Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yushkevich (talk | contribs) at 13:01, 23 February 2009 (→ITK-SNAP Review: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

He is back!!!

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Do you remember PARARUBBAS aka PEP10 aka PASD08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasd08#Sock_of_Pararubbas)? Well, the vandal is back, now with the account KAKD08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kakd08).

The modus operandi is, unfortunately and obviously, the same as seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitorino_Antunes&diff=269312444&oldid=266434623). As you can see, now he is magnanimous enough to leave the EXTERNAL LINKS, but continues to "hate" REFERENCES and paragraphs, "gluing" all sentences...It's him, alright!!! I am tired sick of idiots like this, i am leaving the project for good but, before i did so, thought i'd drop you a line as you helped me (and the site ultimately) the other time.

P.S. Heard a couple of times about long-range blocks, but apparently, the case of an idiot who is in his fourth account and keeps ruining other people's work, is not justification strong enough, oh well...

Greetings, farewell, keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another thing that continues, as this idiot vandal, is this: i report, i get no answer: reported half an hour ago, the folks who reported after me have already been "served", i guess i should say to somebody (not all) at WP/ANI "Sorry for wanting to get rid of a vandal". Keep up the good work Ed, don't worry, you can (if you wish) reply to this message, i will abandon WP but will still log in the next weeks to see the outcome of this procedures.

Cheers, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, my task is done, hope this "person" gets his due,

Goodbye, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vasco. The three editors that you complained about in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas/Archive are now indef blocked. So your effort at reporting these activities does get results. Sock issues are complex, so you are well advised to keep filing at WP:SPI when these issues occur. I am not always available to respond, but blatant cases are usually dealt with one way or another. WP:SPI is a better place to file these complaints than WP:ANI. File an actual sockpuppet case, don't just use the Talk page of SPI. Don't be surprised that socks keep returning again and again, this does happen. Wikipedia still survives. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat is back

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaksgam_Valley&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=States_and_territories_of_India&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North-East_India&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_disasters&action=history

Special:Contributions/86.162.68.2 Special:Contributions/86.151.126.176 They never give up, I encountered them by sheer (bad) luck Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

back

Special:Contributions/86.151.126.95

[1] [2] [3]

These pages need semiprotections from Nangparbat. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4] this page has been attacked too Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive, semiprotection can be used when needed if editing by Nangparbat is detected. I have semi-protected everything listed above except Last stand, which seems to get most of its normal edits from IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koov

Rohlip (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Nangparbat attacks

Special:Contributions/81.158.129.26 Special:Contributions/86.153.128.18

Pages needing semiprotection:
States and territories of India
Dentistry
Talk:Battle of Longewala
Religious violence in India
Pakistan Army
Ethnicity of performers in pornography

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected States and territories of India and Religious violence in India. The rest either (a) have plenty of regular editors, (b) get many legit contributions from IPs, or (c) Nangparbat hasn't done much there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you take pictures?

On your userpage you said you live in the Boston area. Did you ever think about taking pictures for wikipedia?Smallman12q (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what pictures are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi Ed, You mentioned I had not gained consensus for a Quilliam Foundation post - this was the first draft and contributions were being made until one user removed large chunks of it and without discussion. Could you elaborate your comment further please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it was not easy to sort out what was happening on this article. My comment on the 6 February 3RR report was Jk54 has four reverts in 24.5 hours, and he uses blanket reverts to install his own much larger version of the article (59 kb vs 13 kb). I do not see that he got consensus anywhere for his larger version. I would welcome a patient discussion on the article Talk page to arrive at a consensus, before making large reverts. Other participants were blocked as well, and I hope they will become more patient in the future. Small changes to individual sections are easier to track and discuss than very large ones. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response Ed. The original article was based roughly on a masters thesis, fully and academically referenced - one individual hacked most of it away without any discussion or justification. His unendorsed edits were reverted back to the original article by me with an attempt to discuss in the discussion section what he opposed and achieve consensus. He gave 3 examples which did not justify deletion of such a large volume of material which I explained and instead of continuing the discussion he simply complained about my reverts.
I would appreciate if you could advise how to take this issue forward in a productive manner - it seems sensible to try to start with the article and discuss what needs to be deleted / rewritten if inappropriate to wiki standards. What do you think? Would you be willing to neutrally facilitate the process or be on hand to help resolve problems if necessary? Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is presumptuous to revert to your version as a starting point for discussion. Offer questions for discussion one at a time on Talk and see what the reactions are. You might be able to find a WikiProject whose members would be interested in reviewing the article. We do have WP:Dispute resolution to resolve disagreements. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Võro

Hi, maybe also users Termer and K731 should know what happens in the discussion about Võro. If you haven't notified them yet. They have participated actively in discussion on talk pages of the articles about Võro and South Estonian. --90.190.63.182 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me, I forgot to log in. --Võrok (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zakynthos - media listing all from the one stable?

Hi Ed, i read your comment re Zakynthos and i really do appreciate that wiki is not an advert hoarding but then why are all the radio stations from one media group listed, i question the reason for listing this particular company's products (in total) and, i question why no other form of media is allowed to be listed as well, particularly the non commercial island ezine. do i detect hidden interests or is this a genuine oversight. lets be honest here the bottom of the page reads like a classified ad! does anyone else agree that either all media is listed and treated fairly or no media is listed - im new here and enthusiastic, i dearly hope that there are no 'rat smells' that would be very disappointing can you clarify your view on this and can action be taken? your trusted thoughts and advice please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladstone100 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented over at Talk:Zakynthos#Large number of red links. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing question

Hi. You do lots of work with edit warriors. I do not; I'm usually off in the copyright infringement part of the building. :) What's the proper way of handling an IP contributor blocked for edit warring who has clear intent to continue disruption after the block expires? Do we give him rope and see what he does with it or, in the interest of protecting the project, simply extend his block now? This is the user in question: 76.181.250.255 (talk). He's been at it at that IP since October 2008. Before that, he was 76.181.232.187 (talk), 71.72.84.29 (talk). It seems to have begun in May 2007 and has, obviously, escalated. My efforts to encourage dispute resolution have failed. My thought is that it might be a good idea to extend his block for a couple of months and leave him instructions for requesting unblocking if he decides dispute resolution is the way to go after all (he'll probably just delete it like he did the last notice, but at least he'll have it). But I wanted to seek advice from somebody who is much more experienced in this neighborhood than I am and whose judgment I trust. I'll watch here in case you have any input to offer me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring blocks for more than one week may get resistance from other admins, however richly deserved. I support your idea of a two-month block, and WP:DE sounds like the best tag to put on it. If it were up to me, I would probably offer the situation for review at WP:AN, indicate you are planning to do a two-month block, and ask for advice. It would be 'the community's patience is exhausted' type of block. Itemize and quote from the various personal attacks, not just because the guy was rude to you, but because it suggests there is little hope of future improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan. I will do. Thanks very much for the feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family Foundation School

Thanks for reverting the latest vandalism to that article. I tried to revert it, but I guess you were a few seconds ahead of me. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Law

There is no Further reading list on this page. What are you looking at, the list of References actually used in the article? Close reading...Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the RfC, which asked for comments on the Further Reading list in this version of the article. Sorry if my post was not clear. If I had checked the date of the last response, I probably would not have commented at all, since it does not appear to be an active issue any more. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITK-SNAP Review

Dear Ed,

Back in October, you flagged the ITK-SNAP article with a notability guideline tag. Since then, I've added a number of independent sources. I was wondering if you could review your tagging of the article now.

Thank you very much Paul

Yushkevich (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=272709978"