Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by H1N111 (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 6 December 2015 (→‎Attacks and vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Azerbaijan

It doesn’t matter who was deleting. The fact is it is deleted, and nobody done anything to restore justice. Apparently, Wikipedia team doesn’t believe in free speech. Obviously, you created the online world where you can run your own tiranny and oppression.

Azerbaijan is a visit card of citizens of Republic of Azerbaijan. I don’t think anyone with Persian, Armenian or Russian backgrounds have priority in updating that page, neither you or someone called LouiseArgon. You know nothing about Azerbaijan, and first of all you are experts.

You are wondering why? Well, Iran have occupied a half of Azerbaijan. Certainly, the Persians have no interest in promoting Azerbaijani culture, history or tradition. All they say that any etymon in Azerbaijan derived from Old Persian (nobody even knows what is Old Persian). The Persians have created tyrannical Islamic regime, with no respect to other cultures. Same applies to Republic of Armenia, and Russian Federation.

You can block my account. It is not like I do care. I don’t like people who have no respect to Freedom of Speech, or Human Rights Act. You were acting like monkeys in zoo, when they see a new object in their cage. The speed you were deleting my comments, I can only say that you have no personal life. All you do it is just sitting in front of monitor and … .

Funny part is that I have not deleted the previous text, just added new paragraphs to previous text. I have respect to work done. But you guys, really far from the concept of civilization, all you care about is to delete or perhaps even burn and torture if we were living in same country.

My comments hurt? Well, be my guest block or even close my account. I am sure your Little Tyrannical Egos will be satisfied after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejlabnet (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FREESPEECH. Feel free to make your views known on a website that you own or control. Wikipedia has our own editorial policies, and we like them the way they are. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BulgariaSources again

Hi EdJohnston. The previous thread about BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been archived, so I am starting another one. The 1 week block you placed on them has expired and they are back to doing what they were previously doing on Bulgaria national football team. As stated in that archived thread, I did start an ANI discussion about them, but it was archived twice without anything being done. (See WT:AN#BulgariaSources) They seem to only edit in spurts a few weeks apart, so short term blocks seem to have had no effect on them at all. Not sure what should be done at this point since they never have responded at all to any of the warnings or attempts at discussion left on their user talk, etc. Any suggestions you may have would be appreciated. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 38#Page protection for Medieval Bulgarian army. I'm leaving a new notice on the editor's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since they resumed the edit war on 30 November, I've placed an indefinite block. Details at User talk:BulgariaSources. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica

Honestly, please tell me why I keep being singled out in that whole tug-of-war nonsense on that page. This is extremely frustrating and I would like some guidance. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least three people disagree with your addition at Metallica, since you have been repeatedly reverted. Plus, I don't see any comments by you on the article talk page. Your change needs to get consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it wasn't even my addition. I agreed with it, and I wasn't the only one. My problem is that I always seem to be ending up on the "wrong" side of the argument, no matter how many other editors concur. What is it that I am doing wrong? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other people at Talk:Metallica have mentioned your name, but you've never joined the discussion there. If you won't participate, it's hard for you to complain that your views are not being heard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User KateWishing - breach of three reverts rule

