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 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 28 July 2016 (→‎Question: Reply re Gibraltar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



User:Alhaqiha

This editor appears to have some sort of animosity against other ethnicities(Berbers, Iranians) and their inclusion in articles on Wikipedia.

On the Baghrir article, Alhaqiha [insisted I go to the article talk page], after responding to his comment, Alhaqiha removed mine! Alhaqiha even logs out to continue edit warring(Baghrir, North African Arabs, Berbers, Couscous, just to name a few). 25 May 2016 Diannaa (talk | contribs) blocked Alhaqiha (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite, unfortunately 5 June 2016 Diannaa (talk | contribs) unblocked Alhaqiha (talk | contribs). Since then Alhaqiha has edit warred, removed referenced information, deleted another editor's talk page comments and has clearly illustrated they are not here to build an encyclopedia.

Alhaqiha posted on my talk page concerning the Baghrir article, in which he alleges sockpuppets with POV pushing my response was[2]:

  • I have seen an IP making the exact same edits as yours over multiple articles. It is extremely clear you are here on a anti-Berber agenda. As for the Baghrir article, an IP made the removal[3], claiming "not sourced".[4],[5]
  • These appear to be the sources that do not exist. Is this IP you? Said IP has also, according to Kuru, used as a reference a site which is a Wikipedia mirror site and added it to North African Arabs.[6] AND, copy and pasted information from somewhere to Wikipedia, also according to Kuru.[7]
  • It would seem to me you are disruptive in your editing. Logging out to continue your edit warring, adding Wikipedia mirror sites as references, copy & pasting, just to name a few instances.

I have posted a concern on Alhaqiha's talk page,[8] but his usual modus operandi is simply to blank out comments from other editors,[9][10][11][12] so I do not expect any kind of response. Alhaqiha will simply log out or wait a few days and then start back his disruptive ways. Would you be interested in addressing this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear I was half-right. Alhaqiha responded, to which I asked why referenced information was removed from the lead and why he could not add his information to the article without changing referenced information(10,000 to 5,000).[13] In response Alhaqiha simply deleted the entire discussion.[14] No surprise there. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for this editor (whose name i have trouble spelling). Certainly this will give him a chance to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:EdJohnston! Thank you for leaving a message behind on my talkpage about this discussion. Well first of all I want to make clear I have no animosity against other races. The pages about North Africa are very one sided and not neutral, and it looks like some ethnicities are dominating the information on those pages. Many of those pages include information about berbers which is false, based on nationalistic views or poorly sourced. I try to add or delete information that is one sided, not well sourced or false on those pages. The topics about North-Africa are topics I find my interest in, so me editing specifically those pages doesnt make me a vandaliser Kansas Bear. Just like how you are interested in Persian or History related topics, I find my interest in the North-African ones.

There are a few users, namely user:JovanAndreano, user:AyOuBoXe, user:DanaCastle, and user:Omartoons which are all blocked and keep returning with new ip adresses reverting or removing my edits on a daily basis. Everyday when I check my mail I will find another ip adress removing or reverting information about exactly the same things. It makes it look like im edit warring, but it is important to note that there are a few people following my contributions on a daily basis to revert whatever edit I have made. Based on this I have to keep reverting the edits which makes me look like im edit warring, but at the same time there is another user sockpuppeting with different accounts. A few administrators are already keeping an eye on the situation, and know why I make the edits. I have tried to explain this to Kansas Bear on his talkpage, but he ignored it. T hat explains the 'Edit warring'.

The claim of Kansas Bear that I have animosity against Iranians is incorrect. The two pages he linked in which I commented that a Iranian is vandalising the page happened only two times, and lucky enough it kept him away. He creates information in which he claims that the people of the middle east eat cow brains, sheep brains, locusts, cockroaches, lizards, snakes, camelurine and gives 30 or more non-evidence based sources like youtube 1 or pages that don't exist. He already has made 42 interuptive edits 1 as you can see. He kept coming back, but he has stopped now that I called him out for it. It indeed is not the best way to communicate, but he has already returned 42 times with his vandalising edits.

