User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pabopa

Hello Stifle. I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. After the IP was blocked at 18:26 on July 25, Pabopa created his account and continued warring on the same material. Since Pabopa has made three reverts on each of three different articles within 24 hours, and the total of the reverts is greater if the IP is included, I think he is inviting a block. Then if he *is* really the IP, that is block evasion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The offence is stale at this point (the purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent further edit warring, and Pabopa isn't editing there any more). However, a few other people are still edit warring so I've protected Taekwondo. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. i appreciate your effort for admin. Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera [1]. exactly same behaviot of Pabopa[2]

210.231.12.98[3] and 210.231.14.222[4]. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa[5], too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.Manacpowers (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for User:Stifle pointing to the 2channel stuff. If this campaign truly exists, some of the affected articles may be reported at 3RR in the future. It might be helpful, if you know of some articles that you believe have been targeted by 2channel, you could make a list of them. Possibly they are already named somewhere at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update Pabopa is a sockpuppeter confirmed by checkuser. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa. They waste my time a lot. The bigger problem is unrevealed 2channel meat/sockpuppetry within Wikipedai. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of Skyring

Noting you blocked Skyring for 12 hours for 3RR violation, since your rationale says there is no BLP issue can you also close the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Howard discussion. Can it include a detailed rationale clarifying why the information isnt a BLP violation. Gnangarra 05:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note to the BLP/N thread??. If anyone wants to discuss further whether this kind of disputed material falls under the BLP exception to 3RR, they are welcome to continue the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I just wanted it clear at that discussion that you found the 3RR not a BLP issue hence the block, as such the whole discussion isnt BLP but rather editorial. Gnangarra 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you find my answer at BLPN to be a response. It's not credible that *believing* something is a BLP violation grants an editor immunity from 3RR enforcement. It has to actually *be* a BLP violation by the usual community definition, the thing that admins have to judge all the time whenever they take BLP-related actions, e.g. when protecting articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I think its a blp undue weight rather than blp pov issue, hence no need repetitive removal. Your comment was all I wanted for the BLP notice to show that you had considered the BLP in your blocking of skyring. Gnangarra 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Aviousours76

Hello Ed--thanks to you, Malljaja and the other editors with the John Lydon issues--I am enjoying to learn the wiki way even when it is painful at times....I thought I would point out that it appears that the blocked user AVIOUSOURS76 continues to edit (from one of his/her separate static ip addresses) although the week has not expired (see below).....I was actually reading Malljaja's documentation to learn about how the intracacies of the block etc. works and saw the edit below.....it doesn't sppear to be controversial--just sneaky....I don't know maybe no big deal-but fyi

21:44, 1 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Dusty Springfield‎ (Undid revision 229284076 by 6afraidof7 (talk)nothing about songwriting/producing in the source) (top) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keynote1 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Koov

Hi there, I noticed that you were active on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (3rd). Looking at Template:Foreign relations of Russia it seems he is back under the username Fsbi and a range of IPs. He is intent on using the same modus operandi as Koov, but I am unable to work out how to start Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov (4th); this problem is now getting way out of hand, with his POV edits and generally being disruptive. Are you able to help out with this? Thanks, --Россавиа ^Диалог 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fsbi's edit-warring to remove Kosovo from Template:Foreign relations of Russia is a Koov trademark. I have indefinitely blocked Fsbi as a sock of Koov. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse Return

Have a look at Bendiksen63, ITALONY and IP 24.20.169.90... Pretty obvious who it is... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse. ITALONY and the IP are also pretty obviously the same person: ITALONY edit and the IP addition. BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian Philately societies homepage and Edmund Hall (the writer of the material used as a source) an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... My question is: what do we do??? --noclador (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I reported Generalmesses new socks: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Generalmesse (2nd) --noclador (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

So you aren't going to do anything about another user's violation of the three revert rule? Or does it only apply to those using IP address. To hell with this place. You wiki Nazis are welcome to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.215.77 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Gennarous

Do you mind if I email you? It's not a secret, per se, but it would be pushing some WP:BEANS up the old nostrils if a sockpuppeteer happened to notice it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

re: tucker max article. mcjeff refuses to post documented criticism.

this is part of what mcjeffs conversation with me.