If this discussion needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Evening Ed, You placed a temporary lock on the Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome article. However, KateWishing has now used that opportunity to reverse an addition of fully referenced text, and has now reverted the article three times, which I understand is a violation of Wiki rules. Bearing in mind that she has a raft of complaints on her talk page, for numerous non-discussed arbitrary deletions, numerous edit wars and quite arrogant and dismissive attitude towards users, I presume that Wiki rules will be invoked in that she is temporarily suspended, and the article reverted to its prior state. After all, one would hope that Wiki rules are, indeed, Wiki rules and that those rules apply to all regardless of temporary membership or full User ID. By the way, the assumption that I am some sort of IP hopper is grossly incorrect. I obviously use a different broadband provider when on my iPad at home, and that when at my office between 9am and 5pm. I'm curious to understand why that is considered an anomaly as I doubt many people have access to the same connection provider at home as at work. Anyway, I look forward to noting that the Wiki rules are applied evenly and fairly. Thanks 22:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you have a constantly changing IP, what name should I use to refer to you in discussions? And is there any page I can use to leave you messages? EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
apologies over two IPs showing, VirginMedia obviously allocate different ones when I am at home, compared to when I am at my office. I believe that BT are our corporate providers, hence a different range. However, there is no IP spoofing occurring, I am merely communicating on the website from two different locations at different times of the day. Happy to receive answers on this page, or either of the above. How do I make a firmal complaint about KateWishing reverting three times, contrary to Wiki policies? Thanks 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The IP continues to spam my talk page with personal attacks and demands for my personal information.[1] I've already pointed to our guidelines (particularly WP:MEDRS); not much more I can say if they refuse to read them. KateWishing (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Ms Wishing surfaces once a complaint starts. First, there's no point lying about this. At no time have I ever made "demands for your personal information", I simply asked you to verify your so-called medical qualifications which you claim you had, and Googling your name produces no known 'expert' in this field. To try and twist this to some sort of stalking insinuation merely depletes your already-reduced credibility, and is tantamount to lying and defamation. I suggest that you retract such an libellous comment or provide evidence. You've removed fully accepted medical papers as references and removed references to encephalitis as a well-known and accepted presentation symptom of RCVS, even though some of your own references confirm it. In fact, even the Wiki article on encephalitis and its associated references confirm the single sentence addition that I made on the subject. As I've said before, your edit war trail speaks volumes as do the numerous complaints by many different users on your talk page. You have a long history of wrecking articles without the most basic courtesy of discussing with the author first. You wreck the page, then try to back peddle when editors complain. Your modus operandi is astonishly arrogant and in most cases is in breach of published Wiki standards, policies and etiquette.. It is clear that you have dug yourself into a hole on this matter and despise the fact that you have been corrected, caught out and shown that you do not even read your own refs, you have little actual understanding of the subject in hand. Added to that you claim to have medical qualifications yet fail to substantiate that fake claim. I believe that you are next in line for the infamous Wiki Fake PhD Awards. Blub off to the moderators all you like, but at the end of the day, you are simply an antagonistic and patronising user who has a history of irritating those whose are genuinely trying to improve articles.86.21.250.21 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. there is no breach of WP:MEDRS, as the sources are publications like The Lancet. However KateWishing has, rather hypocritically, altered most of the ref sources to one single primary source i.e. The paper by Mehdi, which is, in itself, a breach of the very same WP:MEDRS which clearly shows that she doesn't even understand the very rules which she so liberally quotes. If she wishes to remove refs to The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the World, yet refs self-published papers, then she is contradicting her own argument. QED. 86.21.250.21 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to clutter up Ed's talk page too much with this nonsense, but since you finally made a claim of substance: the Medhi paper I added is a review (ideal under WP:MEDRS), not a primary source; while the only source I removed was a webpage that both fails WP:MEDRS and does not even mention Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (making it WP:SYNTH). KateWishing (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 86.21. Have you been able to find the place in WP:MEDRS where it talks about the use of primary sources in medical articles? You should be able to find the sentence, "For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used." If you continue to engage in personal attacks against User:KateWishing, any admin may decide to block your account. ("wrecking", "astonishingly arrogant"). EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
