User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

My dear Wikipedian EdJohnston,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Thank you and good day.

The Placebo Effect

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

re John Leach

By reference to the committee of the ACS or by contacting the Peter Wynne Thomas at Notts CCC, the potential libelous nature of Mr Leach's communication can be sampled. He mentions Keith Warsop in one article. he is a good friend of mine and has a different few. He remarks on the Journal are fiction and can be verified. I published his article in 3 parts(see Journals for 2006 for confirmation). He also misquotes Stephen Draper, claiming he had commended his article. I am told this was not the case. I intend to let this rest now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Daft (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Requested edits

Nope, watching it only looks for edits to the cat description. There is some way to "watch" unblock reqs, so I'll ask around and see how its done. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock is the second one. — Athaenara ✉ 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hurrah! Athaenara ✉ 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!! --Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Kingturtle for the promotion, to Hu12 for the nomination, to Athaenara for being the first voter, to Malinaccier and to everyone who participated! One commenter in the RfA made me promise not to send out a mass thank-you message, so this will have to do. Please send me your advice on mistakes to avoid. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to the RfA, but nice to see it was unanimous. Rich Farmbrough, 22:58 20 February 2008 (GMT).

Congratulations! And thank you for helping with Hellenistic Art, and generally helping me get oriented when I was new! Wow, unanimous support -- that's great! But from your contribs it looks as if you already know what you're doing. If you just move slowly with any new areas you're not familiar with you'll probably do just fine. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lite reading

Here is some general reading, saw your discussion on Athaenara's page.

• New admin school
• Administrators' how-to guide

When a situations comes up, tackle them. You've shown you have good judgement, and if a good faith error happens (and they do) it can be fixed. If you have questions about a specific admin task/action, ask an experienced admin in that "area" or one you've seen do it before. Special:Log can be very useful. The catagories in the drop down menu, such as "Block log", "Deletion log" and "Protection log" are a good place to see what admin action was done and the edit summary reason why it was done.. (use it). No need to focus on all admin only areas from the get-go, start with what you know, COIN will give you plenty oportunities to start expanding into other areas. Hope this helps some--Hu12 (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good advice. Obviously it would be logical to have admin resources available for use in WP:COIN cases, but I do worry about the rules regarding involved admins. I see that admins do patrol WP:BLP/N and they also take enforcement actions there, but the rules are simpler for defamation. You can jump in and remove defamatory material from an article under WP:BLP and (from what I have heard) that doesn't make you an involved admin. Over at WP:COIN, the patrollers often do try to fix up articles to make them neutral, so the clear line of what makes you an involved person is not so easy to see there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you reasoning and its a valid concern. However unless you initiate the COIN case or are in a content dispute (previously) with one of the involved parties that leads to a WP:COIN case , you probably are not an "involved admin". Thats the best way to delimit the line for now, obviously all situations are not the same, but those will become clearer over time. Remember you are a sysop now, if there is a spill on isle 9, you've got a mop. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your talking about Enterprise architect? If you check the dates, I did the admin action 2 days before I commented at the COIN (and before I knew there was a COIN report on it). And Bamford was more an intransigent vandal whose blocked I checked on ANI. Last week someone referred to an Arbcom that could be interpreted as saying Admins shouldn't use admin powers in disputes their involved with through another means. I'd say if I'm the first responder to a COI, I shouldn't do the block, but if another responder presents a good argument or there is a strong consensus of abuse (Bamford), then go for it. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz, thanks for joining this thread. You must be talking about the Matthew Hoffman arbcom that included this finding of fact:

Vanished user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Irreducible Complexity and other evolution-related articles with specific content goals for these articles in mind. Based on the frequency and the type of participation with these articles, there is evidence that Vanished user was too involved to use his administrative tools in an unbiased manner.