I am new at this but mcjeff will not engage in a discussion on how to revise the article to meet "his" standards. He openly admits that he works for Tucker Max and then refuses to post any sourced comments that are critical of his employer. I am guilty of being new at this so I do need help to document statements from Tucker's own website, new york times, gawker, fox news etc.

could you help me? thanks Aharon42 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ihave read the other discussions that you have had with other editors and mediators. All seem to concur that the ACLU would differ on your approach to the redacting of the Max Tucker article. Please do not wrap your white-washing of Tucker in obfusction. We both know that you are aware of Fox News and their statements. It is not coincidence that the only statements that have made it into tuckers article are all neutral or postiive. I will start by just quoting tucker himself from his fox news, opie, and website.

For instance..

Tucker Max has made several controversial statements and described marginal behavior.... then we can include his own statements from the news shows and his website. .. If you did this I would be satisfied. Aharon42 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McJeff"

Aharon42

Thanks for dealing with that so quickly, but he has just posted an extremely rude response to my welcome message on his talkpage, could you take a look at it? Chafford (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, just seen a blatant legal threat on his tp, taking this to IRC. Chafford (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't read like a blatant legal threat to me. IMO there is a lot of piling on and newbie biting going on here. He's upset, getting more upset as more people pile on the shit and is being extremely rude. OTOH he is a newbie, doesn't have first hand knowledge of our policies, and feels that everyone is against him. Perhaps a little kindness would go a long way? Ed can you read this and consider shortening the block on the condition that he stops editing the article for a bit and only edits the talk page? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, I have replied over at User talk:Theresa knott#Tucker Max. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Any chance you'd be willing to watchlist Tucker Max for a bit? You already cautioned me about revert warring, and like I mentioned I kinda screwed up a little while ago so I'm trying to tread real carefully. But I'm concerned because the article gets a lot of vandalism and aggressive editors. McJeff (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette La Fayette ....

Hi, I changed it back. I wasn't too sure as all printed material I could find (I'm in the US) said Lafayette, whereas his name is decidedly La Fayette in French. Was rather peculiar, and I wanted to be consistent as both where in use on the article. So, I went with Lafayette (no particular purpose), seeing that you objected I have now changed them all back to La Fayette. If, in the future, the project decides to go with Lafayette, then we can change it again. I have no particular preference, besides seeing it being consistent. Sorry! Lazulilasher (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Recall clerking

I've noticed you around as a cool head whose editing doesn't intersect with my own that much. I'd like to list you as a clerk option at User:MBisanz/Recall for people to select from when invoking my recall criteria. Is that ok with you? MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help!

Is there still time to get you to consider less drastic recall criteria? :-). At Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria I like Firsfron's idea. Once the recall is triggered, he would put himself through an RfC/U, and would take the consensus of the RfC as to whether to step down. Though your admin activity is not like Elonka's, if she could let herself be put through a whole new RfA based on the opinion of any six editors in good standing, she'd be (in my view) constantly going through the wringer. She'd have to do this even if the six voters represented a minority of those expressing an opinion on the recall petition. (I've made no careful study of her recall criteria; it just shows a possible pitfall). EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, and I leave an RfC/u open as an option, but in my mind if I've gone so far off that path that a number of users would want me to restand RfA, then its probably best for the community that i be put out of my misery quickly. Oddly enough many admins use recall criteria as broad if not broader than mine, and avoid going through the wringer on a regular basis. Thanks though for the advice. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppet report on User:Generalmesse

