Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevejross (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 23 September 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Dispute Users Pincrete and UrbanVillager

With all due respect, your decision here:- [1] makes no distinction between reverts that remove refs to BLPs, or inserts prejudicial descriptions of BLPs, or which have the agreement of the majority, and mere blind 'making a point'. What is an editor to do when another editor does not engage in discussion, but then sails in and reverts, again and again and again, for many years and against the wishes of the majority? I accept a 'rap on the knuckles', but also did expect some credit for 'calling a truce' and repeatedly attempting to resolve the matter on talk. Should I post this? Probably not, but will do so anyway … … thanks for reading this. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a huge list of reverts by the two parties which has been going on since June, you and the other party should both have expected a block. If you think there is a BLP concern, you can ask for advice at WP:BLPN. Even if you are right about the issue, you place yourself in the wrong by continuing the revert war. There is still time for you to self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry we seem to have an edit conflict, this is the text which I was writing at the same time as your reply: … … …Re:- your message on my talk page "Your are risking a block due to your edits", I beg to differ, the edit you refer to was YESTERDAY, 22 hours before your decision, and was part of the 'truce' between UrbanVillager and myself which I initiated, Here (edit at 16:10 4 September 2014). In the circumstances, do you still want me to demonstrate consensus? Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry for my mistake. You don't have to self-revert, but please be aware of the issue for the future. If you plan to make any controversial change again, you should get agreement for your change first on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. And thanks for remedying so quickly.Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for going back on this subject, I cannot prove consensus for my many reverts, but I can prove that they were the majority wish of the editors currently - or previously - involved, (the principal other current editor having a long standing relationship with the page). I actually intended to add these proofs later today, not expecting that your decision would be so swift. Would such proofs make any difference to your decision? Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you could obtain a clear consensus on the talk page for your desired change, that would make a difference. It requires that people actually come and give their agreement; it couldn't just be a resurvey of old history. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, I understand the principle and have successfully, and cautiously applied it across almost all of the pages which I have edited. What you are effectively saying however, is that a single editor (if s/he so chooses), has an indefinite power of veto over 2, 3, 4, X others, all of whom may be operating closer to guidelines. I understand that you are implementing policy and thank you once again for the courtesy and clarity of your responses. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UpDate: UrbanVillager has just made 3 consecutive edits on the previously disputed text, diffs here:[2]. The first diff which claims to be 'as per talk' is the most serious … the second and third are trivial concerning only an acceptable renaming of a section and a link to a newly created page concerning a sequel … for which not even a release date exists. They are here:-[3] and here:-[4].

That there is NOT consensus about changing 'Criticism', despite recent patient discussion by me is evidenced here:[5], here:-[6] and here:-[7] . Since the discussion is a long one, you might want to read the LAST link FIRST, as the last very explicitly states that I do not agree with these changes, this last was written this morning and both read and replied to by UrbanVillager prior to his making these changes. All these discussions are SINCE the warning from you.

I apologise for bothering you, and if I am posting in the wrong place please advise me.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further update, I notice that UrbanVillager has just restored the Pavlica, at the END of the criticism section. However the rest of the section is his own 'mangled' version as inserted this morning, which EXPLICITLY had no consensus (including a considerable amount of material copied direct from an 'ad' for the film).
UrbanVillager has done what you LITERALLY asked, but ignored its spirit entirely. I am prepared to revert to the text that existed this morning, but will not do so without your 'say so'.Pincrete (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further complications, another editor has 'stepped in' and removed the most offensive/least consensual parts of UrbanVillager's edit. I shall 'tidy' in the understanding that my tidy will not leave the section substantially different from how it was this AM. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps I have now restored the text to approx. this morning's state, I have retained parts of UVs text which would have been acceptable had he proposed them and corrected factual BLP issues. I cannot contact the other editor tonight, but have no reason to believe that the changes would be unacceptable to him. Thankyou for your efforts.Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies again for bothering you, UrbanVillager has just inserted two completely new 'reviews' in the disputed section of the article. Both are in Serbian and neither seem to be reviews at all, rather articles, one of the reviews is written by a (very small) magazine that the film maker himself works for.