I certainly follow that logic, and it doesn't seem like a very big restriction concerning typical COIN issues. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was a different one, worded more generally. I'll take a look through the cases. MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can't find it, so it might've been a proposed arbcom. In that case, I'd say as long as your not originally involved outside of COIN in an issue, then feel free to act (within reason). MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You might have been thinking of this language, from an arbcom that finished on 19 January. My reading is that the decision applies to the Palestine-Israel articles, and I assume that it's not binding on admins who work in other areas. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proof by intimidation

Thanks for including the origin of the term. Whether Rota's story is true or not, who knows, but the anecdote is pure gold. Pichpich (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Least squares

Done. Redirecting talk pages is optional anyway, so if you come across it again feel free to revert it yourself. Black Kite 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Research on the RFA process

Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Wikipedia Requests for adminship procedure. As you recently completed this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.

• Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
• Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
• Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
• Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?

If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.

This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Wikipedia, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Business-Education Partnerships

Hi there, could I get some feedback and specifics. I'm I have improved the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_Partnerships:_Business/Industry-Education. I'd also like to change the title of the page to read Business-Education Partnerships but don't know how. Thanks. Sandra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanhealy (talk • contribs) 24 February 2008

The Hall Monitors

Just wondering if we can get a full delete on The Hall Monitors? It's been a week since the deletion was proposed with votes for deletion, but someone deleted the template for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistlesgowhoo (talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the five days have run, but since I voted in the AfD, I can't close it. Better wait for someone to get around to it. It may have to be relisted since there were so few votes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Art in Ruins

• That's weird because I could have sworn I found this article via the Deletion log, but checking the log there isn't one. Perhaps I mixed up my Newpages patrol with my Deletion log one. D: JuJube (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• No, all I did was check the two protagonists are redlinks - they are. I'm awaiting the arrival of Tyrenius otherwise! This link [1] was a trip down memory lane for me though! Article much better now. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Interesting question. It definitely wasn't A7 nn, but it could have qualified for G11, which is not based on notability, but promotion requiring rewrite. I sometimes use the latter, if I feel it's not right to keep something which requires a lot of work on it. Once it's at AfD, the G11 doesn't apply, but notability does. Well, it's notable, so we keep it and end up expecting someone to clean it up. I think it was a good outcome in this case though. I hope that makes sense. Tyrenius (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! You do seem to have a well-organized project. (I remember that you guys helped out with the Cuban Artists issue as well). EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone, but it's a completely disorganised project! There is only a small group of editors involved, so standard project things like putting boxes everywhere don't tend to get done. The resources get directed to article improvement—which is no bad thing. Certainly there is a good pool of knowledge to draw on covering most areas of visual arts. A great collaboration was on contemporary artists shown at the Saatchi Gallery, now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. Another was on the now-featured article Las Meninas. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts is a good place to post to get specialist attention and feedback (see Talk:Mark_Vallen#Expert_review, for example): the editors have a good "eye" for notability issues. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts works well. Tyrenius (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

COI edit

Another editor asked about adding some info to a page I've editted, and given the COI I have with it, I think the info he's asking to add would be a COI for both of us. Could you do the honors at Talk:Frank G. Zarb School of Business? MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your suggestions on adding comparative sources are just the kind of reason your so good at COIN. MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Display mode for templates

Howdy, Happy-melon suggested a very clever, very natural way to solve the problem. I have implemented it on some of the not-protected templates on the page you mentioned, but many are protected, and there are still many left (I did from the bottom up to plain old fair-use).

The solution is to wrap any automatic-category tags with

{{{category|

and

}}}

This {{{category|stuff}}} notation is a parameter expansion. If the category parameter is set, then it expands as the value of the parameter. So if the template was called like {{myTemplate|category=lala}}, then {{{category|stuff}}} would expand to just "lala". If it was called like {{myTemplate|category=}}, then it would expand to "", nothing at all. However, if the template was called completely without the category parameter, like {{myTemplate}}, then {{{category|stuff}}} would expand to the explicit default value given after the pipe, "stuff".

So a simple template would be:

{{ambox|text=This is a sample template.
It will add the article {{FULLPAGENAME}} to the 
category [[:Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]], 
unless otherwise overridden.}}
{{{category|[[Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]]}}}

If it was called as {{myTemplate}} it will be the same as:

{{ambox|text=This is a sample template.
It will add the article {{FULLPAGENAME}} to the
category [[:Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]],
unless otherwise overridden.}}
[[Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]]

but if it is called as{{myTemplate|category=}} it will be the same as:

{{ambox|text=This is a sample template.
It will add the article {{FULLPAGENAME}} to the
category [[:Category:Even-toed ungulate stubs]],
unless otherwise overridden.}}

without the category being added to the article.