Hi Ed; regarding my new sockpuppet report, it is actually forbidden to block somebody just because they offer a different point of view; but it is a must to block people that use multiple accounts to push their point of view: "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks." (from Wikipedia:Sock puppetry)
The users I listed in my report share a common trait: they were created, they edited Military history of Italy during World War II and/or First Battle of El Alamein‎ - nothing else and they inserted the 1:1 same stuff as the other socks of User:Generalmesse - check their contributions list and it will become obvious that they are socks created to restart Generalmesses POV pushing.
User:Kirrages is making a serious effort to create balance in the First battle of El Alamein article, but the constant interference of the socks make his work unnecessarily difficult. I'm my view there is no doubt that the listed users are indeed socks and as there is a policy to "Block on sight, revert any changes, delete POV forks" if a users is found to abuse multiple accounts routinely (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse for examples). In short: I believe we do not need any further discussions, just block them indef for "Abusing multiple accounts". --noclador (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs showing these editors literally re-introducing the same material as people previously blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

uff, that is a lot of work and I rather spend my time expanding military Order of Battle articles; but ok a few minutes I can spare: the re-introduction that caught my eye and led me to suspect that the three new editors are socks was the following: Radio Berlin Generalmesse Generalmesse Bendiksen63. Further checks of various edits showed that the three new users all use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengos book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source (as did Generalmesse). A book printed in 1966 and never reprinted in English, but widely available in Italian[6] (btw. it:Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo is a good source as he was a battalion commander of the Italian 31st Combat Engineer Battalion in El Alamein and later Chief of Staff of the Lombard Liberation Corps, the partisan command in Lombardy from 1944-45)[7].

Anyway - aside from the source: they are socks. They appear, they edit the 2 favourite Generalmesse articles, try to enhance the Italian fighting prowess and then one of them leaves a long comment on the talkpage of Military history of Italy during World War II attacking me[8]... I beg to question: How come? Well, because they are socks or meatpuppets. New users behave differently!

As for the IP address: it is from South America - the home of Brunodam (or it:Utente:Bruno d'ambrosio). One of his socks created the article Pompeo D'Ambrosio and he himself added the pic - so possibly they are meatpuppets not socks, but nonetheless they share a connection and an agenda. --noclador (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello (3RR rule break)

Hi,

My current request (found at the very bottom) for a 3RR review isn't being dealt with very professionally. Can I trouble you to check for me again? Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question is about East718's close of the 3RR report on Norse colonization of the Americas. If you are not satisfied with how this report was closed, please contact the closer, User:East718. It is hard for me to sympathize with your removal of the tags. Removing tags when the article is contested is the kind of thing for which you should have a Talk page consensus. In this edit you call Erik the Red a 'cold, two-faced heathen', without putting that in quotes. It looks strange. The same edit also introduced spelling mistakes, like 'tracks' for 'tracts', 'led' instead of 'lead', and 'sttlers' instead of 'settlers.' The same edit broke Reference 5, which gives a large red error message in the reference list. It's not surprising that some editors were adding 'Cleanup' tags to the result of your work. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

lol, I see. I guess I made a few mistakes, but the article is a lot (IMO) better. Thanks anyway. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Want you to be aware

Good Afternnon,

Just wanted you to be aware of an update on a block you performed yesterday.[9] user:Tmtoulouse continues to revert to the original version of the article that states that Esther Hicks channels dead people. In your findings, you state "I don't see any BLP defence for Tmtoulouse's reverts", but he seems not care what you have said. Could you please look at the change history? [10] WP:BLP Thanks for your time. --Gacuster (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Update - once again he violated the 3rr Rule --Gacuster (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish, you can file a new complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. I'd rather not take action on this again; let another admin study the situation. There seem to be some newly-created accounts warring on the article. Though Tmtoulouse may appear stubborn, some of the people on the other side may have a a conflict of interest. Let the next admin solve that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you staying your hand on this one, while I don't think I violated 3rr today I still appreciate declining the users attempt to brow beat me. As well thank you for your input on the COI case. I am still not thrilled about the block yesterday, but that reflects a general feeling that standard "by the books" wiki policy starts to get iffy on the fringes that some of these articles lay on. Still after drilling you on the block yesterday I felt compelled to compliment what I see as helpful and appropriate responses. Take it for what you will. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Whitefish Mountain Resort

