User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

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

Talkback on protecting a section from being archived

{{talkback|Xeno|Protecting a section from being archived}} –xeno (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

blocked user back again

you blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.11.100.50 for a week for archiving the page without consensus. they're back, and they've started archiving again Theserialcomma (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Diamonddannyboy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont want any of my comments shown and I want them removed for personal reason, I also want my account closed and all of my contribrution removed, surley I have the right to remove what I right.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

they were my comments I removed, can I not do this. If I cant I want my account closed and all comments removed.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

i am not sure the procedure for removing your own messages, so we should wait to see if edjohnston says it's appropriate for you to do that. until he comments though, i would suggest that you do not delete yours or other editors' messages, as any deletion might disrupt the context/coherency of the conversation. also, you've already been blocked for trying to inappropriately archive various talk pages, and you've been warned again about it. yet you've gone right back to doing so. please stop? Theserialcomma (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If your not sure if I can remove my comments, why do you revert when I remove, surley you should be clear on wikipedia rules before reverted, as it might actullay be acceptable removes ones comments.

I dont wish to be on wikipedia any more, and i wish all my comments to be removed straight away, I have right to do this, as personal request.

It is of no concern of yours if I wish not to be invloved in any conversation or in the wikipedia.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Improving the system of tagging for COI

Suppose it were like an AfD nomination, and there was a template at the top of the article that pointed to an active WP:COIN discussion?

That would be good; it would deal with the common problem of outdated COI tags. As I've said elsewhere, it's so easy to tag and hope someone else will sort it (because raising COI commonly involves taking on tendentious editors) then forget to see out the outcome.

I'm not terribly keen on SJ's solution of Template:COI-check. Apart from general discomfort at the relationship - editor gets told off for COI, then starts off on advocacy / new templates that weaken COI procedure - I think it focuses too much on the sole issue of article neutrality. As I've also said elsewhere, COI often brings a package of problems (e.g. creating multiple articles, too many incoming wikilinks to a page, WP:SOAP in discussions, etc) that would be better dealt with globally at WP:COIN.

It's a difficult one. I know we're told to focus on edits rather than editors, but COI is a problem where the focus is the editor. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to leave a (friendly) message for Gordonofcartoon and followed this discussion here. As I just explained, this was THF's proposal, not mine, and the irony is that if you check the first comment you'll see that I don't even necessarily support it (even if I've tweaked the template itself). Even more ironic is that I'm actually proposing to "beef up" WP:COI (rather than "water it down") by requiring disclosure and making it a policy. The flip side is that we don't attack editors, articles and subjects by tagging them {{COI}} or citing WP:COI without supporting violations (V, NPOV, AUTO, etc.). That should help to clear out the backlog so we can focus on the problem cases. It would also avoid current culture to severely punish conflict disclosures and eliminate the grey area which appears to be the source of most of the problems; conflicted editors will know where they stand and what is (and is not) allowable. Given how hard it can be to deal with undisclosed conflicts it would also give us a real stick to use when they are discovered (e.g. non-disclosure = block or disclosure w/ supporting violations = block, not the current situation where disclosure w/o supporting violations = pergatory).

FWIW you have my full support re: turning {{COI}} into an AfD style process linking back to WP:COIN. This will ensure that the right people (like yourselves) will be able to collectively respond promptly and intensively rather than the current 'tag and run' culture under which articles are tagged for years but never improved.

PS I'm not really a spammer and am far more reasonable than some would make out. I do however feel very strongly about IP abuse) and intensely dislike unjustified accusations, particularly when editing with my real name. -- samj _in^out 04:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

More Nangparbat attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shalimar_Gardens_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indophobia&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_the_Punjab&action=history

Special:Contributions/86.158.235.164 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine COI case

Ed, since you are the admin that looked into this matter previously, I'd appreciate it if you could review this new case too. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed, if you are indeed the admin who reviews the case, I expect you will wish to focus upon these WP:COIN edits:

The problem here is that it is only the South African Wikipedia editor, Socrates2008, who has raised this plethora of what he calls "COI complaints" against me. I have replied to his catalogue of criticism in a perfectly reasonable way, but he responds by unjustifiably accusing me of painting him "as an apartheid racist/militarist".

