User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Thank you sincerely!

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

Disruptive behaviour

Corticopia is now just reverting changes in an article he doesn't even care about just to bother and disrupt since you blocked him from the articles he really is interested in.[1] Please note that the article has been stable for MONTHS or YEARS, and nobody has ever "complained" about anything on it (especially not about Turkey). He's just being distuptive for the sake of it.

There's a section on the talk page, created by someone else, that deals specifically with this issue: misplacing Turkey in Europe even though most of its area and population is in Asia. This editor's half-assed response to it is very telling. Good luck with everything else. 69.158.56.19 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that a check user should be implemented against the various Anonymous IPs he is using because I am completely sure he's using a registered account to edit the articles about other topics he used to edit (Geeky SCI-FI like "Star Trek", etc) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to open up an WP:SPI report on the subject. I'd prefer not to be the only admin who ever takes action on Corticopia. Be careful of going over 3RR at Newly industrialized country. What registered account do you think he's using? EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response as usual. I'm looking very closely to the SPI to file the case, I've gathered a lot of info.

With regard of the article Newly industrialized country, it's obvious that he's being disruptive because the logic steps towards the "removal" of certain information is (when Good Faith is assumed): the placement of the CITE tag to give the other editors the opportunity to include references, and/or open a discussion in the Talk Page. Information should not be deleted just because he feels it's not "appropiate".

I think his intentions are clear, he just want to be annoying and start a revert war, so I please urge you to act and protect the page to encourage him to behave propperly. After all, that's what should be done even if the vandal was somebody else and not Corticopia. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is obvious is that this editor is simply pushing his point of view onto the rest of us, and fishing to ensure that the article can be 'locked' to preserve a preferred version. Consult the talk page: he commented that "Turkey is geopolitically European. Period." ... without backup. Some other have commentators disagreed. The edit is very clearly not vandalism. Information is not being removed, only 'moved' and reframed in accordance with neutrality policy: most of the country (area and population) is in Asia, and is often included in the Middle East. The current citations do not support Turkey's inclusion in Europe in total (though of course a minor part of it is in Europe), only that it may be a NIC. It is contingent on an editor who wants to retain information to demonstrate why.

What is also painfully obvious is that the above commentator has been far more annoying and troublesome, through his whining and POV-pushing, than the original edit to begin with. Sad. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I invite both of you to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Of course, a person who rarely uses the same IP twice may have a bit of trouble being taken seriously. I'm not aware of any barrier that keeps you from creating a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of your response is beside the point. Why should I need to create a registered account? Wikipedia provides for that, and others (registered and not) have commented on this particular issue. If articles are successfully locked up simply because some troublesome editor with troubled history is inflexible and unreasonably screams at your talk page (with false accusations of vandalism, etc.), then there's a problem with the exercise to begin with. And, in that instance, it is not I who needs to be taken less seriously. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re

Thanks for information. I am disgusted Faustian behavior, he wants to close my mouth.--Paweł5586 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here Birczanin accused me of lying. I have found today this information in this page: 385. So he is one who lies. And he removed source. I can provide scan from Motyka's book - p. 385 to prove. Birczanin should be banned.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there ED, VASCO here again,

Sorry to be bothering you (as i have already told you, believe me if i could block vandals i would not ask anyone for anything), hopefully now i will get an answer,

There is this vandal from Norway who has been removing important info in player infoboxes (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guti_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=prev&oldid=325657405, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Barrag%C3%A1n&diff=prev&oldid=320265044 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andoni_Zubizarreta&diff=prev&oldid=324533902 for example), and the IP seems quite dynamic to me ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.108.143.34), my only doubt is if it is the same person behind all those edits, although most likely, as ALL of them consist of soccer! The person has been warned already (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:83.108.143.34), yet continues.

Would greatly appreciate your input, keep up the good work,

Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is too hard to tell if his changes are correct. A number of his changes have not been reverted. (Does that mean nobody disagrees with them?) This is not a case of obvious vandalism, so I think it needs a better summary, with more data. He has only received one warning. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply, mate. Yes, i understand your approach, but believe me, even if some of his changes are accurate and good, he has no business removing stuff that is "good stuff". I also see there is a great deal of logic when you say that if a good number of his edits have not been reverted they must be correct, but i think it can be due to two things: First, i repeat that some edits may be actually good, and second, the bad ones that have not been reverted may be due to lack of attention (so many articles out there!) from "good" editors. I will continue to revert his stuff when i feel the edits are - if i cannot call it vandalic - not proper, and the guy (Jaellee) that warned this user has done the same i believe.

