User talk:EdJohnston

"Cassandra" returns to favourite article

The Cassandra IP sock has just returned to the talk page of what is probably their favourite article, Scots language, tagging their usual themes to the most recent thread. Would you consider semi-protection for a period? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed, just wondering again about semi-protection, Cassandra having revisited the article today. (A thesis they've repeatedly posted before, as usual.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Scots language. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user IP hopping and continuing to sock

Mrwallace05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I opened an SPI, at which the user claimed he didn't know he was logged out while editing; his "master" account is currently blocked. Today he edited with IP 86.137.2.12 [1] which is part of the same range he'd supposedly been unknowing editing while logged out. His edits are almost exclusively limited to genres at articles about The Beatles. Could you do a range block, and possibly increase the duration of his block? Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 18:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I should correct myself and say the IPs don't resolve to the same range per se, but they do resolve to Bedforshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire counties in England, which all adjoin one another; it's unlikely that three different editors in such close proximity have an interest in changing genres. Radiopathy •talk• 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there is a recently-closed SPI case, memories are still fresh. I suggest reopening the case to add this IP. If you use the standard SPI submission form with the name 'Mrwallace05' it should do the right thing. The various IPs are so far apart that a rangeblock does not appear practical. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone opened an SPI; do you want to have a look? There are over a dozen IP socks, plus registered accounts. Radiopathy •talk• 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Filter question

I posted this at ANI a few days ago: We have had problems in the past with editors promoting concepts and terms from Europa Universalis - creating categories, renaming articles, changes of government types within articles, etc. Several socks were blocked last September over this and copyvio issues- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis/Archive. Yesterday I discovered some page moves relating to this and today I have found a number of IPs doing similar edits, all geo-locating to Rio de Janeiro. Two IPs in the same range were involved last year. Recently - that is from January until yesterday, other IPs have been making the same type of edits. Most recent ones are 187.15.70.13 (talk · contribs), 187.14.224.110 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.48.73 (talk · contribs). Others include 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.53.42 (talk · contribs) 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.38.249 (talk · contribs), 187.15.8.12 (talk · contribs), 187.14.230.20 (talk · contribs), 187.15.71.7 (talk · contribs), and 187.15.73.173 (talk · contribs). I'm still searching for recent additions of "Noble republic", Administrative republic, Republican Dictatorship, Revolutionary empire, Administrative monarchy, all of which can be found at the game's wiki[2] and were part of a now deleted template here which Admins can view.[3]. Part of the tactic is to add sourced text to force the phrase into an article, eg [4]. Note this is copyvio from [5]. Some edits have misrepresented sources, eg [6]. These are all throwaway IP addresses.

I spent some lovely hours (and ended up buying Charles Esdaile's Peninsular War, Kindle edition, when I found more copy from the same 187.15 and 187.14 ranges - the same problems we faced before with Turgeis (talk · contribs) and his socks. See my edits at Mutiny of Aranjuez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've ended up giving these long term semi-protection, but that won't work with the Europa Universalis vandals.

A range block would have to much collateral damage, so I'm wondering if filters would be the solution. One would look for the addition of the words Esdaile and "Peninsular War", another (if one would be enough) would look at the addtion of various phrases to articles. I'm not clear how filters work for an editor who isn't actually watching all the articles - ie how I would find out if someone tripped a filter. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never created an edit filter so I'm not the best person to answer this. Try asking at WT:Edit filter. Have you checked the ranges to see if there are any good-faith anon contributors? EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you were. I've been told the collateral damage would be to heavy. This is one editor or group quite clearly, as some of the Europa Universalis stuff adds non-Esdaile copyvio. I'm wondering if there might be other copyright violations I'm missing which don't relate to Esdaile or the videogame. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least, and kind of disheartening. Thank you for for pointing out specific examples of our intersecting work. Greatly looking forward to proving the opposes wrong in the future! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for handling Syngenta issue; quick note

EdJohnston, thanks for the lock on the Syngenta article while Binksternet, Jytdog and I try to sort things out. I wanted to bring to your attention that Binksternet's response in the Edit War page indicates he either didn't realize, or doesn't believe, he was also guilty of 3RR. I am not trying to "tattle" or reopen the discussion; I am bringing this to your attention only if you think saying something is necessary in order to prevent a repeat. (For what it's worth, I certainly won't be repeating 3RR.)

Oh, and if you're interested, most of the Syngenta conversation is taking place on my talk page. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Bayer Corporation change

Thanks for making the change to the Bayer Corporation/Bayer USA web pages. I think they now best represent the current organizational names and structure. Littleboybrew (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

So I'm a pseudoscientist?