Neither review has consensus, since neither has been submitted for discussion or evaluation (or translation). It is possible that parts of either COULD be used, but having engaged in completely DIFFERENT discussions on talk for the last week, these reviews suddenly appeared tonight. Neither I nor any editor even knew about them.

It is impossible for me to believe that UrbanVillager is doing anything other than intentionally acting in bad faith. … ps I'm not sure whether it is proper to tell you this, but the three principal editors connected with the page are currently at ANI:- [8]. Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, apologies yet again, I would be grateful for any response, whether it was telling me I shouldn't 'involve' you, telling me the matter is in hand, or … whatever, I am 'pinging' you only in case you did not see the message above. I will interpret silence as a wish to not be further involved. Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP / Philosophical Disagreement

Hi Ed,

You've helped out in the past when I found myself in incipient edit wars, and once again I find myself in a disagreement in which there is a lot of emotion and strong differences of opinion.

Was wondering if you could join us over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tyrone_Hayes and provide a little neutral oversight of what is shaping up to be a difficult discussion.

Much appreciated. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of unpleasant stuff in the Tyrone Hayes article. Neither side of the real-world dispute has behaved optimally. My instincts are to *not* quote the primary material on the view that we don't have to make the article more icky than it already is. Whether policy requires that the material be omitted is another matter. I hope you guys make a good decision. If Hayes is right about the dangers of atrazine then we should indeed be worried. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I agree with your statement about the level of "icky stuff" in the article. I've placed a proposed compromise on the BLP page that we balance the article by cutting a lot of this stuff out rather than by adding the primary reference or any of the more inflammatory secondary references that quote it. Thus far it has not gained any traction.
But I wasn't hoping for you to take sides in the content dispute so much as to remind everyone to seek consensus, and avoid edit warring. As we speak, all of my edits to the article (including additional amphibian studies, information that some studies were peformed at unrealistically high atrazine concntrations, and all mention of Hayes harrassment of Syngenta employees) have been reverted with no detailed explanation provided ("reverting per BRD, discuss before editing"). As there are comments on the BLP page suggesting that these were "tit-for-tat" reversions taken in retaliation for my reversion of changes that were made while the discussion was still ongoing, it seems that we are headed into a full on edit war and I was hoping to bring a referee on the field in order to avoid that.
I have no idea whether Hayes is right. Its unfortunate that the discussion has to rely on primary sources, as there are not really any secondary ones. Currently the argument about amphibian feminization seems to boil down to Hayes, who seems to have lost his objectivity, vs. a bunch of other scientists, many but not all of whom were funded by Syngenta. I think the article should reflect this ambiguity.
It sounds like you don't want to get involved here, so I'll thank you for your time and for your past help and move on. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion doesn't have to rely on primary sources. Ref 1 (Mother Jones) and Ref 6 (Nature) discuss the unusual emails sent by Hayes to company people. We have a separate article on endocrine disruptors which reveals some of the uncertainty in this kind of study. If there are disagreements about using primary sources you might consider WP:RSN. 'We are headed into a full on edit war' -- I think you know how to avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ed. I apologize for the phrase "we are headed into a full on edit war", which of course we are not, because that requires the participation of at least 2 people, and I have no intention of doing that.
  • I think I have shown good faith here by requesting assistance (requesting oversight by an admin is one of the recommended options on one of the policy pages, but I can't find it right now) rather than counter-reverting.
  • I am fine with using the secondary references but even these have been deleted with no explanation that is sufficiently detailed to allow me to respond
  • As I understand it, since we are already on a general request for input board (BLP), moving to another board might be seen as forum shopping.
  • I think I"ve done my best here to obey the rules, avoid edit warring, and seek compromise. I do not feel the other party's behavior, which includes massive reversions performed with no detailed explanation that I can respond to is in the same spirit.
  • Given that it takes two to compromise, and two to edit war, and the other party currently seems disinclined to do to the former, I will walk away from this dispute. it is difficut to see how to proceed.
Formerly 98 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your posting regarding the Edit Warring Noticeboard. I very much appreciated the request and clarification that you provided. Hopefully what I responded with is sufficient to understand the overall situation. Best regards, Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of User talk:Notwillywanka in wrong place