Thank you as always, keep up the good work,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.141.100.115

This may be too late to matter, but I wanted to answer you anyway. I became aware that this IP wanted a user page when he posted a request on Gogo Dodo's talk as I have it watchlisted. I saw MBisanz comment on Jimbo's talk about there being nothing wrong with creating a user page for an IP, so I went ahead and created it. Hope this helps some. Best, –Katerenka ^☆ 10:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! That does make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad that we could clear that up. :) @Kate (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

JZ KNIGHT

Hi Ed.. Thank you for letting me know the discussion was going on about the JZ Knight Article. I have left another response on the notice board and today I notice that Jujimufu has made big additions to the article in a negative way against JZ Knight and what Ramtha teaches. I would like Jujimufu to be reined in a bit.. This user obviously has a definate stance and opinion he/she wants to let people know about and you have not asked for that to be kept in check.. I know that this sort of subject can be tricky as it crosses so many boundaries and belief systems but we should be able to get through all of that. Potentially we now have users in place to provide pros and cons and yourself to over see the way its presented. This could create a great article and present information in a balanced way..

There are some changes required to Jujimufu latest edit but I am not sure if I can go ahead..

Example: where Jujimufu writes that Glen Cunningham "has accused the School of being a cult. Well I could say "that the school is an advanced teaching facility for the mind" but it has no reference and would be removed, same goes for that 'Cult' statement.

Please get involved Ed, it needs a neutral observer to captain the ship and I think you may be that person. Mindgladiator (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I'm sorry to butt-in like this, but on the issue of Mindgladiator's recent behaviour with regards to the article J. Z. Knight, I would like to bring to your attention his most recent edit, which involved removing the whole of the section "Controversies and Criticism" without prior warning or discussion on the matter.

I have left a warning at the user's talk page that if such behaviour continues he will be reported for vandalism. Another user reverted his edit, but that's not the issue - I have failed to receive clear and grounded communication from Mindgladiator's part, which is why I cannot continue argueing anymore. I feel this issue has to be brought to the attention of more editors/administrators, in the hopes that maybe Mindgladiator will be able to summon some arguments to defend his position; otherwise I see no reason why he should be allowed to edit the article in such a harsh and un-decided manner, without consensus with other members of wikipedia, and especially after what has followed.

Thanks a lot - for taking some of your time to contribute to the discussions with regards to this issue, and for being very helpful in its resolution so far. -Jujimufu (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

GraYoshi and Badagnani

Hi EdJohnson, it looks like we both responded to this around the same time; sorry, I didn't mean to be stepping on your toes, it's just that I had received a message about the edit war and wanted to give them a warning. I will defer to your judgment here; personally I think no block is necessary unless they start up again (even though the recent edits have been quite disruptive), but if you decide to block them anyway I certainly won't have problems with it, given their histories and how recently both of them have been involved in other editing disputes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

SGAUS

3RR warning. I read your message. I have continued to work on the page with very limited incremental additions. I have not seen any feedback from the Todd Gallagher since seeking assistance. Please let me know if any of my edits breach Wiki protocols. Respectfully22015va (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up question: What action is required to have the COI banner removed? Who does this?22015va (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to find newspaper or magazine articles commenting on the idea of state defence forces, or discussing particular episodes regarding these forces. It is hard to believe that there are have been no controversies regarding them over the years, and the present SGAUS article gives no hint of any political disagreements. When an article includes some criticism, that makes us more likely to believe that its coverage is balanced. If a COI-affected user can write an article that ends up sounding neutral to other editors, we usually assume that the COI tag can be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston, I have added a reference section which contain a DoD report to congress, a U.S. Army War College paper and an American Legion Article. Is this the kind of third-party sources you are looking for to provide balance? Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you found these references. It would be even better if you could extract some relevant facts from these references and add them to the text of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, the references I added do not mention SGAUS. I added them to provide third-party information about state defense forces and to help show that 32 USC 109 forces have no relationship with private "rump/militia" groups. I am not sure what I could extract from these references that would not compete with Wiki's existing State Defense Forces article. I do believe that they are relevant to the extent that they show that other organizations are also looking at and supportive of expanding 32 USC 109 forces to assist with expanding domestic missions that place such a heavy demand on already over-tasked federal National Guard forces. 22015va (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See some ideas I listed at User talk:Todd Gallagher#How to improve the articles. I welcome any suggestions you may have. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I have read your suggestions and do not disagree with any of them. I have posted comments on the article's discussion page as directed by the Sr. Wiki members - in hopes to develop discussion and consensus. I believe that if the article were to be deleted, user Todd Gallagher would reinstate it anyway. I do not believe that the SGAUS content should be merged with the State Defense Force article as I believe the efforts of the group carry enough merit for an independent article.