I would hope that when an Admin does come to "review this case and take decisive action", he will take action against both Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn for collaborating to mount a concerted attack on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it must have felt like a "concerted attack" to have all your socket puppet accounts closed down. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure it has not gone unnoticed that your partner Deon Steyn awarded you The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for all your diligence in that respect! In fact, your concerted attack on me in collaboration with Deon Steyn has been recorded by no less an authority than Wikipedia Review.---PJHaseldine (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:NPOV and/or WP:V issues rather than WP:COI (which would requirebe obvious if there were off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest on a topic, none of which appear to be present). Is there any reason why this would not be better handled in another forum? -- samj _in^out 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Broader discussion of merge

Hi, Ed. I have a procedural question. An article has been tranformed into a redirect (Orthomolecular psychiatry) after a discussion at which I and another editor expressed opposition, and there has been some editwarring over the action. I would like to refer the question to a broader community discussion – I think I would prefer AfD. Do you think it would be OK if I restore the article and immediately list it for AfD (although I would be voting "keep"), requesting that it be left in the form of an article during the course of the AfD, or is there another more appropriate procedure to get broader community input in such a situation, e.g. article-content RfC? Thanks in advance for your advice. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Since Ruslik0 has protected the page, I've referred the question to him here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall

I'm not sure what [1] counts as, but figured you could handle it? MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked the editor for more details here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure - the article is Davenport, Iowa African American history. Brrryce (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh...

I thought it was kind of quiet around here :) Thanks. NJGW (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

More Nangparbat attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shalimar_Gardens_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indophobia&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_the_Punjab&action=history

Special:Contributions/86.158.235.164 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I messaged you before, but nothing was done

The links above, plus these below need to be semiprotected

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poonch_District_(AJK)&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)&action=history

Special:Contributions/86.158.233.205, this was the IP that was vandalizing

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A-11 and please stop that guy from deleting our 100% FACTUAL post

Lengthy discussion of copyright problem at A-11 offense

Below is the correct facts put forth and please repost it. Thank you, and there is NO copyright violation: History: The A-11 Offense is used in American football, and it combines certain aspects of Option offenses, the Zone Read, West Coast offense, and the Run & Shoot http://www.A11Offense.com. The ideas for the system was originally submitted to the CIF and NFHS - by Piedmont High School (CA) head football coach, Kurt Bryan, and offensive coordinator, Steve Humphries (Co-creators of the A-11 Offense). In the year 2007, the CIF declared the offense Legal to use under the definition of a scrimmage kick formation. The system has all 11 players on the field “potentially” Eligible to catch the football, and any array of six of the eleven players can become eligible. The offense is revered by some and disliked by others. It was designed for use in high school football and devised under high school rules in (2007). The system was used for two seasons before the NFHS changed a couple of rules in attempting to ban the offense in February 2009. However, Piedmont High School (CA), and other A-11 Offense schools nationwide have filed Petitions with their own State Associations to keep the offense intact for the benefit of smaller schools across the country. Of note: [Scientific American] calculated the number of combinations of players who can receive the snap and advance the football is 36 ways in standard formations with five offensive lineman; however, in the A-11 Offense that number goes to 16,332. LINK: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=football-offensive-math Some football officials have said it is impossible for them to officiate. But, Sam Moriana, Head of the Football Officials in the East Bay of California, is a 50-year officiating veteran. His crews have worked more games involving the A-11 Offense than any group of football officials in the nation in 2007 & 2008. “Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. It’s really no big deal. We’ve had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games.” Sam Moriana. Piedmont unveiled the A-11 offense in their 2007 season opener against Campolindo High School which Piedmont lost 31–2. Piedmont continued tweaking the A-11, losing their second game 15–7, before turning their season around with seven straight wins and ending the regular season 7–3–0, making the NCS Playoffs to end the season 7 - 4. In its second season using the A-11, Piedmont finished 8 - 2, and again made the NCS Playoffs, finishing the season 8 - 3. In 2008, other teams began using the A-11 Offense in CA, and states such as KY, OR, WA, AL, AR, FL, AZ, NV, IA, IN, MI and MD, as well as teams in Japan and Germany. Legality and feasibility in various leagues The A-11 Offense was legal because there was no restriction on when a scrimmage kick formation could be used and eligible numbered players could replace ineligible players on the field. Most high school officials who have worked games involving the A-11 have reported the games can be officiated properly by the Refs. However, some high school sports officials did "not think it complies with the rules and some have concerns about it being able to be officiated.” In February 2009, the, "scrimmage kick" exception that made way for the A-11 was altered by the NFHS in a move that for now makes the offense illegal. But the offense is still legal to run in its true form on 4th down. The formation is allowed on 4th downs under NCAA rules, and on Conversion attempts, and a few situations that define a scrimmage kick formation with an additional requirement that "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted." The offense is not legal in its true form in the NFL. However, in a very unusual way, it becomes Legal based on the review by Co-chairman of the NFL competition committee, Tenn. Titans Head Coach, Jeff Fisher. Legal, due to the fact that any ineligible-numbered receivers (#50-79) can declare themselves as eligible (even all 11 Players at once) before each play, so the officials can recognize them as eligible players for that play. After one play has elapsed, those players who reported as eligible must then sit out for at least one play, or a time out between plays must occur. In Youth football, there is not a jersey numbering requirement and the A-11 is Legal on every down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.34.109 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) This discussion is about A-11 offense, an article which has been semiprotected since you have added material there which violates copyright. Please read WP:5P about Wikipedia policy, and do not cut-and-paste material that is posted on other web sites. Unless you can prove you own that material, it is a copyright violation to put it in Wikipedia. Besides the copyright problem, there is a verification problem. We can't accept assertions about A-11 that are only based on personal knowledge; we require published references. The Scientific American article is fine as far as it goes, but you make a lot of other claims that have no references. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ed

