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.

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANEW

Hi Ed, I had a look at Wikipedia:ANEW#User:Edgth_reported_by_User:Dr.K._.28Result:_48h.29 after seeing a few edits go by on Mythology and the user you blocked is at it again, having reverted twice since coming off his block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and obviously the person who has been edit warring the last few days against the consensus established on the talk page is blameless. Edgth (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor will not take no for an answer. In his single-minded WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT ideological quest to obliterate the word "humankind" from Wikipedia has now taken to attempting to intimidate the editor who recently reverted him on Mythology: [1]. I am not sure what he will do when the other editor will not self-revert as Edgth is asking him to do. Will Edgth continue his single-minded edit-warring to remove the word "humankind" from Mythology? And then what? Will he expand his campaign to other articles? This is getting ridiculous and disruptive. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that I smiled when I saw the word intimidate. I conclude that you going back on our agreement and edit warring against the consensus on the talk page of mythology to be disruptive and needlessly protracting this dispute that was seemingly over. Edgth (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently all three words are there: 1 humankind, 1 humanity and 1 mankind. This was the balanced version Buster7 and I had agreed to. Yet you reverted the 1 occurrence of humankind in the article in your edit today. Can you explain why? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the original dispute was over the humankind in the lead. Edit warring took place then a long discussion took place. The result was that it would be humanity in the lead. The rest of the article was not discussed. Then you went back on that and changed the lead to humankind, edit warring to keep your way and the admins, in their infinite knowledge, ignored this. Edgth (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You either misunderstood the consensus or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Here is my reply: To avoid repetition and return to the status quo before your "human race" edit I replaced one "humanity" with "humankind". Now everyone should be happy. and just above that I had said: I will not contest the presence of the word in the article any longer. The discussion was about the frequency of the terms not the lead. Now there is balance in the article with each term present once, yet you want to remove 1 humankind and have two occurrences of "humanity" instead, and you are edit-warring for days against multiple editors to achieve it. Please stop your disruption. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Liar Liar, pants on fire. You were very adamant on the edit warring board that the consensus only included the lead and not the rest of the article. It´s ludicrous that you now say that that´s not the case. Edgth (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don´t know why I´m bothering, maybe an admin will finally put this sorry case to bed, but here´s what was said:

I also thought we had an agreement. You said you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article but you´re back to removing it. I´m not back to edit warring. I was trying to implement our agreement when you decided to go back on it. Also, why is it edit warring when I do it but not you? A ridiculous report. Edgth (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The word "humanity" is still at the lead. I stuck by the agreement and left it at the lead. You removed the one single remaining "humankind", that is the problem. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You said that you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article. It seems by that you just meant the lead. Nevertheless, the editing we´ve been doing over the last hour isn´t edit warring but trying to come to an agreement after the confusion over the agreement. Edgth (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, because that is where you put it. In our agreement I was referring to your original edit specifically where you replaced a single "humankind" with "humanity" at the lead. I'm also willing to AGF you were confused about that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m also willing to AGF that you misspoke and didn´t intend to break the agreement. YAY we´re friends now. Edgth (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy. Edgth (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop your false accusations and personal attacks. I used that detailed language talking about the lead because you were not only reverting the lead but you also blithely obliterated any other occurrence of the word "humankind" in your edits, although nothing like that was agreed upon. So I was, in good faith, pointing you to the exact location of the original word hoping that you stop your obtuse reverting elsewhere and confine yourself to that exact spot. I did not count on your rigid interpretation that you wanted the word "humanity" specifically at the lead and "humankind" gone completely to the point of mechanically repeating "humanity" multiple times in the article. Obviously I did not discuss this matter at such length on talk:Mythology and talk:Bahá'í Faith to have to agree to something as silly as your rigid interpretation. You also cherry-picked part of the 3RRN discussion but you forgot to add the reply I gave to Alex Bakharev when he asked me if I was still asking for your block: That's a good question Alex. I did reach an agreement with Edgth, subject to some misinterpretations (AGF), but Paul August, who was not part of the agreement, edited the article today in favour of the word "humankind". I happen to completely agree with his position because that was my original position and I agree with his edit-summaries. So there is another consensus forming at the present time which is not covered by the old agreement. I'll AGF and I would settle for some advice to Edgth not to revert Paul's edits because he does not have consensus any longer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC) So, fairly and squarely I declared to you at 3RRN that I no longer agreed with your extreme position, after I saw your rigid obliteration of "humankind" in the article. I also agreed with Paul's intervention and that helped me realise that your position was untenable. But even so, when I edited the article I changed only 1 "humanity" and not both of them as Paul preferred, specifically stating that I do it without prejudice to Paul's edit: [2]; all the time trying to find a compromise which could satisfy everyone. But I had not counted on your disruptive intransigence, personal attacks, continuous edit-warring, misrepresentations and ideological opposition to the the term "humankind". Not to mention that your repeatedblanket removals of all "humankind" occurrences broke the original agreement by removing all occurrences of "humankind" although no such agreement existed. But I am not going to call you a liar, or a deceptive editor; that's simply not my style. But I have had enough of your attacks and misrepresentations. I will not engage with you any longer, because it is an utter waste of time. You can have the last word. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole discussion was only on the edit war over humankind in the lead. The resulting consensus was only focused on humanity being in the lead instead. You maintained that that was the case at the board. Your wall of text doesn´t change that. Edgth (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And what´s extreme about changing humankind to humanity in the lead, as agreed on the talk page? Also, I didn´t break the agreement. The agreement was for the lead to be humanity, the rest of the article wasn´t discussed so I was in every right to edit the rest of it. You´ve been continually lying and misrepresenting me and the situation. Your sock report and transparent flip flopping on what the consensus and agreement was are good examples. Edgth (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ed, I also point to your attention the following remark by this editor:

  No I don´t. I can go about replacing humankind with humanity. They both mean the same thing so unless there is a good reason for a specific article to have humankind instead, I can change it. Please begin a fruitless search for a policy or guideline that says otherwise. Edgth (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• His ideological and disruptive opposition to the word "humankind" is chillingly clear. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• If User:Edgth intends to remove the word 'humankind' all across Wikipedia, he will need to find a consensus to do so. He has apparently yielded to consensus at Bahá'í Faith and it turns out that Mythology has been fully protected for ten days by another admin. If Edgth's campaign against 'humankind' widens to more articles I suspect that admins may need to step in. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, what´s wrong with changing humankind to humanity? They both mean the same thing while humanity is far more common and readers would have actually seen that word before. Edgth (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Blithering blisters! We'll have the ol' Tom Catster turning in his grave, in fear that future editors of Burnt Nortonmight be tempted to alter his lines:

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind

Cannot bear very much reality.

Which reminds me of those other lines, so appropriate to wiki wars

The trilling wire in the blood

Sings below inveterate scars

Appeasing long forgotten wars.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, that phrase did sound familiar. T. S. Eliot will probably have the last word! EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you also for this note of literary levity. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ed: Thank you Ed for your advice. My thanks also go to Drmies for taking the time to check into this disruption. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. This editor, as promised, is spreading this to FA articles now and is edit-warring with multiple editors there. Example: [3]. Also got a new warning on his talk which he blanked as usual: [4]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, are you going to keep telling on me at this page? Edgth (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, your edit-warring campaign continues, so the reports continue accordingly. BTW, you are still edit-warring replacing "humankind' with "mankind" despite being told multiple times in multiple pages not to do that. Now you chose an FA article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I replaced it once. That´s not edit-warring. Edgth (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

FDU

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hello, can I create article about Azerbaijani footballers or creation of articles also not allowed until December?--NovaSkola (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

According to what User:Sandstein wrote in the WP:ARBAA2 log on 10 June 2013, "the topic ban is modified to exclude any edit that is about sports, provided that it does not relate in any way to political or historical disputes concerning Armenia or Azerbaijan." You can write about Azerbaijani sportsmen so long as the article is completely unconnected to the AA conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Move

Hello, I saw that you recently moved the page Magna Carta... Holy Grail per the Requested move discussion. However, the result of the discussion was 2 Oppose vs 2 Support, which in my opinion is indicating a No Consensus result, rather than a move. Why did you decide to move the page? 2Flows (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Counting the nominator, it was three in favor of the move and two against. The nominator listed seven reliable sources including the New York Times that do not use the ellipses. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Since there are reliable sources using both styles, it would be hard to determine which is the common name. Also "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Judging by the fact that the official sites of the album's publisher and main artist use ellipses (as stated by the first Oppose), it seems that some of the other sources may have written the name without ellipses in error, due to it being revealed shortly before the release. (as stated by the second Oppose) 2Flows (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be counted, so I'm not sure why it's impossible to determine what's 'common.' We can guess that adding the ellipses was a bright idea that one of the producers had late in the release process when the the simpler name had already been widely communicated to the press through advance marketing materials. If the album is newsworthy for an extended time, we can watch and see if press sources that don't yet use the ellipses begin to add them. If in fact the producers changed their mind about the best title, how can we say there was an 'error'? EdJohnston (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that in the Terms of use for the Samsung MCHG App, the album is written without ellipses [5], which means the official sources also used a mixed spelling. I guess what you said about adding the ellipses is a plausible explanation, so we can go with the way the majority of the sources spell it. My argument was that all official sources use the ellipses spelling, which I now saw is not true, so I would support the move. 2Flows (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent comments at ANI

Ed, I saw your latest comments at AN/I and they deserve a response. You say I was altering "a direct quote" - at the time this wasn't obvious since the quote wasn't referred to by the article, as it should have been. I didn't see it, and if the anon IP had simply pointed it out, in good faith, no problem. Although as a point of note, as per WP:NFCCEG, the quote should have been removed in any case since it adds nothing to the article - but I wouldn't have done that. You also say that my edits change the way the AA refer to Ireland on their own website - in point of fact, by a long shot most (nearly all) of the references are to "Ireland" and not to "Republic of Ireland".
But what really made me wonder is, why did you focus all your comment on my behaviour, and none on the anon IP? No mention that the anon IP didn't leave any edit summaries (I'm not a mind reader), or respond to my notices on their Talk page. No mention that instead of addressing the content, they switched to a personal comment that the edits were not allowed as per the Topic Ban, which is not only untrue, but unnecessary (and provocative) in an edit summary. More than that, you're familiar with the history and being stalked by socks. We both know that there is a very good chance that the anon IP is the same sock, burning up another IP address in the process. Do you believe that my behaviour was incorrect, or so bad, that you felt the need to admonish me and effectively support the position of the anon IP? Not trying to force you to see differently - you're entitled to your opinion - just interested in where you stand on this, and is your response today pretty much what I can expect every time an anon IP starts a fight with me in the future. --HighKing (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. I expect that User:Cailil is in a position to follow up on this when he becomes active again. It wasn't good to see you policing how 'Ireland' was referred to there, because it's in the spirit of the 'Great Britain' issue where you are still banned. Edit warring to change the text of a direct quote is a bad idea, when you were changing it from right to wrong. It took me five minutes to find it on the AA's web site. Should I go on? EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

They have bad credit rating also [6]