Are you willing to justify your actions? I'm not an obvious pseudoscientist as far as I can tell. So I must be, by your logic, in group two or three. Please share your reasoning. Khimaris (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:ARBPS, 'Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted'. You added some tags at Vitamin C megadosage questioning some statements in the article, and you made a talk page comment citing http://www.orthomolecular.org as a possible source for improving the article. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that large doses of Vitamin C are not currently accepted by mainstream medicine as a cure for cancer. Vitamin C megadosage is about a topic in the domain of fringe science. In fact, the related page at orthomolecular medicine is in the Category:Fringe science. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything being a cure for cancer. Posting a link as background information does not make me a supporter. Don't put words in my mouth. I posted the link to the orthomolecular papers because they were talked about in comments on the Cochrane review that were already post. Othomolecular medicine maybe pseudoscientific but the very concept of Vitamin C megadosaging is not. Like I said in the talk page, it's like labeling anyone who eats their five a day as a nutter because some quack practitioner agrees with as much. Further more, what does Lipoic Acid have to do with any of this? I reject the label you've placed on me and I want to know the mechanism to remove myself from this list. Khimaris (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You have chosen to edit an article where claims about fringe science are sometimes discussed. It can't hurt to make you aware of the rules for editing such topics. At present there is no way to become un-notified, but Arbcom has been debating the matter for years. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically it's a permanent scarlet letter used to threaten and scare off the riff raff? So why am I being singled out again and why did you link to Lipoic acid on the warning page? There is a fairly extensive list of people who are editing the megadose page who haven't been branded as craycray. And what about the retraction by Magog the Ogre on 01:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)? You can maybe understand why I feel apprehensive about the selective enforcement of regulation can't you?Khimaris (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You first came to my attention due to a 3RR violation. If the other people you mention from the same article also were reported at the 3RR board, then perhaps I'd check them to see if any Arbcom notices were appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Rolf Furuli

Hello, Ed,
Since the time I posted the report against the IP at WP:EW, A.amitkumar racked up an equally high number of reverts, reverting the IP's edit (which can be easily seen in the page history). Should I have filed a report on them too or did you take their edits into consideration when semi-protecting the page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And you have been provided with valid reason too. If you have your own valid reasons then let me know, else I don't believe buddying up around here is going to help.  A m i t  웃   23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rolf Furuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was so impressed by the IP's 21 reverts that I didn't look closely into the others working there. Another admin could use their judgment if they think other editors should be blocked or warned. Possibly Amit thought he was reverting vandalism (unexplained removal of content). EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2014

Which I thought I was and had reported the IP too on AIV. It might have looked like an edit war but i assure you it was not. I dont prefer people trying to bloat an issue on some one else's page here instead of using my talk page and asking me directly on my talk page for which i think it exists, unless the editor above is hunting around for victims?  A m i t  웃   23:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Amit, I think the conversation is over. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/29/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Responded, thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Manzilnfl

Back in August 2013 you indefinitely blocked User:Blackhu20 per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive220#User:Blackhu20 reported by User:Vejvančický (Result: Indef). What is your opinion of Special:Contributions/Manzilnfl, which I'm fairly sure is another account of the same user? Disclosures: I started an SPI here, even though he disclosed the accounts at my request. I also initiated AfDs for Poudar and Pouder, and I've reversed a number of Manzilnfl's edits. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked for vandalism. He is erasing articles or large sections again for no apparent reason, just like Blackhu20. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncontroversial technical requests: Move page to Voice to skull

Regarding your recent edit [7], may I ask for your reasoning behind the decision? I am not familiar with how the "move" action works, so your explanation would be highly appreciated. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Synsepalum2013. The background for Articles for creation is explained at WP:AFC. You were requesting an uncontroversial move of your article draft to main space, asking me to replace the existing page at Voice to skull. Since people could object, I judge this to be a controversial move. You could ask for a discussion such as a WP:RM, but people will be asking you why you're trying to promote a draft which was declined at AfC. The comment by the AfC reviewer was "Too much of a fringe theory for a stand-alone article. Topic covered adequately in the existing articles Auditory hallucination and Microwave auditory effect". Consider following up with the reviewer as suggested in the decline message. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, EdJohnston. Since I already contacted the reviewer here without reaching a consensus, I guess my next step should be to ask for a controversial move and face the possible objection. What do you think? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can open a requested move, but I wouldn't be optimistic. There is existing material at Microwave auditory effect#Conspiracy theories. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. As I stated before, I believe the topic Voice to skull is notable enough to deserve its stand-alone article instead of a mere section under a related (not even a encompassing) topic, such as microwave auditory effect. Both can exist and they are not mutually exclusive. I have seen numerous precedents on Wikipedia. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

... for moving Template:The Holocaust (end). Could you move the talk page as well, please - the present situation is a bit confusing with the talk page redirecting to the talk page of a different template! Thanks, --NSH002 (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page moved as well. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)