What exactly does Semi-Protect do with the page? The Anon-IP has been vandalizing the article and making false accusations for an extended period of time now. I'm just hoping that this issue can be resolved. Alyeska (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection prevents IPs from editing the article. I notice that there seem to be unresolved disputes on the page. It would be helpful if someone who knows the issues (like yourself) could summarize what the problems have been for the past few months, and put it on the Talk page. It's rather confusing for outsiders to figure out what the dispute is about. Assuming you might need to call on other editors in the future, if the dispute continues later. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alyeska, Why do continue to assert that the "accusations" are false. We have given cites regarding the reverse stock split scheme which created the hostile takeover, and we have cited articles about the broken implied contract with passholders. We have tried to cite this with the published newspaper articles, but alyeska will not allow this and constantly reverts to the approved company line. Please give us a new editor, alyeska has too many ties to the resort and has had private communications with resort public relations regarding this matter. If alyeska wishes this dispute to be resolved, why does he/she constantly change the article to suit the company?72.160.51.116 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello 72.160. This is the first I have heard of any newspaper articles. It might be appropriate to cite them in the article. Please add the references to the Talk page. If there was a reverse-split of the stock, that should have been covered somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong accusations. You have accused me of being in a conspiracy with the management of Big Mountain. You have accused me of breaking the law through editing Wikipedia. You have accused me of being in a conspiracy specificaly with Donnie Clap. You state I have a conflict of interest with the article. Those accusations are the ones you are most commonly tossing about. What is most funny is when you accused me of being in a combined conspiracy with both Wikipedia and the management of Big Mountain to post "lies".Alyeska (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for posting this in your talk page EdJohnston, but getting this Anon to settle down anywhere is difficult. Alyeska (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

+=+=+= Hello edjohnson. We are preparing our response and will post it on the WMR talk page in a few days. Thanks for your civility and respect.72.160.51.116 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Edjohnson, Thank you for protecting the page and helping straighten out this arguement. I believe however, that postings and communications by the editor of the page may indicate a bias toward the resort. Private communications and a physical visit to the company one is supposed to be regulating is cause for concern. Is there a way to apply for a new editor to be assigned this article? Thanks again for helping. 72.160.55.167 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Check out Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the fine print on who is supposed to edit what, when an editor has a real-life connection to the topic. Even conflicted editors are usually allowed to edit if the result of their work is well-sourced and neutral. It's not clear that Alyeska is even conflicted according to Wikipedia's definition. If you think he has put something in the article that is not right, feel free to object to it on the Talk page. We don't usually take any action unless an actual problem with the article is pointed out. Over the last few months, there have been several attempts to add negative information to the article with no reliable sources. That is the kind of thing that draws the attention of admins. From here on, if stuff gets added that is well-sourced, everyone should be happy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

rfc/U

Hi,

Who are you?? You endorse the rfc/U yet I have NEVER seen you before. FYI, I'm going to report you as a meat-puppet. InternetHero (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the administrator you recently asked for help (see your own comment above). If you are willing to work cooperatively with the other editors on Norse colonization of the Americas I might change my opinion. I had to look at many of your contributions while I was reviewing the 3RR complaint about that article, and that's how I arrived at my position on the RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

what do you know about history of money?

Are you a history teacher? Protomoney (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Skipsievert and Arthur robin are pushing their POV here. They are trying to convince that money is everything, ever Red oche, and they are advocates of the Technocraty or something movement. I am the neutral point of view here, not them!! Protomoney (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Haven t you seen the references I added? Protomoney (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And where is protomoney term in the article I reverted? You are ignorant of money history, you havent read the article at all. All you know is block people for 24 hours. Congratulations! Protomoney (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats it. I understand. You are ignorant of history of money, you haven't read anything I wrote, but you have the force to ban people. You are like the solder who killed archimedes, ignorant yes, but you gave the sword!!! God bless you, I am not going to continue discussing with you. You can ban me or whoever you wish, you macho man! Protomoney (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Ed, thanks for correcting my oversight in not notifying User:64.119.97.178 about the discussion on AN/I. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks #2