The page in which I removed "berber tribe" from the Article is because it was not sourced and not true, and there already was a request for citation since 2014, and the page also has a banner about the "neutrality of the article being disputed" link. Based on the information in the page without many sources it come of fake and nationalistic. Sahara culture dominantly shows sub-saharan in the south and arabian in the North characteristics when berbers are dominant in the mountain regions. The page seems to be written by someone with a non-neutral view.

On the Baghrir talk page, when Kansas Bear reverted my edits without explanation, he told me I should take "my concerns to the talk page". After that I requested him to discuss it with me, and the answer he gave was very rough and degrading, he even told me "learn how to sign a comment!". It is a talk page not a lash out on someone page, so I removed his comment so someone else could react in a normal manner. You can take a look at my explanation of "my concerns" and how he reacts on it link.

The logging out on the pages was because I first thought that the ip adress and the account were automatically linked to one another, at the end I found out they were not after it being explained to me by an administrator on my talk page. After being warned about this, I stopped. Now I am contacting administrators like Ponyo link to protect pages instead of editing or reverting them myself whether logged in or out. So Kansas Bear, you can stop acting as if it still happened or keeps happening.

I was indeed blocked by Dianna because the information I used for a page was very similar to the original text, so I got blocked because of plagiarism. I waited a week with reacting because I had to focus on making my exams, but when I requested if the block could be removed with a valid explanatian about me reading the manual about using documents and articles without plagiarism, se deblocked me. The text I used were 3 articles about the genetic history of North-African ethnic groups. But as I said, When I put up the request, she directly deblocked me the same day. It was not intended as bad behavior or vandalism, and I think she understood that aswell.

The user Kansas Bear claims I am not here to build a encyclopedia? So what about these pages I created? Isn't that building up wikipedia? You wasnt to make me look like a vandaliser, but there is more to the story. These are pages that I created which is nothing wrong with 1, [[15]], or 3. It is quit strange that you claim that I dont react to your comments aswell, because I directly reacted to your comment today in which I gave you 4 sources to explain why I made the edits link, but just like with the Hammudid talkpage [[16]] you keep denying my requests for editing even when I give you sources and good reasons. You just keep making the discussiong bigger and bigger even though I have shown you proof. And obvisouly on the talkpages of [[Baghrir] and Hammudid dynasty I had conversations with you. So you are making up that I don't react on your messages.