Now someone else mentioned some very good namespace detectors, but the code for them is a little longer, so I wanted to wait until I was more familiar with the template policies on wikipedia before making hard(er) to read changes. Basically the namespace detectors say that we only add categories if the namespace is 0 (articles) or 1 (article talk). So the page you mentioned, being in the wikipedia namespace, would not have the categories added. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, I fixed the category= thing on the template itself, and on the way it was called from your sandbox. Your sandbox is currently using the template, but is not in the category for deletion. I'll look into a clean way to do the namespace detection, so people do not have to change the way they call the template. Luckily {{tlrow}} is already calling the templates with category= so most of the page you mentioned are nearly immediately fixed. JackSchmidt (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs

Hi Ed,

Re: "is GIC attested"? I actually wondered about this while researching this. google search reveals no results other than Wikipedia (and mirrors), so I've changed it, and removed "code": it's just "group identifier" now.

Thanks for pointing this out!

BTW, as you may have noticed, I'm a fellow mathematician. I'm sure there's no connection to interest in ISBNs (^.-)v.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

Thank you for looking at my requested edit for the colligative page. I do not know whether you were able to judge the science but if you can find such a comprehensive resource elsewhere I would (seriously) be very interested. The page actually has 40 reference links to the peer-reviewed literature, although a number of these are duplicated there still are about 20 different papers cited (the links are the numbers in the square brackets). My site as a whole has many page citations from WP, none of which I put there. I thought that this page really did need some serious reference but recognise my COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.1.142 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

Thank you for intervening. I have replied at Talk:Naveen Jain and hope you can offer suggestions. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarified this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio et al

Agreed - I have suggested this to the editor who deleted them. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

COI news FYI

I just saw this Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Jimbo.2C_Rachel_Marsden.2C_and_all_that. Given that your our resident COI expert, you might want to chime in on the article (or interevene in what I'm sure is gonna be a fun debate). MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiley thanks

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the change to the Wiley Protocol page and discussing with Neil, I'm not putting in my due dilligence there for a variety of reasons despite being the one holding the stick over his head. WLU (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Information Regarding UST Global arbitration in the Los Angeles Daily Journal article

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your very helpful input regarding the copyright information for the Arbitration summary article. Per your advise in your post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian#UST_Global_Page_-_Founder_of_the_Company), I have updated the copyright information of the Arbitration Summary article including article date, and page number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Daily_Journal_Verdicts_and_Settlements_-_Feb_22%2C_2008.jpg

>> You had mentioned that after this information was updated, you might consider updating the UST Global site with this reference article.

Thank you again for your help, and consideration of adding this post.

Sincerely,

Stevejross (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I updated the UST Global article with the new reference. We won't be able to keep the JPG under Fair Use, but at least we have the reference to the paper publication. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Cladistics

Hi Ed,

Re: my recent edit at Cladistics, notably adding:

The cladistics/Linnaean distinction roughly accords with the genotype/phenotype distinction: cladistics strictly follows genotype, while Linnaean taxa are defined based on observable characteristics (phenotype).

I don't have a reference for this, and I don't know how specialists actually think of these matters. I was trying to summarize the "strict ancestry" vs. "observable characteristics" distinction, as in the tables in the article, which I found rather long and overwhelming.

• Primary goal is to reflect actual process of evolution
• Primary goal is to group species based on morphological similarities

• Difficult to understand the essence of a clade, because clade definitions emphasize ancestry at the expense of meaningful characteristics
• Taxa definitions based on tangible characteristics

I used genotype-phenotype b/c I was familiar with it, and it seemed applicable.

On reflection, the better distinction is phylogeny vs. morphology; these are both "gene/shape" distinctions, but (afaict), the former is individual expression, while the latter is applicable to classification.