My efforts (post 3RR and request for editor assistance): I have limited all of my edits to small incremental changes (so if there are objections they can be discussed). Added numerous third-party sources links. In an effort to meet user Todd Gallagher in the middle I added the section on private groups. However, his charge that SGAUS supports private militias is out-right wrong. SGAUS will recognize lawful groups seeking to establish or continue support for lawful SDFs [2]. SGAUS is an independent organization and does not have control over other entities. I added a column to the states table that includes links to state corporation records to show that the individual state-groups are independent entities (separate from SGAUS). I have emailed the SGAUS group and asked for a current list of recognized state-level associations. Once I have that, I will add them to the table. I am not sure what else I can do to reach out to this user? The said part is the history and discussion sections are so filled with arguments, any article will be meaningless and have little credibility. I will post an "olive-branch" on user Todd Gallagher's talk page. Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston, I wanted to check with you to ask when/how the COI tag can be removed from the SGAUS article? I have been adding comments to the discussion section as directed and have left messages with the other users in an effort to open dialog but have received no feed-back. I have also added additional information and links about the individual state-level associations (including links to state corporation records). Not sure what the next step is? Happy Thanksgiving, Respectfully,22015va (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eiður Guðjohnsen vs Eidur Gudjohnsen

According to The National Register of Persons in Iceland his name is Eiður Smári Guðjohnsen, so Eiður Guðjohnsen is correct. Then, why the IP is considering to use the WP:Requested moves process? Archibald Leitch (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is not how he is referred to in Icelandic sources, but in English sources. From WP:NAME, "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language source". (For example, how his name spelled in the local newspapers of the city where he plays). EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. In that case, all the articles about Icelandic players should be spelled to the local lenguage. That rule is kind of wrong, but if that is the rule I don't have any problem about that though.Archibald Leitch (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:82.36.17.10

This IP was discussed at AN/I for changing their sig to that of an admin, and !voting multiple times at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_McElderry. You asked them to explain and their response was that they really wanted the article kept. I advised them against this. They have now done the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Daniels (singer). As this is sock-puppetry, could you follow-up appropriately? Non-IP user is User:Hassaan19. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I42 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for resolving! I42 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Goa in troubled waters?

Check this out, don't call this POV ! [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.17.155 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose ideas for improving our articles on Goa. What you linked to in the Times of India seems to be a legitimate article. Where should the info be added? Perhaps Deepak would add it for you, if you specified which article needed to be updated. If you are a sock evading an indefinite block, you should try to be on your best behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be spamming entirely random people. I checked the history for Goa and couldn't find any of the people I searched for who he spammed. I've reverted all of them but this one. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not random people, but editors who call my article POV. It was very important to send the news to them. Kindly undo the same. --59.95.25.12 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is "no" an acceptable answer? You still appear to have spammed to me, regardless of whether they were random or not. You also provided absolutely zero context to your edits. Also, if you are who you appear to be, you're indefinitely blocked. Shoo! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting this editor's comments seems correct. If he wants to be unblocked under his main account he can write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Until then we should have no patience with him. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

user 81.151.103.174

You blocked this anonymous IP above today for a period of 24 hours. I request, if you have the means, that you get the entire IP range for this user blocked permanently. Blocking this user has been done so many times, and it has NO effect, because he has a rotating IP. Because of this, he has been at this for over a year now because no-one has taken the initiative, or because no-one has the means to stop him. Either way, just informing you, hoping that you can end this boring ordeal or possibly get someone else to do it. FYI, I have complained to his ISP, and as I suspected: Absolutely no response, apart from an auto-response. I really don't intend to spend my time on Wikipedia sending complaint letters to ISP's because we cannot handle disruptive users, neither do I intend to keep at this silly reverting for as long as this user intends. So where does this leave the users who try to fend off this vandal? Eik Corell (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit War Notice Board