[11]. Grrr! Must've been because I so rarely use the {{uw-coi}} template. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Remon

how may i fix the Pedro Remon page? im not trying to attack him, only neutral facts about him. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimguy (talk • contribs) 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Regarding your comments on User talk:Slimguy: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please do not assume bad faith like that, even if it is warranted. There is no need to insult the editor by saying "This is not a friendly notice." I highly urge you to retract that statement. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have refactored. It is better to use a template, but I'm not familiar with the BLP warning templates. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston, may i get a copy of the deleted Pedro Remon page? i would like to improve it, including adding a notable section, thanks. Slimguy (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not interested in attacking Mr. Remon, only providing the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimguy (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not supposed to provide copies of deleted material that violates WP:BLP. You didn't provide reliable sources to show that this man was a notable figure, who deserves coverage in Wikipedia, before you starting giving us his arrest record. I don't see how you can make an acceptable article on that basis. We expect to see reliable sources, for example, coverage in newspapers. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Access to deleted pages Pages which have been deleted can no longer be generally viewed, but temporarily remain in the database and are accessible to administrators, along with their edit history. Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review. Note that these requests are routinely denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request.
I would like to fix the pageSlimguy (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) This gentleman is a notable cuban business man in the clearwater area, and he messed up his business, it is a notable business loss in the local community and a terrible loss of a microsoft gold partner. i would like a chance to complete the article, and get as much details as possible, thanks! Slimguy (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm declining to provide a copy of the deleted article because I believe it to be defamation under WP:BLP. Ask another administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Helen Thomas

A few comments on this. Needless to say, I am not pleased with your declination to sanction Gamaliel and I find serious inconsistencies between your explanation and policy.

1. She only raised the BLP issue after I asked him to justify his edits, he raised no BLP concerns when he was making the edits,
2. as the policy on Vandalism states, NPOV violations are not vandalism.
3. rewriting me last edit with new sources still has the effect of undoing my work
4. Whether or not the 4th edit was a “pure” revert or not is not relevant. “An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

I know this will do little to change your decision, but how can you expect others to follow the rules and guidelines when Admins don’t? CENSEI (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "illiterate parents" remark was the type of material that anyone would be allowed to remove from an article without penalty under WP:BLP, even if it put them over WP:3RR. Do you think it would be reasonable to accept that phrase as a permanent part of the article? EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends, is it true, can it be cited?Raw story thinks so, and these guys, So does UPI. Was this vandalism as well, it was all alter sourced by myself. The first edit may have looked like vandalism, but it wasnt, and none of the other points were addressed. CENSEI (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AfreeUsername's G11 tags

I saw your comment on DMacks' talk page. I've reviewed the tags. While a few may have been good faith, there were some clearly bad faith taggings in there. As a result, I've rolled back or undone all of the db-spam tags that User:AfreeUsername left. —C.Fred (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice he has not placed any new tags since I left a warning on his Talk page, so we may be OK now. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

question

hello. would it be appropriate for me to add the IP editor's comment [[12]] back to the Tucker Max talk page? McJeff was blocked for removing it by you on the 3RR board, and you also unblocked him, so I figured that you would be the person to ask. McJeff's behavior since returning doesn't really display that he understands what he did was wrong. He has called the removed edits "addressed" and "no longer needing discussion" [[13]] even though the edits still remain censored. i asked him to add them back, but he ignored the request and has been editing other articles since.

furthermore, since his unblock yesterday, his first comment back included a personal attack against me, and he has engaged in further personal attacks against me since [[14]] [[15]]. i don't think any action is necessary, and i am not requesting any, but i just wanted to bring this to your attention. i am getting tired of his allegations and personal attacks against me, such as [[16]]. reporting someone for a legitimate violation shouldn't open me up to personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the missing Talk comments at Talk:Tucker Max. Let's hope we will now have good cooperation on that Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Apr1fool