Here's the change; I'm also going to try showing a brief example illustrating the differences.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree that your new version is better, but in my view the claim still needs a reference. If you are trying to summarize the long tables already in the article, you have my sympathy. The entire Cladistics article resembles a personal essay, and it tends to reflect the point of view of the person who visited last. For my previous unavailing complaint about the lack of sources, see Talk:Cladistics#Linnaean taxonomy often makes use of cladistic techniques?. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow which claim needs a reference; I'm trying to summarize the long tables, which are referenced. A simple summary can surely be written, no? (And fixed if found lacking.)

Agreed that the article could stand much improvement; mostly it's a long introduction to a subject, and should instead be a short summary, with links to more detailed information. I've left a number of thoughts on the talk page Talk:Cladistics.

I added an example of the distinction between cladistics and Linnaean taxonomy at: Cladistics#Example: tetrapoda, with talk at: Talk:Cladistics#Example of Linnaean.2FCladistic distinction.

Hope these help; given how much needs doing, I don't think I have the time now to help fix it beyond this—I was just dropping by and helping out (or not). Good luck!

Nbarth (email) (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. The tables do have references, but they are the very references which I put there a long time ago, and I don't believe that the references justify what is asserted in the tables. Part of the annoyance of the Mayr/Hennig debate was that it was so difficult to decide what separated them. The difficulty was more on the side of Hennig, because he never seemed to give a direct and crisp summary of his views. I kept hoping that the two protagonists would draw different trees based on the same set of data, so we could learn what they thought, but that never happened. Hennig was an insect taxonomist, and I kept hoping that some later expositor would comment (from an outside viewpoint) on what was novel about how Hennig classified insects, as opposed to the traditional system. But my literature search never went that far.

Mayr would never have agreed that there was a Linnaean/Cladistic distinction, and I don't believe Hennig every used that antithesis either. Yet that's how the article currently summarizes them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OIC: the issue is more basically "is there such a binary distinction at all"?

Here's how I understand it:

It seems there are two issues:

• how you determine the classification (cladistics or morphology)
• how you name species

AFAICT, no-one takes an essentialist view of species anymore, and all take a phylogenic view. The term "cladistics" is commonly used broadly as a synonym for phylogenic systematics, and narrowly for a specific set of techniques.

What is controversial, AFAICT, is nomenclature. Phylogenetic nomenclature, which is the theoretically correct nomenclature (list the branchings), is unwieldy (long), unstable (trees are being revised), and not standardized (pace initiatives such as Phylocode).

Rank-based taxonomy, by contrast, has standardized naming, but:

• in the past especially was not monophylic
• implies a hierarchy of ranks where none objectively exists
• doesn't reflect all branchings

It may be a useful approximation to approximate a tree, given unknown branchings, or it may be misleading.

So:

• everyone uses phylogenic/cladistic taxonomy
• people debate nomenclature

How I'd suggest writing this is:

• taxonomy was originally morphological and pre-evolutionary, and went from morphology to phylogeny (link: all the problems with morphology)

...but apomorphy remains a useful way of discussing clades

• nomenclature: while cladistics suggests phylogenetic nomenclature, this has not caught on, and people still use rank-based nomenclature, adapted from Linnaean names, ranks defined by ICZN and ICBN, though:
• cladists reject ranks
• the ranks are unstable

If this sounds reasonable, you're welcome to take a shot at it, else I can put it on my back-burner.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Googling away reveals that there is (at least in the minds of some) an active controversy: [2], and that professionals do conflate the distinctions we're trying to tease out. (In the reference, the author argues that most all systematists subscribe to phylogeny and monophyly (despite "Linnaeans" being tarred as essentialists), and that this issue is separate from nomenclature, with PhyloCode a poor solution.)

Nbarth (email) (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Yes, that's an interesting paper! In fact it suggests that WP should have a good article on the PhyloCode.

Following up on your earlier comment: you've gone into the issue more deeply than most. If 'cladistics' is truly being used these days as a synonym for phylogenetic systematics then Ernst Mayr must be rolling in his grave, since he is thought by some to be the founder of a school that was called (at least by him and his colleagues) phylogenetic systematics. I think the most historically accurate summary of what cladistics is is the one that I put in the opening sentence in early 2007 (and note that it even has a citation):

Cladistics is a philosophy of classification that arranges organisms only by their order of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological similarity, in the words of Luria et al. (1981).

