleeping during the whole trial and then making a decision based on a shallow notion of the case? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This was more like a case of a a guy with a couple of courses in common law trying to represent himself in Louisiana's civil law courts. A number of well-read admins all chimed in on your unblock - obviously they're not the ones who are wrong. Ed even offered to lift your block, but you acted like a jerk to him. So yes - "admin abuse" usually means someone is abusing admins again (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't calling me a jerk a violation of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA? Not that I'm offended, but I've never lowered to that level and still have been accused of violating WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I commented on your edits, not you as an editor. You'll hopefully learn to read the very policies you're trying to quote (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? If I say you are acting like a jerk, I'm commenting on your edits, not you as an editor? And that wouldn't be a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Interesting how justice isn't blind here in WP. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Milogardner

Milogardner (talk · contribs) is "banned from editing on the topic of Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed, including talk pages"[1]. Maybe this doesn't include his talk page, but see the revision history of Talk:Egyptian mathematics[2]. I was involved in the RfC so I probably shouldn't take action, but what's the best thing to do about this flagrant violation? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Shall I ask elsewhere? Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Now warned. Sorry I overlooked your request. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/EW

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at WP:AN/EW: [3] It appears that there have been no admins watching that page for quite some time. Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster 22:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, it has been resolved. Thanks. Grandmaster 00:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Astronomer28

You state here that User:Astronomer28 was blocked for 24 hrs, however it appears that the editor is not blocked. Error somewhere? Vsmith (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also increased the block on User:Mieszko 8 to 48 hours for block evasion on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus. Vsmith (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks now, see 109.77.151.81 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman has also threatened to indef him should this IP socking continue: [4]. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Isabel dos Santos

Hi EdJohnston, many thanks for your contribution. I have changed that now to the reference of the Guardian article. Cruks (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

Hi, I was reported for copyright violations concerning changes to the article on the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve. It wasn't a copyright violation, as the article was cited at the bottom. Additional changes were made to make this more clear. All content information is added from an academically-sourced article written by a Ph.D, Dr. Jerry Bergman.--Twainmaned (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking excessively long quotes from copyrighted works is not allowed, even if you cite where you got it. See Fair use#Amount and substantiality. Using *ideas* published elsewhere does not violate copyright, so generally you should summarize the source in your own words rather than taking long quotes from it. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Malayalam cinema, South Indian film industry

I have replied on the admin noticeboard WP:AN3#User:Prathambhu reported by User:Induzcreed (Result: ). Please let me know if there is anything more that is mandatory that I still have to do. Thanks, Best Prathambhu (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Shameless or not?

Hi Ed, I'm getting in touch as I know you as a helpful admin, having previously corresponded re the self-styled "Cassandra" IP sock but this regards an entirely different matter on which I'd appreciate some advice. An article I nominate for deletion was deleted yesterday, then re-created and re-edited by a user who was previously uninvolved. They have taken strong objection to my re-nomination of the article. My question regards this edit, which strikes me as a shameless and blatant move to hide the fact that the article is being considered for deletion. On my montitor at least it renders the AfD template utterly illegible. I'm a little reluctant to revert without seeking a trustworthy view on it as I'm concerned I may be missing something that makes the edit acceptable and I don't want to start an edit war but would like to address it if it is an underhand move. Best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The recreation of Independent Publisher Book Award so soon after the first AfD certainly has the potential to ruffle some feathers. I left a note for User:My76Strat asking him to undo his change to the head of the article, which has the effect of hiding the AfD notice. I couldn't resist forming my own opinion about deletion of the article, and at present I'm on the fence. The verdict of the first AfD was certainly not ironclad. If you wanted to be super-diplomatic you could withdraw your AfD nomination and allow a month before filing again. You could also ask User:DGG if he's heard of this award and if so, does it has any influence with librarians when considering book acquisition. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I have to say I was a little surprised myself that the article had been deleted without greater input to the AfD, expecting to see it re-listed for another week. That said, for the claims to great notability made for this award in the article (e.g. "the largest book awards contest in the world") I find the dearth of coverage oustside of the awarding body and recipients puzzling at the least. I'll see what DGG has to say. Not sure how inclined I feel towards the super-diplomacy line any more. I might have earlier in the course of events but after the micro-AfD-template stunt and Strat's continued tactic at the AfD of attributing to me a spurious line of argument in order to knock it down, I'm not sure I want to give them the satisfaction. I'll sleep on it though. Incidentally, though I haven't (and don't feel particularly inclined to) checked out Strat's "pretty extensive writing endeavor" I'm wondering if they are worried that my doubts about this article may also pertain to the 50 stubs they have laboured over, potentially also calling them into question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm checking, and am about to make a preliminary comment at the AfD . DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 23:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Zaza people