Hello, Can you tell me how long it takes for an administrator to address a complaint regarding edit warring? I put a notice up regarding an editor on the Karl Rove page. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In the recent history of the Karl Rove article I do not see more than three reverts by either party, and maybe not even three reverts. Also some edits might be justified by WP:BLP, so it's hard to imagine that an admin will rule against either editor; it would most likely be closed as No Violation. What are the chances that you and Chhe could negotiate this on the article Talk page, and reach a compromise? EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks so much for getting back to me. I'm sorry to say that Chhe and Jusdafax are very much not amenable to cooperation. They've been hostile, especially Jusdafax, right from the beginning. You'd have to wade through the tortous history to see that. But, I've learned hard lessons over the summer. Fortunately, I've had some tutelage, at my request, from Moonriddengirl and JP Gordon, both very helpful and I learned alot from their suggestions. I think with the tag team of Chhe and Jusdafax it's best to go the legal route and report violations as they occur so a history is built that others can see. Any suggestions on the Karl Rove talk page would be welcome if you care to comment. I saw your comments from an earlier post and that's why I contacted you and discovered you were also an admin.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not really any higher law than the article Talk page, for content disputes. I'm not sure why you think that admins would have any special ability to solve this one. (We only ensure that people are discussing properly and not trying to force their views into the article by excessive reverting). Maybe you can open an RfC or find some way to bring in editors from one of the WikiProjects, to find a solution that has wider support. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that an admin could help make sure that no one is forcing their views on each other with reverting, etc. Sorry, I don't know what an RFC is. I will contact the Wikiproject editors, I hadn't thought of that. That's a good suggestion. It would be nice if the page could move beyond the scandal sheet it is now into a real biography. I was also thinking an admin checking on things might be enough to tamp down some of the anger Chhe and Jusdafax have and use it regularly to chase away new editors. Wikipedia needs a little work in that area, I think. Thanks again,Malke 2010 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What is an RFC? Thanks,Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A Request for Comment. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Down 30,000

I read an article today about Wikipedia written by a major newspaper. It says that Wikipedia user count is down 30,000 from 2-3 years ago. It says that 25% of edits from newer users are reverted up from 10%. It says that drama (using a different word) is up. The article discusses that people are beating up on users citing rules (so this could be wikilawyering). We should be mindful of what this article says about us.

If this IP is merely giving us references to newspapers, this is good behavior, not bad. Disruption is bad, giving a few (and in this case, only one) posts with a link to a newspaper is not disruption. If this IP left a message with you and you don't want such information, just leave a note on the user page.

This article that I read was a real eye opener. It says that edits are way down. It says that real experts don't want to write here. It didn't say we are bad but that we bite newbies. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

another error

Oh my! I just found a huge error. I am writing about a Finnish tire company, the largest. The article says it was founded in 1988. Decades wrong. This is what we need to do, search and destroy all errors! Let's go and fight! You may stay behind but this is what I'm doing for now! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve IP editor

I offered to help, but my offer was rejected. The editor, under his new IP (Special:Contributions/71.174.142.108), is beginning to push his POV to other articles - in and of itself OK, but his style is could be better, and his comments on the various talk pages (both before and after his block) suggests he hasn't really accepted the process here. Even WP:AGF, at best it seems he's used to the anonymous, somewhat combative editing style of blogs and news site reader opinion sections. I do think he needs some careful oversight. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left a fairly long post on the IP's old talk page, trying to give some more detail about what is considered wrong about his earlier posts, and some better guidance towards what is expected of him. While he's generally polite, I agree with 4wajzkd02's characterization of "combative". Appreciate the checks you've made though! Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The following addresses most of Ravensfires concerns - and shows that he is probably as ignorant as 4wajzkd02 (who admits to knowing nothing about this issue in his talk page). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve_System#Cites_supporting_my_position_-_showing_it_is_not_OR_or_SYN71.174.142.108 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"shows that he is probably as ignorant as 4wajzkd02" - this is not exactly an example of how to win friends and influence people, let alone look for help in your quest. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Being harrassed by Ravensfire and 4wajzkd02

Ravensfire and 4wajzkd02 keep following m around and deleting everything I add. This includes material on talk pages.

I believe that they are intentionally trying to provoke me so that I do something uncivil in order to get me banned yet again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nullification_Crisis&diff=327606424&oldid=32760399471.174.142.108 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.174.142.108#Nullification_crisis_talk_page71.174.142.108 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for the message. About recent change patrol, I have been doing it so why isn't it showing up? Is there more to it then just reverting vandalism? BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Phew! I got worried my edits did not count! Thanks for fixing the misunderstanding!BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

News Item related to your continuing misguided restrictions on me

I've been editing wiki articles on and off for about 3 years and I have to say that wiki editors has gotten MUCH more asinine over that period of time. In my case I have two editors (using term LOOSELY as they are more closely resemble censor then then editors) who have been to following, hounding and harassing me. This harassment includes multiple case of deleting TALK PAGE material. Considering my treatment by those two and yourself I would sooner join a band of rapists then become a registered wiki editor.

You reap what you sow brother!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6650077/Wikipedia-project-losing-contributors-in-record-numbers.html

Wikipedia is losing tens of thousands of volunteer editors a month, according to a study that suggests the pioneering spirit of the collaborative encyclopaedia is in decline.