My opening was replaced later by one that has no citation, declaring that Cladistics is the hierarchical classification of species based on evolutionary ancestry. This is what most taxonomists thought they were doing in the late 19th century. Cladists wouldn't respond well to being accused of holding 19th century views, since cladists thought their view was a dramatic break with the past (Search in the cladistics article for the quote about 'vague and slippery ideas').

My version of the lead argued that the distinctive feature of cladistics was that it recognized ONLY the order of branching as being important when classifying species. (The article by Luria (1981) that I used as a citation for the lead makes this clear). Cladists declare that all change occurs at binary branch points; they do not recognize what Mayr and others have called anagenesis (an organism changes its characteristics in straight-line descent without splitting off any independent species). This subtlety is explained in a very accessible 1982 book by Mayr, "The Growth of Biological Thought." EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good and important distinction (anagenesis vs. cladogenesis), which the present article does not make.

Another good distinction (discussed at Systematics) is phenetic vs. phylogenetic.

I think the issue is that people are assuming a simple "pre-Darwinian = Linnaean, post-Darwinian = Cladistics" division, when it's actually trickier than that: early post-Darwinian taxonomy had notions of adaptation, while cladistics said "only study branching".

Also, here's a German page (in English) that remarks that equating phylogenetic systematics with cladistics is an Anglo-American usage, and draws a sharp distinction: [3]

I'll see if I can make some sense and coherent articles; I'll try writing Cladistics compared with other taxonomic systems to give a specialized place for these distinctions, so they don't get buried in main article edits.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rivet: response

Hi Ed, no problem whatsoever with your edit. References are good! I cruised into the rivet article from somewhere else, saw the double-asterisk thing and mindlessly fixed it, not really thinking at the moment what the real intent of the note was. I've added it to my watchlist to help keep an eye on it Thanks for helping keep the spam under control. Have a good weekend. Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Exercise Robin Sage listing at ARS

Hello Fosnez. The listing at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples is becoming more useful as further examples are added. The only item whose entry I think could be improved is the one for Exercise Robin Sage. I know nothing about this article, but observe that Prime Example of an article that should never have been put through an AfD is not a neutral comment. (There is no rule calling for neutrality; this one just stands out from the rest, since everything else on that page is neutral). Is it possible that the Robin Sage comment could be replaced with a line that is merely informative? EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, I have updated the comment to put a little more context. Feel free to edit it how you please :-) Fosnez (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think the entry looks better now. Regarding the table as a whole, I see that some items are included there which never had the {{rescue}} template put on them, for example the first two in the list: Action Medical Research and Aldermaston Soke. Was that your intention? EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC).

To clarify, this is not a complaint! I just wondered if guidance might be given as to the sorts of new issues that qualify for adding to the list. I rescue a few things here and there that seem headed for a bad end but don't usually make a list. What types of case should people be watching out for, for future list additions? EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So that we can make this discussion more public and involve other people if they would like to join in, I have replied on the project sub talkpage.Fosnez (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look

Many thanks for your mediation efforts and editing on the Patrick Haseldine article. I'd be grateful if you'd take another look at Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Lockerbie bomber's second appeal against conviction to see if further improvements can be made.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protect of WP:Cleanup

makes life a bit easier and hopefully they'll get bored in the interim TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If it recurs after two weeks, let me know. You were starting to make a case that IPs hardly ever make good-faith edits there, and that could lead to a case for longer protection, if the issue has to be considered again. (But it might take more data to show that). EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep that was what I realised --- that the recent month of IP nonsense might not translate across the history, I'm going to go back through the IP edits and see which, if any, are constructive. I'm also curious how the IPs find that one, it's not an obvious page. I'll let you know what I turn up, as well as keep you posted after two weeks TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My reason for using AWB

