User talk:EdJohnston

AP French

Since you closed the discussion at AP Spanish, will you also close the parallel discussion at AP French? bd2412 T 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The RM at Talk:AP French (disambiguation) has now been closed by User:JHunterJ. His decision was to move the article on the language exam to AP French Language rather than AP French. I can see the argument for both options. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Restriction of Slovenski Volk

• Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

About your commments in The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights talkpage [[1]], I had reverted S.V's edits once in Illyrians and Peloponness per Wikipedia:Banning_policy (Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason ), where he clearly violated the ARBMAC, taking also into account the exception by the sanctioning admin.

Do you believe that only a new wp:ae can solve this issue? The arbmac restriction with an exeption in "Prehistory and Roman Balkans" is already multiple times violated.Alexikoua (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If User:Slovenski Volk will agree to observe the 1RR which still applies to his edits of Balkan articles, that should solve most of the problem. Though he sometimes makes nationalistic comments on talk pages, he does appear to have some knowledge and he seems well-intentioned. Our article on the Illyrians is a notorious trouble spot and it should not be allowed to get out of hand. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just saw his activity in Ethnic Macedonians, where he attempts to promote his pov. I have the feeling that a clear definition of the specific arbmac restriction is needed here. After all the sanctioning admin was very generous and offered him the opportunity to contribute in two specific time-periods (prehistory - Roman) in Balkan history. It's sad that even this one isn't respected.Alexikoua (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Though it's not an ARBMAC article, we see this charming comment by User:Slovenski Volk at Talk:Rus' people#Ignorant: “And I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any more of your pathetic edits and even more pathetic ""references"" Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)”. I think that some kind of a deal or a new restriction may have to be worked out regarding SV's Arbmac edits. I'll leave a note for him that he's being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again Ed for your involvement and efforts to clear things up. I do want to clarify, though, there is no edit -war on the Illyrians article [2], I made one revert in responce to his, blanket-revert to a good edit on the presumption that I am "not allowed" to edit Illyrians. These actions have now ended (over 48 hrs ago), and there has been no further edit-warring (and in fact, I gave it a "cooling off" period whilst these discussion proceeded). And as stated previously, I am willing to work with him.

So this is a fundamentally different issue to the originally offending actions on Ancient Macedonians - which was a content dispute. I wish to clarify, whislt we're on the topic, that as far as disputes go in this area, it was of a realtively 'benign' nature. The said dispute was on the nuances and minutii of how identity was perceived in the Ancient Era - hardly anything sinister (!) There was nothign pertaining to any wars, battles, crimes, politicians, "hate", territorial rights or anything to that effect. So i think the nature of the dispute needs to be taken into account. Whilst I do think I was treated a bit rough (I was facing effectively an embargo by a team of other editors who constantly reverted well-written and immacutely referenced material); I fully accept the blame lays on me. It was I that breached the 3RR initially, then my 1RR thereafter (and then I was placed on an ARBMAC ban becuase I had a previous block on the Scythians (who arent even from the Balkans- however broadly defined). Again, this reflected a sense of arrogance on my behalf, just becuase i felt that my arguements were "better", more intricate, and used more specialist literature. I now realize that this is not how Wikipedia works, but relies on concensus. In my utter ignorance, i was not even aware of other measures - eg seeking third party opinion, asking for mediation, etc. I now do; and am better equipped to deal with such issues.

I admit that I sometimes make snide comments. I must watch that. But I never make nationalistic comments. I never direct commentary based an editor's 'background', rather on their quality of their edits. But I fully admit that nothing negative or disparaging should be said, and I agree to show nothing but politeness.