Please post this article now that the references of facts have been listed, thank you.

History: The A-11 Offense (All Eleven Players Potentially Eligible) is an innovative new offense that blends aspects of almost every type of offense in the history of football such as the West Coast, Spread Option, Run and Shoot, Shotgun Zone Fly, Wing-T, Single Wing, Notre Dame Box, Triple Option and Veer just to name a few. Teams can use the A-11 as a “package” to supplement their own offense & feature up to eleven players as potential threats, and even two quarterbacks in the shotgun!

The ideas for the system was originally submitted to the CIF and NFHS - by Piedmont High School (CA) head football coach, Kurt Bryan, and offensive coordinator, Steve Humphries (Co-creators of the A-11 Offense). In the year 2007, the CIF declared the offense Legal to use under the definition of a scrimmage kick formation.

The system has all 11 players on the field “potentially” Eligible to catch the football, and any array of six of the eleven players can become eligible. The offense is revered by some and disliked by others. It was designed for use in high school football and devised under high school rules in (2007). The system was used for two seasons before the NFHS changed a couple of rules in attempting to ban the offense in February 2009. However, Piedmont High School (CA), and other A-11 Offense schools nationwide have filed Petitions with their own State Associations to keep the offense intact for the benefit of smaller schools across the country. Some football officials have said it is impossible for them to officiate. But, Sam Moriana, Head of the Football Officials in the East Bay of California, is a 50-year officiating veteran. His crews have worked more games involving the A-11 Offense than any group of football officials in the nation in 2007 & 2008. “Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. It’s really no big deal. We’ve had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games.” Sam Moriana.

Piedmont unveiled the A-11 offense in their 2007 season opener against Campolindo High School which Piedmont lost 31–2. Piedmont continued tweaking the A-11, losing their second game 15–7, before turning their season around with seven straight wins and ending the regular season 7–3–0, making the NCS Playoffs to end the season 7 - 4. In its second season using the A-11, Piedmont finished 8 - 2, and again made the NCS Playoffs, finishing the season 8 - 3.

In 2008, other teams began using the A-11 Offense in CA, and states such as KY, OR, WA, AL, AR, FL, AZ, NV, IA, IN, MI and MD, as well as teams in Japan and Germany. Reference: www.A11Offense.com

Of note: [Scientific American] calculated the number of combinations of players who can receive the snap and advance the football is 36 ways in standard formations with five offensive lineman; however, in the A-11 Offense that number goes to 16,332. LINK: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=football-offensive-math

Legality and feasibility in various leagues

The A-11 Offense was legal because there was no restriction on when a scrimmage kick formation could be used and eligible numbered players could replace ineligible players on the field. Most high school officials who have worked games involving the A-11 have reported the games can be officiated properly by the Refs. However, some high school sports officials did "not think it complies with the rules and some have concerns about it being able to be officiated.”