And at last, your claim that I removed this conversation link is indeed true, because we were done with the discussion. Just like all the other discussion with you, you dont seem to care about what I tell you. I already told you that I removed the information from the lead because it was duplicate, and I changed 10.000 to 5.000 giving you 4 sources for why I did that!! And that page should have a "neutrality of the article being disputed" banner anyway, because some claims on the page are not true, not neutral, nationalistic or not sourced which you keep supporting. I hope I have made myself clear. Thank you. Alhaqiha (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to doubt the sincerity of Alhaqiha's edits:
It is quite clear Alhaqiha never even checked these sources. Alhaqiha has shown he thinks he can remove anything he does not like if he labels it "sockpuppet of user ....".
  • "I already told you that I removed the information from the lead because it was duplicate, and I changed 10.000 to 5.000 giving you 4 sources for why I did that!!"
And you still did not answer my question of why you removed referenced information(10,000), you did not answer why you could not simply ADD 5,000 to the article instead of removing 10,000. No, you do not answer questions, you remove questions you do not want to answer then feign being misrepresented or spin a fairy tale about how you have answered questions, when you clearly have not.
  • " I already told you that I removed the information from the lead because it was duplicate"
Which does not explain why you removed the reference since the supposed "duplicate information" within the article did not have a source. It is also common for something to be mentioned in the lead and the article, see Wikipedia:LEAD. Sounds like you just did not like it. And, so you ignore what you do not like, on your talk page, and go on about removing referenced information you do not like. Plain and simple. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this IP, Alhaqiha? After I removed unreliable sources and its information from an article, an IP re-adds the same information without a source! Where was Alhaqiha and his penchant for "sockpuppets"?? Oddly I see NO response to my discussion on the article's talk page![17][18] And here, Alhaqiha re-adds the same information without a source!!! Logging out to edit war??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, When I checked the sources in the link he inserted at the reference section it took me to this page 1. It is indeed the same book, but it only shows the intro of the book and 5 pages which dont inlcude any information about the origin of the dynasty. So in that case, It was indeed a mistake! You stil cant take away that the same user made edits like 1, 2, 3, or removed a whole lot information with his other accounts. And you literally only show the 4 edits I made wrong, why dont you show the 30+ vandalist edits I actually reverted from his accounts.
And no, the Ip adress that you try to blame me for sockpuppeting is Not Mine, dont try to blame me for it without any evidence. And that I didnt react to your request on the talkpage is not odd at al, I didnt have anything to add to the page anymore because the origin of the dynasty was already mentioned in the first alinea with sources before I made the edit, 4, but you directy removed those aswell. Alhaqiha (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this IP you?. Seems like the so-called sockpuppetry is not one-sided.
  • "And you literally only show the 4 edits I made wrong"
So you admit to not checking the sources. No surprise there. Considering your sources on the Saadi dynasty page were shown to be unreliable on the talk page, undoubtedly you and 41.99.22.186 "missed" that. Need help finding that talk page?
Please, show me exactly where you posted on the Saadi dynasty talk page, since you re-added "Arab", without sources,[19] and did not seem overly concerned about it. Yet in contrast, someone adds Berber(with sources!) and you start making accusation of sockpuppetry and vandalism? Hardly a NPOV attitude, in fact it reeks of battleground behavior.
  • "And no, the Ip adress that you try to blame me for sockpuppeting is Not Mine, dont try to blame me for it without any evidence"
Still misconstruing what I said, again. I said, "Is this IP, Alhaqiha?" If you can not understand English then perhaps you should not be editing English Wikipedia. Oh, and FYI, there is a thing called "meat-puppetry" on Wikipedia, just so you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring chivalric order IP hopper is back

Hello EdJohnston, remember this matter of a few days ago? He's back now edit warring and IP hopping on this page, where the conflict has a somewhat more complicated history. Same subject and according to User:DrKay a predescessor making the same point could be also a sock of banned user User:Qais13. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have semiprotected Juliana of the Netherlands due to the IP-hopping edit warrior. Consider opening a new report under the previous 82.232. SPI. A review of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Qais13/Archive suggests there was some disagreement whether the 82.* IPs were actually Qais13, the last time around. EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely Qais13. It is the correct IP range. There has never been any doubt about that. I archived the sock puppet investigation that you refer to because User:Adys16 is not related. Unfortunately, because User:Bbb23 has a personal vendetta against me, he sabotaged my actions and instead chose to fuel his petty dispute with me instead of recording Adys16's innocence or simply archiving the case as moot. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.132.228.210 should be filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qais13/Archive. DrKay (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mike V has just done a rangeblock of a /18 for one month. That should be useful. Anyone who has sufficient patience might try to prove a connection to the other accounts named (but not yet blocked) in the Qais13 SPI. Another option is to create a WP:Long-term abuse entry, since the chivalry/royalty connection might be usable as a criterion when future problems arise. Other admins who have issued this rangeblock in the past are User:Yaris678 and User:BethNaught. They might be able to think of something else to do on this problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mike V, who issued the rangeblock, has also comented at ANI in a recent thread. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've seen it! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signedzzz and Elizabeth Dilling

Hi EdJohnston. I don't know if you've seen but I added an update over at noticeboard post, pointing out that Signedzzz has continued edit warring despite your threat of a ban. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Users Hebel and Sabbatino suspected in posting POV and unsourced information

Hello, Ed

I suspect users Hebel, Sabbatino in sabotage to neutral position in many pages regarding Eastern Europe. They are deleting huge parts of commits without any discussion or argumentation, for example on Grand Duchy of Lithuania page.