The edits that I have made to the WWoS article, and those made to other WDW articles, are based on lengthy discussion that took place on Talk:Walt Disney World Resort regarding the location of the resort and its various properties, some of which I participated in. The final concensus was that Walt Disney World Resort would be used as the location for all of the WDW properties. I explained this to Simon Bar Sinister, but he feels that his opinion is the correct opinion since he lives in Kissimmee. WWoS is not in Kissimmee, even though the mailing address is Kissimmee. A history of the WWoS article will show that previous edits to the location have been changed back to Walt Disney World Resort by numerous users. Simon Bar Sinister has only been making edits to this article for a few days, so I feel he has no reason to accuse me of vandalism. I believe that research will show that I have been making proper edits, that I have been polite towards Simon Bar Sinister, and that maybe Simon is the one who deserves a warning. Please let me know if there is going to be any further action in this matter, and what the final outcome is. I will not make any further edits to this article until I hear back from you. Thank you. Apr1fool (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied over at User talk:Apr1fool#3RR noticeboard discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed at WP:COIN

Hello Damiens.rf. Though I'm still unclear on why you could be thought to have a COI on this article, take a look at WP:COIN#Russ Nelson. You are welcome to add your own opinion there.

Maybe we should treat online bios of the subject (hosted at an organization he's part of) as being similar to his own blog, i.e. a self-published testimony? This may be accepted as an external link on the person's own article, though it could not be used as a reference for matters of fact, per WP:SPS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that what I believe too. I hope someone will be able to convince that editor about that. Would you volunteer? --Damiens.rf 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Benevolent Funipendulous Society of Nova Scotia Logotechnicians

Thank you for reviewing my proposed speedy delete. Since you think it is not obvious, I will leave it alone. No need to start an AfD before giving it a chance to grow if it can. I did tag it orphan. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the underdressed lady

Re WP:COIN: "no comment in the text about why this is appropriate or at all relevant to the art work"

It's apparently a trademark; see The New York Observer. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Having been the person who blocked and then unblocked me for the 3RR incident a couple days ago, would you be willing to hear me out and possibly give me some advice? I'm feeling really frustrated with wikipedia these days and all the standard avenues haven't been working for me. McJeff (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Send me an email. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

protection of Habbush letter

Hi - I hate to complain about the "wrong version" being protected, but the main reason there was edit warring was an anonymous IP reverted a remarkable 8 times in less than 24 hours. He was eventually blocked, but he was the last person to edit the article before you protected it, and his reversions included several violations of policy, such as the statement in article space that "Since Wiki rules allow no original research, readers must check Suskind's website [17]for themselves to see if they can find anything beyond the single, partial,transcript (disputed by Richer) noted above." Such meta-commentary has no place in Wikipedia. Is there any way you could change back to the previous version while the article is protected? Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. There is nothing to prevent logged-in editors from continuing to work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Swamilive

I wasn't sure if ANI or SSP was the right venue for this, since it appears to involve sockpuppetry, harassment, and bad faith 3RR accusations, but I've filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive. Just letting you know. Advice welcomed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Image you tagged as 'missing' does not seem to be missing

Hi Ed,

That image Image:German instrument of surrender1a.jpg was nominated at FPC and was tagged with the FPC tag. It wasn't promoted (a different version was promoted).

As it failed the nomination the FPC tag is then removed, and since it was a file from Commons it is tagged with the missing image tag since the Wikipedia description page of that image no longer has any contents. The deletion (which has occured) then removes that description page, not the image itself. The image itself still clearly exists, as you said, but in fact it resides on Commons.

It's a bit confusing, in fact I think it's probably all pretty poorly labeled, but that's how it works. To be honest it annoys me as well whenever I get one of those (usually bot generated) messages on my talkpage - see User_talk:Jjron#Speedy_deletion_of_Image:Brolga-1-Healesville.2C-Vic.2C-3.1.2008.jpg for example.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not being an admin I don't really know, but if you have delete powers I'd assume that you can go ahead and delete that image description page immediately. If it was me, I'd check the page history just to confirm prior to deleting, and ensure that it is indeed a Commons image that's been correctly tagged. --jjron (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury

Hello Stifle. I completely support your handling of this case, but the technical aspect of counting the reverts interests me. Last night I was trying to count the reverts on the AzureFury case myself, and got totally baffled. But listen to this language from WP:3RR:

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content..