In February 2009, the, "scrimmage kick" exception that made way for the A-11 was altered by the NFHS (www.nfhs.org) in a move that for now makes the offense illegal. But the offense is still legal to run in its true form on 4th down, and hybrid A-11 concepts will come into play in 2009, on 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs.

The formation is allowed on 4th downs under NCAA rules, and on Conversion attempts, and a few situations that define a scrimmage kick formation with an additional requirement that "it is obvious that a kick may be attempted."

The offense is not legal in its true form in the NFL. However, in a very unusual way, it becomes Legal based on the review by Co-chairman of the NFL competition committee, Tenn. Titans Head Coach, Jeff Fisher. Legal, due to the fact that any ineligible-numbered receivers (#50-79) can declare themselves as eligible (even all 11 Players at once) before each play, so the officials can recognize them as eligible players for that play. After one play has elapsed, those players who reported as eligible must then sit out for at least one play, or a time out between plays must occur. Reference: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3779821

In Youth football, there is not a jersey numbering requirement and the A-11 is Legal on every down as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.12.176 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shshshsh

Yesy, the other guy had a few socks,, actually. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello YM. I see that you blocked the above guy, who was involved in the 3RR dispute at A. R. Rahman. You've also blocked 91.130.91.84 as his sock. What about 91.130.91.92 (talk · contribs) who was one of the other participants in the controversy at A. R. Rahman. Did you reach any conclusions about him? EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I forgot. They're both him, YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Soy

Thanks for the note. I wish the anon would have said what was on their mind... would have saved some trouble. I really don't care about being wrong, only about the article being right. I think it's taken care of now though. NJGW (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording for proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine

Under your Proposed_restrictions_on_PJHaseldine, I've added a proposed wording; please let me know what you think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, OK with me. 'Broadly construed' is fair, and there should be no Talk page ban. If the discussion closes, and editors agree that a topic ban is needed, I thought I would try negotiating with Patrick on a detailed list of articles that were included, so there is no ambiguity. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I've closed it - consensus is pretty clear. Given that topics can often affect many articles, or sections of articles, we don't usually provide an exhaustive list other than handpicking a few examples (like we did in this case). But I'll leave that up to you. Full compliance with the sanction would mean avoiding any related articles as much as possible, especially with the broadly construed provision. My only hope is that no socking will follow. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with how you handled that. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking appropriate action. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "My only hope is that no socking will follow" — Ncmvocalist should assume good faith.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope PJHaseldine refrains from editing disruptively or violating a topic ban (even through socking - the typical response to topic bans) because failure to do so would merely earn further sanctions. It's that simple; not a matter of good faith or bad faith - time to move on, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording makes no mention of the topic ban being temporary. Nor is any restriction placed upon Socrates2008 or User:Deon Steyn — see the following discussion:

Support as a temporary ban pending closer review. (A closing admin should take responsibility for the duration, it should not require return to this forum, and if the closing admin becomes unavailable, any admin should be able to lift it.) The editor should be encouraged to propose edits to Talk pages, and should be cautioned against incivility. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and being "right" is no defense against being disruptive. My support here makes no assumption that the behavior of other editors is free of fault; however, the subject editor clearly needs to work toward better dispute resolution. If a topic banned editor believes that suggestions are unreasonably being ignored, that editor can seek assistance from other editors. Pecuniary interest is a clear form of COI, but others exist. The basic issue on that is outside affiliation that might impair neutrality. However, the topic ban may be justifiable without any reference to COI. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would happily support these limitations and would suggest that other editors who are close to the situation (User:Socrates2008 and User:Deon Steyn) exercise caution in making potentially contentious edits during this period. -- samj _in^out 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Were these omissions deliberate or inadvertent?---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quoting Abd's opinion and Samj's opinion. Administrators who enforce the ban are expected to use common sense. If necessary they can refer back to the full COIN discussion before taking action. I was considering proposing the ban as temporary rather than permanent, but the issue has continued for a very long time. I did not anticipate that you'd ever change your editing habits in the future, since you seem to not see any problem with what you do. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Takahashi Meijin

I noticed that Takahashi Meijin was deleted by you, without discussion. As this guy was a celebrity in Japan in the 1980s, I think skipping past the AFD was a mistake. It'll be difficult for me to find sources since I don't read Japanese (neither do you, apparently), but even today he's getting pub from the likes of Business Week, Wired, and Kotaku. A general writeup can be found at Hudson's site, which was likely on the original article but outright ignored. I don't know what the rules are about recreating an article, as last time I did it with many added proper sources some admin got his panties in a wad and threatened to indefinitely block me. I believe his favorite catchphrase to newbies was, "Fuck off." What a cheeky fellow. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to work on the article, I can restore it into your user space. Your new references look good, but the article may get flak due to its poor state if the references aren't put in immediately. If you need any advice on strengthening the article so it won't be deleted, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Dear EdJohnston, hello!