“The articles are very tightly controlled by others now, and that makes it hard to jump in and contribute.” 71.174.142.108 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Find even a single person who supports any of your edits, and I'll be more sympathetic. Wikipedia is a group project, not a solo venture. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thew way you people run it will soon be a dead venture.71.174.142.108 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, because we revert people who attack other editors? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

and is that supposed to includes TALK PAGE discussions like this one here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_Tender_Cases&diff=327975068&oldid=327974807 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.142.108 (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologise to you if I in any way stirred this up. As you may have noticed, I even ended up reporting myself for my involvement with this user. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure.

The guy torqued off some good users and it wasn't as if he hadn't been asked not to be so doggoned uncivil. Glad to help, Ed.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"people of the book" page

hi i have not undone the page but i edited it. does that count as a revert?

i keep putting the article in the correct neutral form but there are people who keep vandalizing it to put it in their form.

i think a lock on this article is the final answer, there is just no other way to deal with the vandalism. if you read the discussion page, you will understand who is the person that is trying to create neutrality in the article and who is being biased. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: 3RR noticeboard

Ed, thank you for your message. I appreciate the heads up, and the respect your message showed. Yes, I am guilty of violating 3RR, and knowingly so. That is the problem of having the Irish temper combined with the German stubbornness. This is not the first time it's gotten me in trouble here. That said, I do not believe I am entirely incorrect in what I have done. Most of my edits have been to revert Jimsteele9999's continued reinsertion of uncited claims that seem to amount to opinion or OR. As it happens, just for one example, I think the fish story is important, as the title was not random on Salinger's part. However, the other editor cannot claim it is important without giving a source that says why. I believe that I have been clear that I want him to provide references for his claims. At any rate, once again, I appreciate your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

i have tried everything

i dont know what else to do for the article "people of the book"

i apologize if you feel that i edit war in the past but now i have behaved in a very civil manner. i would appreciate it if you could check the discussion page. ReligionScholar (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You have written "surah maidah is in plain english". This makes no sense. Isn't the Qur'an written in Arabic? I don't see why you are persisting on this point. No one on the Talk page seems to agree with you, and they have pointed out that most scholars don't limit it to Abrahamic religions either. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WQA on motivation

Hi, I noticed your comment on the recent WQA but thought I'd posted enough from myself on that alert. Could you highlight where you believe I have commented on motivation on the ITIL talk page? I thought I'd been careful to avoid doing that, only commenting on editing behaviour rather than the motivation behind it.—Ash (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If I misread the history of Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library please excuse the brevity of my comment. Obviously, using RfCs is good and WP:EL/N would be a wise strategy in the future. (And, as an editor I suspect you are right about the relevance of the links). Since you were presenting at WQA, which is an interpersonal relations forum, I was hoping to steer the discussion towards article-related matters, which are hopefully more objective and avoid the need to make summaries of people's behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Draft WT:AFD closing opinion on live merges

See WT:AFD#Merging during live AfD for the discussion this is trying to summarize.

I've agreed to close a discussion at WT:AFD about live-merging. This is a draft of my closing statement. Anyone who wants to comment on whether I correctly summarized the discussion may add their views below at: #Space for comments by other editors on whether this summary is correct. The overall trend of the results is pretty clear. Keeping or strengthening the current advice at WP:Guide to deletion against performing live merges is what most editors support. I will be offering the accuracy of my summary for review. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

Live merges are merges which are attempted while an AfD discussion is actually running. We already tolerate the editing of an article while its AfD are running. Sometimes changing the article title (moving) during an AfD is also done, though not everyone approves of that practice. Someone who attempts a live merge is going one step further since they cause an attribution dependency between two articles, so that, according to most people, the article which is the source of the merge can't be deleted so long as the target article exists. Essentially, this allows the person who does a unilateral merge to veto the deletion option in the AfD. (Not everyone describes the matter this way, but see the full debate for how the individual participants would phrase it).

Closure statement

There is a spectrum of possible answers on whether live merging should be allowed, ranging from:

• Always allow live merging, for any reason

at one end of the spectrum to:

• Never allow it - editors who try to do live merges should be blocked.

Both ends of the spectrum seem to be consistent with other Wikipedia policies, so it comes down (in my opinion) to a majority !vote of those participating. The only uncertainty is whether the debate was widely-enough advertised.

It makes life simple for the closer of the debate if people will follow Flatscan's suggestion and simply pick a numbered option. But I also had to weigh up ten opinions that had several clauses and qualifiers. For these I tried to pick the nearest numerical value. Those opinions are quoted in full down below.

The original discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Merging_during_live_AfD, opened on 23 August by User:Flatscan. That debate seemed seemed to wind down by 13 September, and the result appears inconclusive.