whether "wrecking" is deemed a suitable word or not, the fact is that she has over 12 serious complaints on her relatively small talk page for making arbitrary reverts and deletions on articles, and some of those have even been placed on there by Wiki admins. Take a look, it's there in black and white, and her form says it all. She has equally made a defamatory claim against me about "stalking", when I simply asked for confirmation of medical credentials which she claimed to have. In the scheme of things, using the term 'wrecking' pales into insignificance compared to making a criminally defamatory allegation of "stalking" which in the UK would be classed as criminal libel. However, I note that she has received no such rebuke for what is a far more serious breach of protocol and Wiki civility rules. So, can someone please explain why one user is admonished for using the term "arrogant" which is the underlying view afforded to her by many of her other complainants, yet a level playing field seems not to have been applied in regards to my words. As to WP:MEDRS, KateWishing has clearly breached those rules, not least of which is that she has reduced multiple refs (multiples are encouraged by Wiki) to single articles. Surely, more than one source is preferred to add credibility to any article. Ms Wishing also continues to avoid the question of why she refers to encephalitis disorders which are still swelling symptoms, yet deny using the term encephalitis as their underlying cause. That is just plain crazy logic; a bit like saying one of the symptoms of a cold may be a runny nose, but a runny nose is not a symptom of a cold. Anyway, it's clear to me that Wiki favours registered users, no matter how badly they edit articles or cause discourse and disharmony to the extent of putting potential contributors off helping improve articles. If Wiki wishes to encourage amateur, ill-informed and illogical editing, then so be it. It doesn't bode well for the future, and the long-term quality or richness of articles. As a patient who has been through RCVS for thirty years and read just about every publication on it, I've shown my consultant her edits and his view is that she is talking nonsense to discount such credible references. Anyway, back to my compliant as to why KateWishing has not been reprimanded for breaking the 3revert rule on fully referenced edits? Thanks. 86.21.250.21 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
86.21.250.21, I'm not going to take any action against User:KateWishing based on the 3RR case, or on the data you have presented here. If the personal attacks continue, you may be blocked yourself. Meanwhile, if you disagree with how I've handled this, consider asking for review at WP:ANI. May I suggest you avoid words such as 'criminally defamatory' if you go to ANI and are hoping for a good response there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no surprises there then. :) I'm not making personal attacks on anyone, merely pointing out the unfounded accusations that Ms Wishing has made. She's been asked twice to point out where the term "stalking" has been used and has failed to do so. Therefore her credibility on that point is, again, reduced to zero. Whether Wikipedia likes or dislikes some terms that are legally correct is neither here nor there. For anyone to knowingly make a false accusation against someone else is, in Law, a criminal offence and I am surprised that Wikipedia has no policy against such behaviour, when it has a legal duty to prevent, or remove, false allegations. That is the Law. Anyway, moving on from those facts,... as I've said before, it is clear that Wikipedia favours an unlevel playing field, bent towards those who are registered members, no matter what inconsistencies they add, the number of other former complaints against them, or the breaches of Wiki policy they commit. A closed shop is probably the best description. Either that, or the admins themselves do not understand the very policies that they are supposed to uphold. Who knows. As to Miss Wishing, and her uncorroborrated medical credentials, it is clear that, in her, Wikipedia has in its midst, the World's leading authority on RCVS, so I'll leave her to continue imparting that omnipotent 'knowledge' to the World, and hope that the medical World is prepared for the consequences. In the meantime, her fantasy game of pretending to be someone of repute in this field is given the credence that it deserves. Having read several articles on the content quality, inaccuracies and moderation of Wikipedia, it clear to see why it is considered as it is, and that more time is spent on moderating clear errors and protecting unqualified text, than actual ly improving quality and linking up good referential studies. The article shall remain as it is, incorrect, falsely edited by a fantasist medical 'expert' and illogically composed. The contrary double uses of PRES in the article are glaringly obvious to anyone, but Miss Wishing-I-Had-A-PhD can't even differentiate between her own contra edits. That's how funny the whole situation is; an editor who writes two supporting views to the very text they have removed which was submitted by another. Perhaps that all it is. An NPS matter of control and being wanted to be seen as the 'owner' of an article, even though they high jacked the original, and that such behaviour is actually contrary to the very point of Wikipedia, i.e., the encyclopaedia that ANYONE can edit. As has been proven here, that's not actually the case. 86.21.250.21 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ha, how apt! Have just found this very statement on the Arbitration Committee candidates page, by one of the senior Wikipedians. Is sums it up nicely.
"We must clean our house, lest those who could advise and assist us dismiss Wikipedia as a nest of boobies. We should treat all editors alike. The best way to avoid being called a flock of juvenile loons is to stop acting like a flock of juvenile loons."
it is clear that even these candidates consider that Wiki admins are not treating "all editors alike" (this case in hand). As to "flock of juvenile loons", well, what can one say to such an insight from deep within the Wiki nest. I rest my case. :D
P.S. Have just had WP:Bite pointed out to me, for the disgraceful way that both of you have acted in this matter - and that's from another long-term Wikipedian. It appears that you are both in breach of those guidelines too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.250.21 (talk • contribs)