You declined my unblock request and I'd like to first thank you for the kind words, and tell you something very important to avoid misunderstandings. It's just too disappointing to be blocked twice within one month when all I'm doing is fighting POV and biasness and going according to consensus and sources. I spend a lot of time discussing matters on talk pages, citing sources, but those who refuse to accept the truth and the facts derived from it cause all the troubles. They of couse get punished, but then those who try to stop them get their hard work thrown brutally at their faces. I'm one of them. I also lost my rollback, which I always used fairly and never misused it or violated its terms of use (I always use the edit summary in cases that are not vandalism). It's hard to see al that happening to me after three years of hard work and great collaboration with other admins against vandalism all for the sake of this project called Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Shahid, and welcome back to regular editing. Please be aware that the enforcement of 3RR is usually quite mechanical. Editors who let themselves get carried away can be blocked regardless of the value of their edits. If you see you are in danger of crossing the 3RR line, try to widen the discussion and bring in more opinions. In cases where the other party is really violating policy, you can ask for help on a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasis

Again. [2] NJGW (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Took some action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but somehow he slipped through again last night.[3] How does that happen? NJGW (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried something else. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Correlation

About this, there is already a reference here. There is no original research, apparently. Nightbit (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about moving other user's discussion

I'm continually finding talk comments that I make being copied and pasted into discussion on other pages, giving the impression that I had participated in the discussion on the secondary talk page. What is the WP policy on selectively copying (dare I say editing) other user's comments in this way in order to form an argument? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The copying was clearly not "selective" since it included the full, unadulterated comments by three editors: Socrates2008, SamJohnston and me.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a clear policy on this; you can check WP:TPG for the Talk guideline. In general it is better to *link* to the previous discussion and then summarize its significance in your own words. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Rupert Everett

Hi. To be honest, I barely recall having done that, and don't quite recall what I was doing, besides cleaning up a messy reference that was left. It's obviously a mistake and all I can do is say "mea culpa". Thanks for letting me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification

That you for the notification so I had a chance to respond jbolden1517^Talk 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your quick and great work in the help of removing User:MarkRae's banner, and resolving the situation. Thanks again! CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RRQ

Hi,

All my posts are remove by Vincent, he always erase what I write, always! Even when it's source. I write the exact same thing as in the reference and I also put a link to the Journal de Québec proving many RRQ members were manifesting at Québec 400th anniversary and he erase it! Philbox17 (talk)

In January 2008, the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois launched a campaign against Québec City’s 400th anniversary celebrations and accused the organizers of being revisionists. Here is the source http://www.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2008/01/20080101-094532.html Philbox17 (talk)

A spokesperson for the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois, notable Quebec filmaker Pierre Falardeau had warned that, "some people will get their asses kicked" if the re-enactment took place. The RRQ had promised visiting re-enactment spectators "a trip they won't soon forget". The victory rightly belonged to the small Réseau de résistance du Québec and its spokesman on the re-enactment. http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=1296374&sponsor= . Here is the other link, evrything I write is the exact same thing as in the reference. It's not write that the RRQ make threat, it's write that Falardeau and the RRQ warned, Vincent dont seem to be neutral he erase evrything I write. Philbox17 (talk)

Can you take a look at the Réseau de Résistance du Québecois page if you have time, thank you.Philbox17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

COI/POV & 3RR on RRQ

Thanks for your advice. Filed the proper format. Note also that he has admitted his conflict of interest: he is part of the organization and contributing on their instructions. Vincent (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)+

PS You know you've been on Wiki too long when a section title like "COI/POV & 3RR on RRQ" makes sense... Vincent (talk)

Vfp15|Vincent

I think Vincent work for a federalist organisation he really want to block me, he lie about me and make false accusation. He dont contribute to wikipedia credibility. Philbox17 (talk)