On 5 October, Flatscan opened a new thread, with the comment: Since a clear consensus was not reached, I am revisiting this discussion, with possibly an RfC for more input.." He formally advertised this second thread as a policy RfC on 16 October, with the stated question being "When is it appropriate to merge content from an article at AfD?"

He proposed five choices to be considered, with the suggestion that readers should go through the previous thread (23 August) if they did not know what the dispute was about. "Since there was some confusion over where editors stood in the last discussion, I wrote a selection of opinions, numbered for reference. Feel free to work from or ignore them."

When is it appropriate to merge content from an article at AfD?

1. If a single editor believes that there is viable content that should be copied to related articles, improving Wikipedia per WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR
2. If the AfD has substantial support for merge
3. If the AfD has overwhelming support for merge that would be a valid close under WP:SNOW or WP:Non-admin closure
4. Almost never, with very limited exceptions
5. Never

The results appear to be the following (details below):

1. 4 votes
2. 1 votes
3. 3 votes
4. 17 votes
5. 3 votes

Other comments that should be mentioned here:

• davidwr: Believes that copying the edit history to the Talk page of the target article would suffice for attribution. He was the only person to propose this as a solution.

• Some participants noted that copying of content between articles without proper checking for attribution probably does happen.

• Some participants observed that there are ways to 'game' deletion debates. Sometimes live-merging is viewed as an inclusionist trick, but deletionist tricks are possible as well. For example, an AfD closes with 'Merge'. Then sometime after the article is changed to a redirect, an editor will come by and delete the merged content from the target article, thus making its content disappear for good, even though 'Delete' was not the result of the AfD.

Conclusion

20 out of 28 users picked options 4 or 5, which rule out live merging in nearly all cases. (4 is 'almost never' and 5 is 'never'). Editors thus support keeping or strengthening the advice against doing live merges during AfDs which is contained in WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. The current wording is 'You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article.' Suggestions are welcome as to whether there is any consensus in the discussion to rewrite the entire paragraph, but its import will be much the same.

EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors who joined in the second debate (Revisiting Merging during live AfD, opened 5 October, 2009)

After each editor's name, I give the numbered option for each one. This is either a number picked by them, or a conclusion I arrived at from reading their opinion, in case they commented at length and mentioned more than one number. See the cases that were judged by me in a separate section below. These entries are given in italics in the list of votes.

1. 2over0 - 4
2. Benjiboi - 1
3. Colonel Warden - 1
4. DGG - 4
5. Davidwr - 3
6. Doctorfluffy - 5
7. Epeefleche - 4
8. Fabrictramp - 4
9. Flatscan - 4
10. GB fan - 4
11. Ikip - 1
12. Jack Merridew - 4 (I said "4++" which is a post-increment notation; my meaning was 4 leaning towards 5. Jack Merridew 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
13. Jclemens - 4
14. JohnCD - 4
15. KrebMarkt - 3
16. Kww - 4
17. Lar - 5
18. M4gnum0n - 5
19. Mazca - 4
20. Pablo - 4
21. Peregrine Fisher - 1
22. Protonk - 3
23. Seraphim - 4
24. Shereth - 4
25. SmokeyJoe - 2
26. Stifle - 4
27. UnitedStatesian - 4
28. Verbal - 4

People choosing each option

1. Benjiboi, Colonel Warden, Ikip, Peregrine Fisher (count 4)
2. SmokeyJoe (count 1)
3. Davidwr, KrebMarkt, Protonk (count 3)
4. 2over0, DGG, Epeefleche, Fabrictramp, Flatscan, GB fan, Jack Merridew, Jclemens, JohnCD, Kww, Mazca, Pablo, Seraphim, Shereth, Stifle, UnitedStatesian, Verbal (count 17)
5. Doctorfluffy, Lar, M4gnum0n (count 3)

[Altogether, 28 people left comments in this discussion: 4+1+3+17+3 = 28]

Complex votes mentioning more than one number (or no number) to which I assigned a value myself

(These 10 votes I am quoting in full, to be sure that I assigned the numeric result that is closest to what they meant).