AzureFury's reverts were sometimes not pure reverts but were also making reference improvements. But the policy language seems to state that he gets no credit for his reference improvements, so long as any part of his revert was undoing the work of another editor. This sounds more strict than what I thought it was. Do you have an opinion? (This is only for future reference, of course). EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would always take into account if a revert also improved the article somewhere else. But you're right — under the policy as written, that's not required. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dropping by, I agree with Stifle--the inherent stupidity of literal application of 3RR is only tolerable because of its undoubtedly practical usefulness. DGG (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. Cries of incivility get thrown around a lot and I know that users can be banned for it. I was worried that I might have crossed the line, despite no blatant personal attacks. Admittedly, by the end of the night I wasn't trying so much to convince my opponents as prove them wrong. Though that's probably true of the other side, too. We find ourselves on opposing sides on basically every (and there are many) dispute on the John McCain article, not surprisingly. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Otto Zehm and Dan Torok

I do not know where to start on Otto Zehm article. I know there is information to help but I am overwhelmed and don't know where to start.

Also with regard to "Dan Torok" article which I believe you nominated for deletion, can you help me understand what I need to do. I did post an extensive Talk attempting to explain why I find it important.

I am relatively new to this and trying to understand. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayacan (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. If this material belongs in Wikipedia, it needs to be carefully written and it should observe our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. It may be possible to keep an article on Otto Zehm if it is written properly, and if any negative information is neutrally presented and supported by reliable sources. I'm somewhat concerned about the current tone of the article, but I'll try to look at it tomorrow. The references in Otto Zehm need to be correctly formatted. If there are any blog references, they may have to be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Ed, I hope I am learning. Wikification ofOtto Zehm has begun. Added headings (not sure if correctly and I know there is re-writing needed but I have begun). Not sure how to correctly format the references but will try to figure it out. I am looking at the Rodney King article becuase it has the same cultural significance for LA as Otto Zehm has for us in Spokane. Thanks again and I'll keep those cards and letters coming. --Tayacan (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Put the little colon at the beginning becuase you did and I see that is what causes the indent. Oh, well, Wiki and learn, I guess. --Tayacan (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when I re-created the original deletion of Dan Torok, that was an error on my part. I thought I had not posted it, but when I looked an it was gone, I used the back button (it is amazing that FireFox saves text the way it does) and posted it, unaware that I was "re-posting it". Thanks for the patience. Okay, I'm done for now. --Tayacan (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

AN Notice

I started a thread to ask for a review of my decline of an unblock request after Thunderbird dropped by my talk page. The thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting a review of my decline of an unblock request. Since you were involved, I am letting you know. –xeno (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For Life (Isis Gee song): discussion moved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• A discussion that began here has been moved to Talk:For Life (Isis Gee song). If you have further comments, please make them there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, but that was actually for you to comment on, they just keep bickering and hey I read your user page, I'm in Melrose! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, a fellow East Coast person!.. Admins have no special authority in content matters so it's better to continue on the article Talk. Neither party has collected the appropriate diffs to justify any admin action, and no article RFC has ever occurred. The 3RR report was not properly formatted.. should I go on? A serious discussion with each other is needed first. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think either broke 3RRs, but I don't like that Onceloose keeps bringing up Pink Evoloution's past block to prove that she is wrong. Its funny because they both randomly found me to complain to about this. Being the middle man isn't fun. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also protect Isis Gee to the present consensus version. Onceloose (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's really the consensus version, shouldn't I be able to figure that out from reading Talk:Isis Gee? Though I see your name on the Talk page, I don't notice you explaining the situation so that newcomers to the page could understand it. If there used to be an edit war, what was it about, and where is the evidence we should look at? EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He has no evidence, I presented my case at the noticeboard incidents if you would like to review the facts and comment. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The song came last in Eurovision. The user Pink Evolution seems to have been involved in an edit war to change this placing. The page was protected by an admin to stop the edit war as far as I can see. Now she is saying that there was a 'tie-break' for last place - she has been unable to provide proof of a 'tie-break'. Three songs had the same points and came joint-last and were added in alphabetical order at the end. This was sourced by eurovision, the popular press etc. I have reverted to the consensus earlier this year until there is proof there was a 'tie-break'. Pink is not a newcomer but from her history was blocked for being a trouble maker. Onceloose (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)