Try to read this: Linguistic studies shows that the Zazas may have immigrated to their modern-day homeland from the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. Some Zazas use the word Dimli (Daylami) to describe their ethnic identity. The word Dimli (Daylami) also describes a region of Gilan Province in today’s Iran. Some linguists connect the word Dimli with the Daylamites in the Alborz Mountains near the shores of Caspian Sea in Iran and believe that the Zaza have migrated from Daylam towards the west. Today, Iranian languages are still spoken in southern regions of Caspian Sea (also called the Caspian languages), including Sangsarī, Māzandarānī, Tātī (Herzendī), Semnānī, Tāleshī, and they are grammatically and lexically very close to Zazaki; this supports the argument that Zazas immigrated to eastern Anatolia from southern regions of Caspian Sea.

And this: It is generally believed that the Zazas immigrated to their modern day homeland from the southern shores of the Caspian Sea.[citation needed] Some Zazas use the word Dimli (Daylami) to describe their ethnic identity. The word Dimil (Daylam) also describes a region of Gilan Province in today’s Iran. Zazaki language also shows similarities with Gilaki, Mazanderani and others spoken by the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. But some historians claim that Zazas didn't immigrate from lands of Daylem, but are descendants of Persians after being defeated by Alexander the Great. Dimili comes from Dümbüllü, old main Zaza tribe that lived in the region of Diyarbakır.

This shows that they are not Kurds, i have taken this from the Wikipedia, can you see what i mean now? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. When the reliable sources that are external to Wikipedia disagree, the best we can do is reflect their diversity. The complexity of this topic is hinted at in our article on Kurds. "The term.. became associated with an amalgamation of Iranian and Iranicized nomadic tribes and groups in the region". When the term 'Kurd' is itself so vague, you can understand why Zaza speakers might not all agree as to whether they are Kurds. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica claims that Zaza is a subdialect of Kurdish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Rutgers-Newark

Thank you for your assistance in rectifying the WP:RM issue with Rutgers-Newark. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page. (re: disruptive reverting)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Coasterlover1994's talk page.
Message added 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My Arbcom appeal

Hi Ed,

regarding your comment on my topic ban appeal [[5]]

We have met before I got banned. I contacted you because of SA sockpuppeting:

• User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#VanishedUser314159_.3F
• User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_26#VanishedUser314159_.2F_SA_socking
• User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#Potential_SA_IP_socks

I continued to highlight SA sockpuppeting

• User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_7#User:VanishedUser314159

SA told me this [6] please note " I will also continue to encourage others on Wikipedia to oppose your efforts. "

Well he did, many times, successfully:

• multiple times on the cold fusion talk page, for instance:
  • Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_43#Removed_for_discussion
  • Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_43#Poor_sourcing_on_DARPA_wild_goose_chase
• on the FTN Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Heads_up, probably a few more times
• even on the arbcom case that got me banned: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117#Comment_by_involved_User:Hudn12

In the assessment of my conduct on wikipedia this sockpuppeting plays a role.

I am not saying I blame my ban on him. No, I am the only one to blame for getting banned. But if you want to come to an fair assessment of my conduct on WP, this should be weighed in and it wasn't when I got banned.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)