• Protonk: "2 or 3. Depends. It's a case by case kinda thing. 4 is fine too." [Summarized as 3].
• Lar: "5 is my first thought (Per Stifle, what's the rush?) but call it 4.99 as Pablo makes a convincing argument against absolutism." [Summarized as 5]. This is an accurate classification of my comment ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Peregrine Fisher: "I think a redirect during a live AfD, when it's an obvious thing to do, should be allowable." [Summarized as 1].
• Davidwr: "3, but why not go ahead and snow-close it? 2 if there is support for a particular merge by the AFD participants over at least a 24-hour period." [Summarized as 3].
• SmokeyJoe: "3, but without the need for "overwhelming". "Convincing" is enough. 1 is also good. [Summarized as 2]
• Mazca: "5, with a side order of 3." [Summarized as 4]
• 2over0: "4.65 - very close to never, but bureaucratic nit-picking should never interfere with building the encyclopedia." [Summarized as 4, because that one is the closest in meaning to his position]
• Flatscan: "4 (almost never); exceptions being 3 (overwhelming/unambiguous merge support per SNOW or NAC), but prefer closing, then merging in those cases." [Summarized as 4]. This is an accurate classification of my comment. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Benjiboi: "I see absolutely nothing wrong with finding appropriate content on any article and moving to another. What likely shouldn't happen while an article is at AfD is disputed mass content removal. Not the trimming of OR content but the mass deletion of content that is being subjectively discussed forcing either an edit war, which we don't want, or the subsequent editors to dig to find the full article, which arguably rarely happens." [Summarized as 1].
• Epeefleche: "I would generally be in favor of not merging during a live AfD, though I would be open to being convinced that in some particular cases there might be exceptional circumstances." [Summarized as 4]

Space for comments by other editors on whether this summary is correct

(Please add your comment below. Don't add additional opinions on the original question, just say whether the discussion was summarized correctly). EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You could probably do some content analysis of the people from the first discussion that did not participate in the RFC, but the result wouldn't change. The only ones I see are A Nobody and NickPenguin (probably a 1 and a 2 respectively) and Cameron Scott (3 or 4). Anyway, I think the result supports re-writing the paragraph to reflect the specifics of the RFC. Instead of "extreme caution", some guidance is in order. However, the "exceptions" in #4 were never defined. Two options that come to mind are "equivalent to an overwhelming SNOW closure in favor of merge" and "unanimous support for a merge". Both seem to fall between "never" and SNOW closures. "Unanimous support" is least susceptible to gaming, which was a concern raised in the RFC. There were also some good options that individuals suggested during the RFC, such as strong cases of 2 or 3. But would 2 run into gaming? I fear so.--Chaser (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Four editors were in the first discussion but not the second. If their !votes were counted, it might be two 1s, a 3 and a 4. There is some logic to keeping the count within the four walls of the RfC. These missing editors were all invited to join in the second round. If we were to include all the first round votes in the total, some of them would be very hard to summarize, since they did not benefit from Flatscan's more precise statement of the question.
• If we were to revise the language in WP:GD to something new, we might have to launch a new discussion. It would be good to reflect on specific AfDs where live-merging was performed, and ask editors to say whether they think the live-merging was correct. Here are the three examples actually linked from the WT:AFD discussions:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson

This was cited by Jack Merridew as an example of 'Merging during an AfD as a highly disruptive tactic used with the aim of precluding a delete outcome'. In that AfD, Jack left a comment citing this edit by A Nobody as being a disruptive use of merging to forestall a delete outcome. See the top of Talk:Jimmy Patterson to see the three {{copied}} templates placed by A Nobody which state "Jimmy Patterson now serves to provide attribution for content in Medal of Honor (video game) and must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor (video game) exists."

• WP:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (2nd nomination)

This was cited by Flatscan: 'Despite a split consensus, the nominator performed a merger and requested a speedy close'. Pokerdance did the merge to Michael Jackson here, and then Unionhawk did a close of the AfD with the result 'Content has been merged.' There was some protest of this near the end of the AfD discussion. In fact, due to objections Unionhawk opened up a third AfD nomination on his own, declaring that he'd not been aware that the previous nominator (Pokerdance) had done the merge himself.

• WP:Articles for deletion/Ra Cailum class battleship

This was cited by KrebMarkt, as an example of a general pattern whereby a project that has such articles on its clean-up/merge list will probably accelerate its merge efforts, thus hijacking the outcome of the AfD. Though the merge was done 'early', during the AfD, the discussion seemed to have a merge consensus anyway, by that point, though seven days had not elapsed.

Chaser, do you want to comment on whether your personal criterion for live-merging would have allowed the merges to be done in these cases?