Please check their own actions for posting POV content, there is many complaints on talking pages of them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft37by (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me and other user of something that we didn't do is a personal attack. You're the one that should discuss before making any additions, because your additions are controversial and if 3–4 users disagree with you then your additions don't belong in certain articles. You're the only one who posts POV content and try to claim things which are not true and aren't supported by anyone else, but you. Furthermore, there are no complaints about me or Hebel as far as I know and you again spread false information. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not personal attack. Tell me please why you deleted original map recently without any clue, for example? There is no one in article. Map was referenced and even linked to full version. I can only describe it as sabotage. Link to case: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=730303670 . Talk page full of arguments and references that article not neutral. For example, language discussion. Article based on some 3-rd party pop historical book, not on officials quotes, original documents and comments from users Лобачев Владимир , Xx236, CityElefant. And after that you saying like this idea of you iniquity comes only from me?.. Seems you mislead people like breathing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft37by (talk • contribs)
User:Craft37by, if you find yourself in disagreement with the others at Grand Duchy of Lithuania you are expected to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If you show yourself unwilling or unable to negotiate on these pages you are risking a topic ban under WP:ARBEE. The question of Ruthenian vs. Lithuanian language should be resolvable by a WP:Request for comment. If your position does not find consensus you are expected to let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Okay, I got it. Thanks. But you know, it's suprisingly that I should make WP:Request for comment while some users not. That leads to cases when their edits contradicts the article itself. For example, recent edits of GDL "Today part of" list, when Latvia was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=730362369 But when we are open the maps directly on article page -- voila! Some part of Latvia obviously was territorially situated in GLD and was as fief of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#/media/File:Rzeczpospolita_voivodships.png , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#/media/File:Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_1430.png And you know, I might me little impressive or my english not perfect. But I don't understand the logic in posting just evidently wrong statements and edits.

see this message on the talkpage of the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Dear User:EdJohnston, thank you for your message on my talk page. It seems that I'm a bit to late to that discussion to comment there. I personally, have had only a short discussion with User:Xenophrenic on the talk page of the article about Forced conversion. Upon checking his/her reply to me there, it seems that User:Xenophrenic did not take kindly to me informing him that a discussion was occurring at your talk page (Exhibit A). To me, it doesn't seem that User:Xenophrenic acknowledges consensus on articles related to similar content (Exhibit B, Exhibit C) and instead attempts to display ownership of these articles despite the fact that others disagree with him. I see that others have suggested sanctions on WP:AN3 but will leave it up to you to determine what is appropriate. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Meanwhile, another admin closed the 3RR report so I'm not going to follow up at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question related to my topic ban

Dear User:EdJohnston, I've got a question related to my topic ban. I don't know where to go with it, if this is the wrong place please direct me to wherever the appropriate place is to ask this question.

Anyway the background is, I developed a proposal for support for topic banned editors on meta, as part of the recent Inspire initiative, which got 12 endorsements, and came 13th out of 279 ideas created proposals in a robot generated leaderboard there. As a result, we are going to try to see if we can start a pilot scheme. We plan to do an RfC on meta on possible ways to implement the proposal as a pilot, one of which is to do the pilot itself on meta. We will want to publicize that RfC on wikipedia, for instance at the Village Pump.

Anyway I understood from the guidelines on meta, that my topic ban is localized to wikipedia and as a result I've been talking about my banned topic on the talk page for the proposal, just by way of examples when discussing how the suggested board might work and the types of problems we might run into. So my question is,

"Is it okay for me to post to wikipedia about a RfC on meta about a proposal on meta when in the talk page for the proposal on meta I mention my banned topic?"