Currently the talk page history is associated with the archive, not the talk page. Would you please fix this? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Ed. I would like to let you know that another SPA is making fringe edits and edit-warring on Ioannis Kapodistrias adding fringe information about alleged Albanian relatives of Kapodistrias. They also left a nasty PA on my talk. This is while I am in the middle of the latest SPI regarding similar disruption in other Balkan-related articles such as Ancient Macedonians. I would appreciate any help/advice. Thank you and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ed for your professional response. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content on MOS:DABSYN

Hi, thanks for protecting the page while the RfC is being discussed! I notice that the current version of the page has the proposed guideline included. Would you mind reverting to the previous version until consensus can be reached as to whether or not the new guideline should be added? Otherwise this may mislead other editors who are unaware of its non-consensus status. Thanks. Augurar (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this, for a few reasons. One being that it's the subject of an edit war which got the page protected. Two being that the individual who's requesting it's removal seems to be the only one with the objection. Three being that it will not harm the project to remain there until the RfC is finished. It does not require the use of admin tools to better the project. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could at least be tagged as disputed? Note that I am not the only one arguing against the addition of this content. By my count there are three editors in favor and two opposed so far, including myself. But this is irrelevant. It was added without consensus and should not have been. This should be corrected. Augurar (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The usual practice is for admins to protect the current version of the page, whatever it may happen to be. The RfC can make the decision about the permanent wording. If we need to wait a week or two for the outcome, we can remind ourselves that there is no deadline. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Thanks! Augurar (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RcLd-91

Hi Ed. The remaining sock of Biar122/Arb12345/Malbin210 has reactivated again after his first 3RR block. Due to the delay in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91 we have a problem. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you again and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked indef as a sock. If the regular clerks and admins at SPI reach a different conclusion they can revise this action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. Thank you very much Ed. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock

Hi, I noticed that you gave TitanSlayer232 a Ds/alert. From his contributions on Ariel University page it seems like it is a sock either of JarlaxleArtemis, Kipa Aduma, Esq. or AmirSurfLera. I have opened an SPI. I am not experienced in SPI matters, so I am not sure if I did the right thing or perhaps I moved too quickly. Kingsindian (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt to make a report, but three suggestions you made for the sockmaster don't seem very likely. The three people you named have edited at Ariel University but are not blocked and have never been shown to be socks. The only one that could make sense is JarlaxleArtemis, but you would have to provide more data on the resemblances if you want to give any serious help to whoever handles the SPI. If an account has only four edits it doesn't provide us with much behavior to analyze. Better to wait and see where he goes from here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it seems you are right: the SPI has been closed as unrelated. I will keep your points in mind in the future. Kingsindian (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resumed edit warring by User:Ism schism

Hi Ed. On September 15 you closed this 3RR request [9] as stale, which it was, since the user after being reported for a 3RR violation ceased to edit war. In your closing note you wrote "But report again if the user resumes warring on the POV tag.". Well, Ism schism has resumed the edit war [10] [11]. Additionally he has also started new edit warr over other issues with other users [12] [13] [14]. Volunteer Marek  03:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that they have not engaged in any talk page discussion regarding the tag in between the closure and the resumption of the edit war [15]. Volunteer Marek  03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And more [16]. Volunteer Marek  03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And stalking [17]. Volunteer Marek  03:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rr violations of Volunteer Marek

  • Tags do require consensus and User:Volunteer Marek has not attempted this on the talk page. They have simple reverted [18], [19], [20] are 3 reverts of the POV tag in the last day. This is disruptive editing without an attempt at new consensus. Many editors have commented in numerous threads on the talk page in order to address POV. The issues are there, and are being addressed by many constructive editors, aside from this editors attempts to simply delete the tag.
Also, the accusation of "stalking" is a bit absurd and/or paranoid. I edit articles related to Ukraine. This editor know this as well.
I have use the talk page to address these issues: [21], [22], [23], and work with other editors in trying to construct articles, find and address issues, and move towards NPOV. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is continued at User talk:Ism schism#A user has complained you are edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasmens Here