Hello FrozenPurpleCube. If you become an AWB user, you will need to communicate with other editors on the articles you are changing. (There could be many such articles). If you don't want people to leave you Talk messages, how will you do this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you did ask, I'm only using AWB to remove the obsolete references to my old username so they don't show up on casual searches. I had hopes for somebody else doing it, but since that doesn't seem to be happening, I'm trying to figure out a method to do it automatically myself. After that, I'll make no more edits to Wikipedia at all and I really don't see much need to communicate with anyone about the change, since it's not going to any article pages, and is just going to affect me. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

TStolper and hydrino theory

Hello Michaelbusch. Can you say whether there are still problems with this article? I've only seen the discussion at WP:COIN, and I have noted the new article restriction imposed on editor TStolper by MastCell, but besides that I don't know if the article itself has issues that other editors could address. I can imagine that some people might prefer a shorter article, and I notice some direct quotes are given in full, but other than that I don't know what is amiss. The article seems to clearly make the point that Mills' theories aren't accepted by mainstream scientists. I notice that the references might be tidied up and put into citation templates. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, there aren't any serious problems with the current version of the article. The problem is that Stolpher doesn't like the article the way it is, and keeps replacing it with nonsense. The pattern for the last week has been that Stolper puts up his version, which meets the requirements for bollocks, and that another editor removes it completely a few hours later. Stolper then puts back his version a day or so later, and claims that the editor who removed it is part of an organized campaign against Randell Mills. Now, Stolper's COI and POV issues are obvious, and given his unwillingness to cooperate and lack of any contributions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, he will eventually be banned completely. If you examine the article history, you can view the version of the article he would like. Stylistically, it is quite bad. Scientifically, it is bogus - it includes a flat statement that quantum mechanics is wrong. This is what Stolper keeps putting in place. Fortunately, other editors are savvy and remove it. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanishing

You can verify Ryan Postlethwaite's membership at OTRS using this link [1]. It is hard to reconcile your desire for privacy with your extremely conspicuous changing of your old signatures, which defeats the possibility of leaving inconspicuously, and by the very change reminds thousands of Wikipedia editors of your old username. (I didn't even know your old username until I saw it popping up repeatedly on my watchlist). This type of an exit suggests we need to change the language of WP:RTV. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, you may be correct that there is a need for changes, but I don't intend to take part of it, and I don't wish to discuss this further publicly. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ping

Comment requested here. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Princess Theresa of Leiningen

Isnt the site that was referring the wrong facts also a self publish site? So why the discrimination here? I guess you didnt bother to check before you hit out? for your information, the original source page , http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/leiningen.html, is published by a user name "Paul Theroff" - so why not remove that too? or is it a bias thing?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.224.166 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

Sorry EdJohnston I've been out for few days, I couldn't see my username in the noticeboard, Is is archived somewhere?

--Mhsb (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I accessed the page but archived contents are not editable. I read the discussion and I totally disagree with that. Someone has portrayed a very harmful image about myself. As I said, I've been out for few days but I just saw yourself inviting me to present my defence. --Mhsb (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not copy the ANI thread onto your own User_talk page and offer your reply there? That way if any editors have concern about your work in the future, they'll come to your Talk page and be able to read what you have to say. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Ed, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mmbabies

To know the case, go here: Long term abuse/Mmbabies. To see the list of sockpuppets, go here: List of Mmbabies sockpuppets. Momusufan (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the case rather confusing. If you think there hasn't been enough response to this editor's activities, consider posting at WP:AN and asking for an overall remedy for all the suspected socks. Either that, or work with one of the admins who has already been blocking the Mmbabies socks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut

Thanks for chiming in, Ed. The guy seems to have a little trouble distinguishing between "noteworthy" and "notable". I'm trying to offer some advice on his talk page; you're welcome to join the party. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

HR - Talk - Semi-P

In general, sysops are loathe to semi-protect talk pages because the collateral damage is too great. My suggestiion is to bring the IP address up on WP:ANI and request an anon/anon range block, if you can bring diffs that this IP is disruptive. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