In summary, i ask that I be allowed to edit ARBMAC articles. I am happy to observe whatever 1RR regulations imposed on me, even undergo a "trial period"- with risk of more severe repercussions. Because I can honestly say a have a great deal to offer this field, and wikipedia in general. I have done so much research and have the best and most up-to-date resources at my disposal to continue improving Wikipedia articles. If you can but mark some of my recent work [3] where I discuss the linguistic 'origin' of the Antes; a people generally presumed to be Slavic but i discuss fairly and with Due weight every possible perspective; or my recent defense of the Turkish peole in responce to racialistic and downright offensive commentary by some other user [4]; not to mention the plethora of maps I have created which are used not only in multiple articles in English Wikipedia, but also around the world, eg [5] (!). And despite my admittedly (at times) hot-headed and abrasive attitude, i am very much non-partisan and neutral. I see Balkan peoples as brothers who share a very much similar culture and history (even if the feeling is not mutual). I have not ulterior motives other than writing with post-modern Anglo-phone literature, becuase so many of the Balkan article are still very much written based on dubious "internet sites" and equally dubiuos books by "scholars" from the 1970s Soviet era. As you might imagine, to many people, my updating these articles with new-age western perspectives which "de-construct" many national myths perpetuated and propagated in older historiography would appear very weird and out of "left field" to the average editor, even as a personal afront; as it undermines the basic fundamentals of what they were taught from primary school onwards, engrained as they are to the point of reaching a religious level. That is why I have met so much resistence, no matter how hard i tried to explain to people. But deconstructing outdated methodologies and nationalist-historical narratives ultimately leads to a true understading of history, that societies some 2000 years ago operated on a wholly different basis - inclusion, multi-linguality, pluralism and multiculturalism - quite different to the modern nationalist discourse of the late 19th and early 20th century of 'ethnically honogenoues nation-states'. No modern country is the same as its namesake some 3000 years ago. In this light, it becomes easily clear that there is no 'historic basis' for any modern conflicts; and they are indeed like anywhere else, the manipulations of modern governments- a topic I personally do not venture into Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There is an wp:ae now that concerns Slovenski Volks.Alexikoua (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

I don't necessarily agree with your decisions for all of them, but THANK YOU so much for closing some of those backlogged requested moves. I really appreciate it. Red Slash 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. In former times a certain currently-banned user would keep announcing on noticeboards whenever the RM backlog got too long. I wish there were an easy way to keep making his charts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Serbian google

You made mistake with closing Đakovica RM. Google.sr gives the same hit number as google.com or any other extension.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence that .sr and .com tend to give the same results for English-language material and the same hit counts for the same query would be of interest, though I didn't see any offered in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained it in the discussion (diff). Nobody objected it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You made a claim to that effect but didn't give any evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No. The other party made a claim without giving any evidence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator "In at least one case search results were offered that came from google.sr (Serbian Google)." Whats wrong with that statement? Anyway, Serbian Google Books, like French Google Books produces different search results to English Language Versions of Google Books. Period. Also, EdJohnston never said that Serbian Google books prouduces different search results. IJA (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello Ed.

I plan on working on the Georgian royal styles of the monarchs and since I have confusingly non-defined topic ban wanted to ask you about a fact that the Georgian kings style was like this: "King of Kings of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Arranians, Kakhetians, and Armenians; Shirvanshah and Shahanshah". So just wanted to make clear what happens if I just copy this text into a new article I will be working on? I think that should not be a topic ban material as it has very minor mentioning of the style and that's all. One word basically. So anyways what would you suggest? Jaqeli (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Since User:Sandstein closed your ban discussion it is best to ask him. It helps if you can point out one of the articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ed, There is no article yet as I am planning to create one about the royal styles and one of those royal styles includes "of Armenians" as well so I think that won't be a topic ban material right? @Sandstein: Please see this message here. Jaqeli (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to write an article about the styles of Georgian kings and these styles include "of the Armenians", then the article relates to both Georgia and Armenia and is covered by the topic ban.  Sandstein  16:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#IHaveAMastersDegree

It was closed as moot due to IHAMD being checkuser blocked with technical evidence; however, the editor was subsequently unblocked (due to identity confirmed), and therefore this thread should be reopened. I will reopen this shortly. I am leaving this note here because you were involved in the discussion regarding what to do about the editor. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ohnohedinnit

Hi Ed, could you please review this? For Ohnohedinnit's first edit after his 24-hour block expired for edit-warring in poorly-sourced and unsourced content at Herpes genitalis, he reverted back in poorly-sourced and unsourced content at Herpes genitalis. Zad68 20:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not accurate. My edit added another scholarly article and was not a reversion. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What is most striking about the version that Zad68 continues to restore is that there is an unsourced quotation in the first sentence. How can that version be maintained and in the lede of the article? Ohnohedinnit (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Greetings. Though my ban has now expired, I hope you can shed some light on the reasons behind it. I've continued to improve herpes genitalis, adding references and content and making the text overall more readable. Another editor - who seems to have many more edits on other pages - continues to revert. That I am blamed for edit warring seems grossly unfair. The editor's concern is that the page does not conform with the guidelines of WP:Medmos, though I am making a concerted effort with every revision to improve the number of journal articles referenced. The editor does not respond to my questions on the talk page. Also,WP:Medmos also does not prohibit the use of popular press in all circumstances. Indeed, some starred medicine articles make significant use of these sources - for example, see or example, see the BBC and Pittsburgh Post Gazette references in Poliomyelitis. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)u