Its not the removal of the sections that concerns me, it is the whole notion that the removal was are targeted racially motivated act on behalf of Dr.K. Dr.K's comment on GiorgosY user account clearly is evident of his nature, this is the exact remark he made;

Wikipedia articles on Cyprus do not look good at the moment, since they are lacking reality, truth and a more realistic way of presenting things plus that are full with turkish propaganda, like the 1571 one. Anyhow, I will see what I am going to do.

note that this user is now banned from repeated disruption and violation on wikipedia. On the other hand I feel that Admin Diana is possibly abusing there admin role. The nature that this was dealt with wasn't very positive nor constructive, nor was it neutral in any nature. I also noticed that sections that were not added by me were also removed leaving the article on Northern Cyprus in a terrible un-repaired state. I would like to foward this

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for.

I don't believe that Admin Diana has acted in an appropriate nature when dealing with this issue, I am aware that the sections were copyright but the nature in which it was dealt was wrong. This is not what Wikipedia should be about. I was not aware of the copyright issues as I was still new to editing on Wikipedia and still learning, if I were to put the information into my own words Dr.K still disapproved of my edits by saying there not well sourced when they were clearly taking from books written by historians. Even if I were to provide more than one source he would still disprove, it seems the truth has disturbed this fellow Wikipedia user, if am not aloud to write well sourced truths, than my time on editing Wikipedia an even reading Wikipedia articles will be over. The level of inaccuracy and bias articles seen on Wikipedia will in future lead this site to losing much of its popularity and legitimacy as it already is declining. Good Day. ( Hasmens (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

  • Hi Ed. I think Hasmens, a militant serial plagiarist, at this stage, has become an attacking troll who proliferates transparent lies and racist attacks against me because he enjoys doing it. Please observe that although I exposed his transparent lie he made no attempt to rectify his lying accusation that the quote above is mine. I think this must stop. As you know, as a respected and professional admin at AE, this area of editing is very toxic. If these trolls have their way it will become a walled garden run only by them. The troll made his racist attacks against me as a kind of aversion therapy. He hopes to deter me from editing the Northern Cyprus-related articles so he keeps repeating these vile lies. He already got a level-4 NPA warning by me on his talk and another NPA warning by Diannaa at ANI. I think that he should be blocked for his racist attacks if NPA and the policy on harassment mean something. I also think that he should be stopped to give him a message that his crude attempts at aversion therapy cannot be successful and that personal attacks as a form of aversion therapy do not belong in Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hasmens should be aware that making politically-sensitive changes to our articles on Northern Cyprus will get him in trouble quickly, since he has a poor grasp of consensus. He has uploaded some new pictures of Northern Cyprus which seems harmless. His comments above where he attributes changes by GiorgosY to Dr. K. do suggest he is not fully paying attention. It would show good faith if he would correct his own posts above and strike out the mistakes. His failure to understand copyright (as discussed at ANI) is a fast route to an indefinite block if he continues along that route. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I fully agree with your comments. But the issue here is not the repeated copyright violations by this longterm, serial plagiarist or his clumsy and clueless attempts of falsely attributing GiorgosY's comments to me. It is his repeated harassment of me in an attempt to enshrine his copyvios in the article of northern Cyprus and to intimidate me so that he can have a free hand in proliferating his violations of the copyright policy on Wikipedia. He should not be allowed a free hand to pursue his campaign of harassment against me because it not only violates our relevant policies, but it gives him the impression that he can continue doing it without repercussions. I am not here to second-guess your approach on this or to put pressure on you to change it. My respect for you would preclude such choice of action on my part. But I just wanted to put on the record the additional dimensions of this unrepentant plagiarist's ongoing attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The volunteer left the DRN discussion about WP:ARBPIA issue.