Mai-Sachme reported by User:151.20.0.103 (Result: Semiprotected two articles)

Hello, EdJohnston, I am here to ask you about this issue. You have protected the articles, but have you read that Mai-Sachme is the one who keeps changing the correct names and WLs? I quote you: "Note that according to WP:Article titles the criterion is which name is most commonly used in English. The ethnic makeup of the town's population does not decide the issue". The ethnic makeup of Merano's population is 1,01% more German than Italian. The most commonly used name in English is Merano. You can check in this talk page: Talk:Merano. I am not going against any consensus, do not let Mai-Sachme fool you. It was established that Merano is the correct name to use in en.wikipedia, while Meran just redirects to the main page as you can see by yourself. Maybe you did not read all the discussion in the noticeboard (I know it was quite long), or you would have said that my edits were right and his reverts wrong. I am not a nationalist, just a Wikipedian who tries applying this Wiki rules, or I would be changing all German names to Italian. I hope you agree with that. There is a last thing I did not understand: I thought breaking the three reverts rule would involve a block for the rule breaker, instead it is possible that it ends up with an article protection? I do not know all Wiki rules, or not enough well, that is why I am asking.

There is a discussion about the best name (Meran or Merano) taking place at Talk:Silvius Magnago#Meran/-o. You should wait for a consensus there. After enough time has passed, if no result is evident a request for closure can be made at WP:AN/RFC. Creating an account would instantly improve your credibility, especially if you desire to work in an area where placenames can be disputed for nationalistic reasons. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms that are acceptable

Hi Ed,

I am very hesitant to agree to terms involving more discussion on talk pages. While I understand their benefits and importance, some of the talk pages that I am involved with are at times intentionally unproductive, with editors deliberately dragging conversations out to prevent a consensus from being achieved.

Allow me to elaborate: Renault, an engine supplier, are returning to Formula 1 in 2016 as a full works team. They are buying Lotus, a private team, who used Mercedes engines in 2015. We just had a discussion on the basis that we cannot say Renault will use Renault engines in 2016, because they haven't said that they are, and that they are considering withdrawing from the sport entirely at some indeterminate point in the future. Therefore, the existing multi-year contract between Lotus and Mercedes should take priority, and the team be listed as "Renault-Mercedes" until more information becomes available. When a source was provided in which a senior Lotus figure was quoted as saying "when Renauly buy us, they will use Renault engines", this was begrudgingly accepted as "not great, but okay as a source". One would assume that WP:COMMONSENSE applies, but this is the kind of "discussion" that we have daily. It's not about achieving a consensus, it's about using the talk page as a weapon to enforce one version of the article.

So you can see why I am hesitant to make promises based on increased participation on talk pages. If something could be worked out, then I could get on-board, but the way the entire F1 WikiProject achieves consensus needs to be reformed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will point you to the fact that the American Ford Motor Company once had a full works team in F1 that carried neither their name, neither their nationality, nor used engines that carried their name. What you synthesize as being logical, has not been so straightforward. Bottom line, there is no rush to make the changes while lacking the better sources we require. Time is our friend and we can easily wait until more clear information has been published by reliable sources concerning this matter. Tvx1 00:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks and vandalism

Hi Ed!

I found this edition [2], "Mexicans are the only Latin Americans who still believe the stupidities of Catholicism" "In conclusion, Manuel has Spanish ancestry but is an ugly mestizo (typical Mexican) " "also is a pedophile (he is an anti-white Genocide) " " then you will see the dirty feet of Manuel (he never washes them) " " Applause, Marrovi is a graduate of architect, very interesting (sarcasm)" and more...

H1N111 and the IP 190.148.92.240 are the same user. He is from Guatemala and he use google translator (he wrote "it is better google translator, that you may see how bad is this"")

He attacks other users (Marrovi). If you check the edition, he put his personal facebook.

I don't know what to say, I'm impressed. --Bleckter (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Mr. Bleckter, with all the respect that you deserve, this situation you don't care, and I don't use google translator, I only use that it if I did not know a word in English, that phrase I put it as mockery of Marrovi because he use the google translator. And these attacks are from months ago, I already apologize personally to the user Marrovi. --H1N111 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=693954357"