It's obviously not intended in any way to get around my topic ban. But I know these bans are taken very strictly, so felt I needed to ask this question before going ahead. I am fine with going through the meta talk page and removing all mentions of my banned topic if that is what is needed. Of course, I can't remeove it from the history of the talk page on meta.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must be referring to this thread at meta. It is likely there must be at least one participant in the meta thread who is not banned here on English Wikipedia, so that person could post a link to it here if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the one. Yes probably there are some who endorsed it who are not topic banned. I don't know for sure, some said explicitly that they were topic banned, and none have actually said that they are not topic banned yet, I could ping them all, we would do anyway when publicizing the RfC on meta. But the discussion on the talk page has been mainly between myself and User:Darkfrog24 with brief comments from a couple of others, so if we get someone to do it they won't have been involved in the long discussions about how we could set up the board and about the board mockup. It would be especially tricky if there were questions for them to answer after they post to the Village Pump on Wikipedia, because if they ask us, I'd be commenting on the Village pump about the proposal by proxy. I'll discuss it with User:Darkfrog24, but my first thought is that I'd be inclined in that situation to just wait until my topic ban expires in November.
Can I ask this question in the other direction, from what you say, it sounds as if I would get in trouble if I posted a link to it for as long as I am topic banned, and that removing mention of my topic from the talk page (but not from its history) would not be enough to make that okay. Can I confirm if that is correct?
If you don't know the answer for sure, also, do say too, I expect it is a rarely encountered situation that someone here wants to publicize a proposal on meta so it might easily not have much by way of precedent. And I'd like to know if there is anyone else here, or some forum here where I can ask.
Also, once my ban expires, will I be free to post here about the proposal? Is that true? Also would me posting a link to the proposal after my ban expires cause any problems for User:Darkfrog24 if they are still banned or blocked at that point, and would it help if they remove all their mentions of the banned topic at that stage? Thanks for your help! Robert Walker (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can post about this in November after your ban expires. I don't wish to continue here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oslo edit warring

Hi Ed,

I see that you've tried to address the warring on the University of Oslo article. Thanks for that. Thanks also for the semi-protection. Though I do have concerns that the non-responsive newbie will not care any more about your warnings than he did mine. It's not that he disagreed on the article's talk page, it's that he refused to even respond on or even acknowledge the talk page. Also, isn't it customary when issuing warnings to both sides, to revert the article to the version that existed before the warring? Otherwise, you unfairly advantage one side over the other. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight it is your edit which looks promotional. "The university is widely recognized as one of Northern Europe's most prestigious universities." It sounds like this might have come directly from an advertisement. You may be able to reach agreement with the other party if you can find some way to reword your sentence so it is clearly linked to a reliable source. Though you used the talk page, you didn't clearly explain the reasoning for your sentence. You merely asserted that the university appeared high in certain rankings. It is better if you can source the exact sentence you use, otherwise it could be WP:Synthesis. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's where I have to correct you, Ed. That sentence is not mine. It originally came from here. I interpreted it as a relatively harmless copyedit which was based upon the high rankings for the university, which were also already sourced in the article by other editors. So when I read comments like this in the edit log, I reasonably assumed it was just POV pushing and I reverted it. Now you've left it up (or more accurately, you've removed it) - which is exactly what that editor wanted. This is, by the way, the same ST newbie editor, who, as I said, has steadfastly refused to use the talk page at all. So how does telling me to use the talk page help? That's why I said I'm not sure this is the right lesson we want to be teaching our newbies. That they can edit war, use IP socks, refuse to participate in discussion at talk, and still get what they want anyway - even after an admin reviews their behavior? Hope you see my point. X4n6 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't up to admins to decide. It needs plain old editor consensus. See WP:Dispute resolution for steps you can follow. You hurt your own position in the dispute by making four reverts in 24 hours, so both you and the other party could have been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now Ed, you made a false claim. You accused me of writing text I didn't write. I've since learned that this kerfluffle goes back even further than I realized. But if you can't apologize, can't you even acknowledge you were wrong? If not, don't double-down with the finger pointing and now accuse me of hurting my position by reverting. I was dealing with an unresponsive pov pusher who wouldn't engage on the talk page, despite being asked twice. We can always improve. But at least I can acknowledge when I'm wrong. X4n6 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EW closing