Ohnohedinnit, I suggest that this discussion be continued at User talk:Ohnohedinnit#Edit warring at Herpes genitalis. I have your talk page on my watchlist. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To close the loop about the use of the BBC and the Gazette, they are used at Poliomyelitis to source information about history: when the development of the vaccine was announced, and when rinderpest was eradicated. Ohnohedinnit is trying to use a Village Voice column centered around a porn star to source statements about epidemiology and a CNN article about porn stars to source statements about the effectiveness of disease testing. If Ohnohedinnit can't discern the qualitative difference in the use of the sources, we do indeed have a problem. Zad68 21:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_and_disruptive_editing_by_Arildnordby, you haven't added Death by burning. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

Hi Ed. I was wondering if I could borrow you for a minute to consider implementing a couple minor Request Edits.

• There's one here for Publishers Clearing House where user:Bilbobag and I seem to have reached an agreed-upon version for a small tweak.
• Here is one regarding outdated pricing information on Viralheat. There are no reliable sources specifying that their pricing has changed, so my proposal is to make some subtle changes to put it in more of a historical context. That one may be less obvious on what is the best edit to make.

CorporateM (Talk) 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied on those pages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied on both pages. I appreciate you taking the time. Some of these small things are rather boring for someone to help with. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, if I haven't worn out my welcome, I think the Yelp, Inc. page could also use a fresh perspective. I started on this one about a year ago. IMO it still has a lot of problems that need to be fixed before it will be GAN-ready, but when editors disagree things can move slowly. There have been quite a few discussions about the exact wording of the Lead. I also think the article contains an unneccessary promotional image, violates WP:CRITICISM, and that when the controversy was trimmed it was done so excessively trimming a key fact about how the controversy began. It might take a bit more elbow grease to wade through areas where editors disagree, but if you're interested in participating I can try to start a new string summarizing a single key issue and maybe we can hammer things out with some fresh blood. CorporateM (Talk) 18:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Ceekay215|False warnings}} My bad.  —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed that discussion, thank you. It's good that a compromise was worked out. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Prem Rawat, Rainer P.`s appeal

Hi, EdJohnston, and thanks for the nice and speedy acqittal! Just to avoid doubts: Do the DS sanctions only go for me or for any editor of the concerned article(s)? Best --Rainer P. (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

All editing on the topic of Prem Rawat is subject to the sanctions. In practice, nobody will get an actual sanction (like a topic ban) unless they have previously received a notice of the DS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

‎HouseOfArtaxiad

You might want to warn HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) against these kinds of edits.[6] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

He is not an admin. He can't warn people with sanctions. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:HouseOfArtaxiad, please undo your removal of User:Grandmaster's warning to you from the AA2 case log. As the current wording of WP:AC/DS indicates, there is nothing in the rules that requires the person leaving the DS notices to be an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

But it wasn't even a link to the decision authorizing sanctions. He was just accusing me of violating a rule I wasn't at the time. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Grandmaster's notice to you here gives a link to the AA2 case, which is, in fact, the decision authorizing sanctions. At present there is no requirement that people can only be notified for some reason. Any notice will do, if it gives a link to the case. If you want to appeal your sanction you should use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Though WP:AN can hear appeals it is usual to go to WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So if I put the warning on your talk page, his talk page, and maybe a thousand other talk pages, could I list them all myself? --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Somebody who abused the notification system could be charged with disruptive editing. I don't believe we are anywhere near that, because User:Grandmaster's notice to you seemed reasonable. If you are indeed hoping to have your ban lifted, it is curious that you are fighting against the issuance of a reasonable notice. Shusha is one of the horrible articles in the AA domain where people are always making nationalist changes. I haven't studied your changes at Shusha closely enough to have an opinion on their quality but It was certainly proper to make you aware of the ARBAA2 case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just think that's a loophole that should be changed. It is insulting that a follower ordinary editor has the power to give marks of discipline. Especially when all I did was add some pictures and added more neutral wording on the article. Before that I never interacted with him. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying to change the rules about who can issue DS notices is like tilting at windmills, since Arbcom has established this. It would be more helpful for you to explain how you can improve article content in the AA domain if your ban is lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

re Darkshadow

With the exception of the article to which you refer, this editor has made no use of their sandbox versions and has accumulated a bunch of stale drafts as a consequence. They appear to build articles in user space by cutting and pasting large chunks of pre-existing articles into an empty palette. Undoubtedly they make some contributions to article space, but that is no good reason to keep a bunch of stale drafts.