One thing that nobody commented on (though it seems obvious) is that if the live-merging editor is going to frustrate the deletion verdict, he will have to announce it in the debate, and then the other participants can (if they wish) protest vigorously. In fact, they can take it to DRV if they wish. So live-merging only works to forestall deletion if it is made known. And then it can be undone. Nobody has yet offered examples of AfDs that closed with deletion and thereby forced live merges to be undone. Still, the angry comments in the debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (3rd nomination) suggests that live merging has the potential of annoying AfD participants if it ever becomes widespread. Also, this 3rd round of AfD would have been completely unnecessary if the live merging had not been done. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One closed no consensus, so clearly outside the RFC result. The other two were weak SNOW (option 3). So since the RFC consensus was for option 4, I'd say it does not include them. However, some of the exceptions that individuals suggested were strong cases of options 2 and 3. So perhaps 5-1 AFDs might be prematurely merged or SNOW-closed.--Chaser (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What I've seen happen in at least one instance (WP:Articles for deletion/Kangaroo attacks in Australia, DRV; I think I've seen a few, but I don't have links ready) is that the article is restored. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the overall summary and conclusions. Thanks for doing all this work. I have some minor suggestions:
  • Replace "GFDL dependency" with "attribution dependency" wikilinked to WP:Copying within Wikipedia. This reflects the change to dual licensing and links to the relevant guideline.
  • Note the users whose comments required interpretation, perhaps with italics in the lists. To make my agreement explicit, I signed off on the interpretation of my comment above. Benjiboi's statement looks more like a 1 to me.
    Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. It appears to have been quite a bit of work to review everything, too. Thank you. You asked for suggestions re the GD wording; how about adding With very limited exceptions, it is inappropriate to merge content from an article at AfD. right after the extreme caution sentence; possibly glue it up with a semicolon. There may not be AfDs that closed with deletion and thereby forced live merges to be undone *because* this "highly disruptive" tactic can be quite effective if left unchecked. All manner of "effective" actions people get up to can be highly "inappropriate":

• The sack of Troy. The destruction of Carthage. The Vikings. The Crusades. Ghenghis Kahn. Attila the Hun. The massacre of the Cathars. The witch burnings. The destruction of the Aztec. Ditto the Maya. Ditto the Inca. The Inquisition. Vlad the Impaler. The massacre of the Huguenots. Cromwell in Ireland. The French Revolution. The Napoleonic Wars. The Irish Famine. Slavery in the American South. King Léopold in the Congo. The Russian Revolution. Stalin. Hitler. Hiroshima. Mao. Pol Pot. Idi Amin. Sri Lanka. East Timor. Saddam Hussein.

Many, of course, should be opposed. Passionately.

Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 04:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to include practicing medieval torture on Jack Merridew in your hyperbolic list.--Chaser (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The list is a quote; it's Margaret Atwood's list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Treemanshoe puts on a sock

• I was thinking of offering User:TrEeMaNsHoE a deal: That he refrain from socking for several months, and then post a new unblock request on his original account's talk page. I was also thinking of revoking talk page access to User talk:PlannerPenBackpack, in order to force the conversation into one spot, but I would have to lower the block you made to do that, so I thought I'd run it by you first. Of course if he does not abide by this deal we could put it right back up. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think all I did was disable his talk page access. If you want to revisit Ericorbit's indef block of TrEeMaNsHoE, you have my blessing. The guy's history is extremely unpromising, though. He seems to have no idea that he needs anyone else's approval to completely rearrange discographies to suit his preference. Good luck in trying to explain consensus to him. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My hopes for this are quite low, (like, underneath the carpeting low) but I'm going to give it a shot nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your 6-month semi-protection of Boron

Hello,

Following a recent specific case at Vanadium, I have reviewed the semi-protection status of all chemical element articles, and found that many of them were either not warranted or have excessive protection lengths.

Keeping in mind that it was concluded that Vanadium's protection length of 6 months was too long given the circumstances, and that it has been shortened to 24 hours, I invite you to reconsider the 6-month semi-protection you granted to Boron.

Thank you. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that IPs provide about six good technical edits to Boron per year, during the periods of unprotection. (That is, about one every two months). So we need to check about 20 IP edits for vandalism for each one that is truly helpful. There's also a few grammar corrections, the number of which I haven't verified. I'm lifting the semiprotection now, to see what happens. but I would be tempted to reimpose it as soon as another dozen IP vandal edits come in. See WP:Rough guide to semi-protection for more background. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for listening. I am well aware of the current semi-protection policy, and I notice that some admins (not you) regularly ignore it by granting indefinite semi-protection with no supporting history of vandalism. (Here is an example) What I am concerned about in these cases is that they seem to do it just so that the autoconfirmed elite can finally edit their article in peace. I think this is a concerning trend that not only falls foul of protection policy, but also betrays fundamental WP philosophy.

On this specific case, let's see what happens. Personally, I think that 1 good edit out of 20 (plus let's not forget those typo corrections) is not bad at all, and it would be a shame to miss them out. Compare to the action going on in the unprotected beaver or color. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)