Re[20]. I don’t really see what I could have done different in that situation (other than simply accepted that sourced content I like to keep, was removed without consensus). Can you clarify what you believe I did wrong? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough people on the talk page that a consensus should be achievable about the timeline. The vote so far appears to be running against you. You are in an awkward position if you keep restoring material that the others are opposed to. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I will remove the timeline myself, if the RfC is closed that way. It's not about that. It's about removing sourced content without consensus, and at the time I reported the user the RfC wasn't even started. I haven't reverted after the RfC was started, so why did you warn me? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you reverted to expand the template three times beginning at 22:24 on 25 July. At that moment the RfC was already in progress. I hope you are not planning to continue that. 'Removing sourced content without consensus' is not a phrasing that is found in the edit warring policy. You are not immune to 3RR enforcement simply by making your content be sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. After I filled the report, User:Timothyjosephwood readded the timeline and started an RfC. User:Mathsci then found another way to "hide" the content. I did not like that, so I reverted to the state the timline had prior to the bold edit. Later Timothyjosephwood reverted me. I have not reverted after that, since that revert probably means they have consensus for the colapsed state. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, I know I am not "immune to 3RR enforcement". What I don’t like is to be formally warned when I have done what I could do to follow our policies.Erlbaeko (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, since I was pinged here, I agree with the warning, and a block without further notice if war-like behavior continues. As pointed out in the thread, WP:CON is not an exemption to 3RR. TimothyJosephWood 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know WP:CON is not an exemption to 3RR and I am not planning to break the bright line known as the three-revert rule. I don't need a formal warning to tell me that. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I do need is an admin to tell the user that removes sourced content without consensus, to stop. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of content in two articles

Hi EdJohnston, I'd like to point out that WP has two articles where there should be only one. You moved the page "Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83)" to "Spain in the American Revolutionary War" on 2 December 2015, and AvicBot moved it to "Spain and the American Revolutionary War" on 21 July 2016, but I've just discovered that the former article still exists under the old name, and that an IP editor copied the content from the new location and moved it to the old version, so that we had the same article under two names. I've reverted their edits to get that page you moved back to the state the the bot left it in.

I've spent a good bit of time today editing the changes made to "Spain and the American Revolutionary War" by the IP who appears to use different IP addresses in Brazil, and whose edits mostly actually improved the article. I don't know why this person thought it was appropriate to copy the content into the old location, and I'm not sure what should be done to rectify this confusing (at least to me) situation. Carlstak (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have semiprotected Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83) since it is unclear how to get in touch with the IP-hopper who is trying to recreate the article in place of the redirect. Why not leave a note on Talk:Spain and the American Revolutionary War and try to explain the situation there. If the IP objects to the current article title and prefers the old one, they should open a WP:Requested move. Possibly they are unaware of our process for moving articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I will leave a note on the talk page for this editor, who obviously has a more than casual acquaintance with editing on WP, but seems unsophisticated about certain aspects of formatting. Carlstak (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Given I have never repeated the behaviour that lead to the arbcom case, that everyone involved agreed that my behaviour was uncharacteristic, it was acknowledged that I was going through a period of personal stress with two elderly parents who were very ill and I was having a mini-meltdown with PTSD. Can I ask why it seems you find every opportunity to bring it up a stale and long expired issue again? Do I have to wear the mark of Cain forever and no matter how hard I try to edit in line with policy will never be allowed to forget it? WCMemail 21:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How should we fit together your three reverts at Gibraltar on July 25 with your above remarks about a 'stale and long expired issue'? And if you are really trying to edit in line with policy, why not open an RfC on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Nice attack

You recently issued warnings to two editors involved in warring on this page. You may want to pop in and give her a look see. It's not a full-on war, like it was prior to the AN3 report, and I'm not sure that a new one is necessary. Unfortunately, I've already issued multiple warnings to both users on multiple grounds (NPA, 3RR COPYVIO, improper templating, name it...), and I don't think a warning from my lips is going to mean anything. Just a heads-up that there's still some battleground behavior going on. TimothyJosephWood 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=731873699"