To provide a recent example, not listed at MFD, please consider this version of Britain's Got Talent dated 18/1 [7]. It is a comprehensive 7 year old article. Changes to it are few and far between, focused on updates when the series re-appears in Spring each year. Darkshadow does not appear as a contributor in stats. in the live article. Now look at this [8] recently added to sandbox. This is made up of large chunks of copy and paste from the existing, substantive article. This is the editor's method, effectively creating WP:STALEDRAFTs in sandbox from the existing article space version. The editor is entirely capable of introducing content into existing articles and does so from time to time, but that does not justify mass retention of (with the single exception) unused stale drafts. They have not objected to the MFD, AFAIK. Leaky Caldron 19:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Gjakova

An editor has asked for a Move review of Gjakova. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

FYI: A BLP paper has been published in European Physical Journal with a substantial disclaimer: The Editors-in-Chief of the EBJ D wish to clairfy that the publication of the highlighted paper ... is in no way an endorsement of the authors' "hydrino" hypothesis by the Editors of this journal. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

3rr forum

Ed, I responded to your complaint at the 3RR forum. Not sure if I'll have a response from you there, but I'd appreciate it. It's ok that you warned me about ARBMAC stuff, but I didn't go against anything. In the Albania national football team 15 players (out of a 25 people list) were not born in Albania, so Faton Toski is a candidate for the national team and the media reports it, based on interviews it has with him. Valon Berisha declares to play for Kosovo, as reported by media. My additions are sourced and I'm not inventing these things. Rather than punishing me you should warn the IP who edit warred. Not punishing that behavior will make the IP be more bold in removing my sourced additions. And it's a good thing to teach to someone to put a "cn" template, rather than instigating them to remove information. Those 4 players were clearly Hungarian (3 of them) and Bosnian (1). It's removing that information that makes wikipedia a poor place. Ethnicity is important, and if it's not sourced, it's a problem, but it's even more of a problem if someone doesn't do anything to source, but just destroys articles. --Vetemekenshkodran (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The responses at AN3 explain the issues with your recent edits. You seem to be here on Wikipedia to promote things Albanian. It is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia to promote anything. The 'cn' template must be another one of the things you suddenly learned about in the six days since your account was created. If you continue this crusade, you are risking a block or a topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Question from BMK

Ed: I just wanted to bring this to your attention. I know that I am the sanctioned editor, and not Robsinden, because I was the one to break 3RR, but he was the other side of the edit war, so it seems a bit unfair, especially since other editors expressed the opinion that no solo navboxes should have their collapse state changed until a community consensus was determined. I fully understand that you have no obligation whatsoever to do anything about this, but I did want you to be aware of it. BMK (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if he's made any other similar edits because I have not looked at his contrib list and don't plan to. This one simply popped up on my watch list. BMK (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This is about the edit warring complaint. You've asked about a particular edit by Robsinden which uncollapsed a template. When the Template:Frank Perry was first added to The Swimmer (1968 film) in this edit in 2009 it was in the expanded (uncollapsed) state. Since then you've tried to collapse it a number of times for instance here but each time it's been uncollapsed by others. The Frank Perry template is only three lines so it's not easy to see the benefit of collapsing that one. You've agreed not to change any collapse states for two weeks (that is, until Feb. 11) but you could continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Collapsing film director navboxes. My review of that thread suggests there is little support for collapsing. Unless you can think of some really good arguments it might be best for you to follow the project's wishes and let the issue go. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned Changes to UST Global

Hello Ed. I hope my note finds you doing well. For quite a while after your last intervention, the employees at UST Global kept the site without changes regarding who founded the company. As you recall, the records for the founder of the site were spelled out in papers filed with the Superior Court of California in November 2007.

We have now reverted back to an individual(s) not signing in, making the edit to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.

Thanks for considering what you had done the last 3 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days.

I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)