COIN/RFAR

Just an FYI that this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat was accepted. Since we've covered it a lot at COIN, is it worth one of us submitting links to all the archived conversations hashing this out? Good meeting you yesterday, didn't think we'd be getting real barnstars! MBisanz ^talk 08:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I didn't know that barnstars were real either! I'm not aware that the various debates of the Prem Rawat issue at COIN added any illumination. I had imagined that COIN was just one of many venues where the various participants made known their usual arguments. Do you think that Arbcom would be missing out on any special insights if they didn't know about our debates? Or are you proposing the links just for completeness? To get perspective, do a 'Whatlinkshere' on Prem Rawat and limit the search to Wikipedia space. (You'll need to increase the limit to 500 edits). I have this new inspiration that there are many controversial issues that will get along just fine without my participation :-) In fact, my impression is that Arbcom is pretty good at sorting out COI issues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You mentiont hat good point that most of the COIN stuff was "Jossi is evil" so maybe unless there is some discussion there like "Did Jossi know this was controversial" and he says he didn't. Since I'm already over there for Betacommand (fun times), I'll just keep a third eye on it. MBisanz ^talk 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, if your ever looking to flag downt he Dev we were talking to about the ipblockexempt stuff, he's at Gmaxwell (talk · contribs). That does sound like a significant security issue and after having dinner with him, he seems to know as much about the system as anyone I've ever run into. MBisanz ^talk 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen Editorial Assistance

Seeking your expertise. While I'm not disputing the Military Brat article has been spammed as you suggest or making any judgement on its use of the term Military Brat and its references, I'm unsure how that relates to the authors bio in question Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. The reference from the American Forces Press Service you cited is from the Military Brat article and not found anywhere on Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. Michelle Ferguson-Cohen does link to the Military Brat article however. Is that considered "spamming" by the author as indicated in the request for deletion? Also, I found a reference to the author and the books in the Military Brats article. --JSane (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is up to the editors at Michelle Ferguson-Cohen as to whether the See also is justified. However if the article on Ferguson-Cohen is to be kept at all the See Also seems logical to me.

It's appropriate to mention the spam issue in the WP:EAR discussion because the subject creator of the article is the person who asked for the assistance, and also seems to be over-promoting her own work the work of Ferguson-Cohen at Military brat. She does not seem to acknowledge in any way that she's gone against our policies by using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. Her complaint in that very thread about the bona fides of User:Balloonman, who has behaved quite well, does seem to be testing our patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC). Updated later since I was wrong about the identity of the original editor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moves

After completing the move, just remove the request from the list mentioning whether it was a supported move, no consensus or a failed request in the edit summary. If you have any other questions, just let me know. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Block request

I am requesting a block for Wikipedia user Thegingerone. This user has been making nonsense in the Rudolph Valentino page, and has been very rude to me in discussions. The has been blocked before for vandalism, and has had many complaints from other users, as you can see from the person's talk page. I'll admit I have had complaints as well, but I have managed to find a compromise with these articles as well. The user continues to do vandalism on the Valentino pageKevin j (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

From a quick look, neither of you has been totally calm throughout this interaction, which seems to have led to some stress. There is even a a thread at WP:AN about this. One option for you is just to avoid this editor for a while. If he's as troublesome as you believe, his activities may be noticed by others. In any event, avoiding personal attacks would be a good idea for both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I have noticed the same user vandalized the Anna May Wong recently. All I want to do is put my facts in. Also, I just want a fair block put in effect for this vandalismKevin j (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? This seems to be a content dispute between you and the other editor. You both have something to contribute, since you both have detailed information about Valentino. Consider making a compromise with him as to what information should go in the article. So far the only new message I see over at Talk:Rudolph Valentino is one from you, it doesn't appear to be signed, and it's not very diplomatic. Please remember to sign your comments on Talk pages using four tildes before you hit 'Save page.' No one person has the right to get their preferred information into Wikipedia. If you're not willing to negotiate, you probably should go and work on a less popular article that you can have all to yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about the Daniel Boey article

Hi Ed, I just wanted to address a point you made about the article I wrote on Daniel Boey. The credientials that I listed were due to the advice I recieved from other dministrators to enable this article to be more notable. as far as reading like an advertisement, can you give me more information that brought you to that conclusion?

Thanks Succisa75 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)