Hi

You notified me in the past about a DRN discussion.This discussion is now stale as volunteer decided not to continue [24].Maybe you as admin can help somehow.Thanks.--Shrike (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unexpected outcome. I wish we could avoid the whole issue by adding a suitably vague statement to the article about the reasons for the rocket fire, but the people who care about these things really care, and it's hard to change their minds. I'm unsure how helpful it is for admins like myself to participate at DRN because the mission there is one of pure mediation. Even if the DRN has failed, you could try negotiating with User:Nishidani directly and see if you can reach a common view. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amenable to any negotiation that refrains from personal views. If any editor wishes to use any office of wikiworks to resolve this contretemps, they should simply declare that they will (a) avoid all personal constructions of the evidence (b) answer point by point objections raised, concisely (c) the result must satisfy WP:NPOV, without blaming either side, but simply stating what the relevant RS say. The plaintiff consistently has theories unsupported by any evidence, and second-guessed motives and sources. We must not do that. Re (b), when pinged to contribute to the DRN, I wrote a lengthy analysis of Goldberg's 2 articles. The answer was to talk past it, and raise more personal musings over jihadis and Hamas, and Hamas. This flagged the possibility that we'd be hauled into another enormous tongue-wagging exercise. I've a few serious articles totally unrelated to this I/P nonsense, and can't afford spending time if I can see that the probable outcome is just chat, while an already deeply compromised article I've dropped trying to help edit, continues on its merry way.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hotwiki

Hey, you were involved with the incidents between me and Hotwiki that led to his banning and my agreeing to avoid X-Men related pages for a week. I just wanted to let you know that now that Hotwiki is back, he has taken it upon himself to revert several pages to how they were before he was banned, and in many cases has given no or inadequate reasoning for it. I can't get involved, as I have agreed to leave the pages and user alone until Saturday I think, but I thought I should let you know about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, my edits have no reasoning? Adamstom.97, okay
X-Men (film series)
Take a look at those links, I've given an edit summary to most of my edits there. Plus when I was banned for 1 day, those articles especially the X-Men (film series) were added by information that didn't have a source, list of cast members which not even 100% confirmed, and I cleaned them up myself and then you are gonna report like as if I reverted your edits again... And FYI, Adamstom.97, you also admitted to the talk page of X-Men (film series) that you removed things from my edit that shouldn't be deleted (like the updated box-office gross and 20th Century Fox Entertainment releasing the home media releases) and I just recovered them because you wouldn't do it yourself.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly the place to be having a discussion about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit wars are usually about something in particular and this time it's hard for me to follow what's in dispute. So I recommend that User:Adamstom.97 consider following WP:Dispute resolution after 15:10 on 26 September when he is once again free to pursue this matter. If in the future you wind up filing a second AN3 report you can link to the first one. Of course, it would be better to find a negotiated agreement on the talk page of one of the articles or at WT:FILM. EdJohnston (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1RR warning

Thanks for closing the report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Red_Slash_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29 . My original request was for making Red Slash aware of the possibility of 1RR applying to this LAME by asking for the editor to be notified with a Template:Syrian_Civil_War_enforcement. As only admins can do that, and 1RR isn't binding until the user is notified with it, we've now got the situation that I gave several warnings and escalated it there (more than I'd want to), but as it hasn't been given, 1RR still isn't in effect. The irony is that I'm not even against that editors proposed PRIMARYTOPIC, it just needs to follow process and not cause breakage and disruption for one of our most highly accessed content. Widefox; talk 07:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be concerned that the 1RR is not binding. The community 1RR applies to all editors and doesn't require a prior notice using Template:Syrian Civil War enforcement. (Though someone will probably not be blocked for 1RR if they can argue convincingly they were not aware). Red Slash is now aware and I assume that he will watch himself in the future. User:Red Slash's interest in the ISIS page is apparently due to his being active at WP:Requested moves and in disambiguation issues and not specifically due to a prior interest in that part of the world. If subsequent events show that my assumption about Red Slash being careful was not correct then I'll issue the templated warning. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Appreciate. Keep up the good work. Widefox; talk 17:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


UST Global Now Again Removing The Documented Founder from The Wikipedia Site

Hello Ed. I hope you are doing well. After just a few weeks of the 'Edit Protection' being lifted - we have now reverted back to an individual making multiple edits 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, SteveJRoss Stevejross (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Stevejross (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=626829480"