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 Sofia Koutsouveli (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 11 January 2017 (→‎Left the project: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Yo Ho Ho

Happy New Year, EdJohnston!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Reply from User:Slavuta33

Replying to your message. I am not promoting any agenda, as my corrections were well cited and linked. I was providing new information on these interesting individuals and offered my help to others for a collaborative work based on the existing policies. I am new to the Wikipedia' editing and was learning as I went along. Unfortunately, my efforts were not welcomed by an individual who has a different opinion on the subject and who apparently knows more on the inner workings of this site. Unfortunately, this looks more like a battle ground of opinions, rather then space for mutual understanding. At this point, I do not see a point for me to continue contributing, as it takes to much of my time and energy. Thank you.Slavuta33 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the editor's response here from my user page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed on topics of India , where I can edit or write

Hi, I would kindly request to guide, in reference of the topic ban on me, from content relating to the economy of India, including but not limited to taxation, currency and associated policy, process or practice. With my concern on this, which other topics I can write or edit, in related to India, that don't violate the ban. Example. Can I edit or write on Indian Parliament Acts, or subjects related to Parliament?.Kindly advice on this, thanks.Junosoon (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junosoon, I'm not speaking for Ed here, but as the admin who imposed the sanction, I'll clarify: you can not edit any act or bill of parliament that pertains to the Indian economy, this includes but isn't limited to Finance Bills, GST Bills, Budgets/Railway budgets, labour bills, wages bills etc, Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 (is a specific example of what's not allowed). —SpacemanSpiff 14:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Junosoon, since SpacemanSpiff is the admin who imposed the ban, you should follow his advice about scope of the ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: Thank you,Junosoon (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you.Junosoon (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Eastern Europe has TWO arb rulings

Just FYI Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Improving confusing names of two closed cases NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't particularly confusing. This has been discussed before on the arb pages. Arbcom goes out of its way to avoid naming cases after specific individuals, and sometimes that leads to case names that are hard to interpret. ARBEE was originally DIGWUREN, and that was very precise. If we were doing everything over from scratch, it might have been better to call the second case ARBEE2 rather than Eastern European disputes. The second EE case has no discretionary sanctions and is unlikely to be referred to from now on, so the sound-alike case names are unlikely to cause confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second EE case has no discretionary sanctions Ah.... thanks for pointing this out, I just assumed they were in there and that's what I get for not reading carefully. Then again, if I had read carefully, I guess I'm new enough at ARB decisions that I would not have thought to look, and then notice their absence. So thanks for that bit of education too. Sorry to bother you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo EdJohnston

Ottoman Empire captured in this war the Russian territorys South Ukraine and that Chigirin and you reverted the result into Indecisive this is incorrectly. Also, Ottoman Empire owned those territorys until to second Russo Türkish 1686 1700 War. Please check the war again also in Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700 book number 169 and 171 tells about Ottoman victory. Thank you Historiker123454 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you make more edits like this one, at Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) you are likely to be blocked. People have been giving you advice but you don't seem to be listening. You just repeat the same argument over and over. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email

{{ygm}} JbhTalk 02:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your mail; noted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi Ed, Im Bleckter but I lost my account and I try to recover it, my problem is for the users Triptothecottage, Not with all those rocks about and Dereck Camacho, They try to accuse me maliciously saying that I insert porn links when it is not true. Derek Camacho is misrepresenting the figures of White Costa Rican in his favor, he is from Costa Rica, and discriminates me by email for being Mexican. Thanks for everything. --Bleckter23 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have just been indef blocked. Please contact the blocking admin, User:Drmies, for any advice on your situation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston + Drmies, as an aside on this case, Bleckter contacted me on my own talk doing the aspersions thing. Although Derek Camacho is making some slightly off-topic changes to the article he was accused to lying about, it's a genetics thing (which hate like poison) but - in checking the sources - the content changes are AGF. I've tried to point him in the direction of the main article on Costa Ricans and the genetics section there. I suspect that there are COMPETENCE issues all round, but calling Derek Camacho a racist (the brunt of the offensive) is right off the mark. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, first I have never send any private email to Bleckter23, no idea where he takes that but is a total lie. Second I do not have a white agenda, I’m NOT white, I’m mestizo. Third I don’t know the other users and have no idea they had any problem with him, though for his edits I can imagine why. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full-Face Helmet Award

Slakr's Full-Face Helmet Award

For being cool when people might otherwise trigger a reflexive, full-scale, category-5 Facepalm facepalming due to their actions, I hereby award you your own face-guarding... helmet... thing.

You never know, one day it might come in handy should someone's absurdity become too great for you bear, thereby causing you to smack your palm to your head with blistering force. No need for you to risk self-injury just for dealing with that sort of crap, eh? :D

Oh, and uh... sorry... they were all out of palm protectors, so... uhh... I guess maybe worst case, alternate hands for now(?)

... or maybe grab some of those padded boxing gloves?

I dunno. *shrug*. Keep up the great work, and cheers. =)

--slakrtalk / 03:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see you reappear at AN3 from time to time, and always to good effect. Your 3RR-counting thing is still missed. Though Twinkle tries its best. Its user interface is clear only to those who have used it before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with recently blocked user

I know you received my ping, but wanted to inform you that he reverted my remark too [1]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that User:KrakatoaKatie has perceived the correctness of your advice. I did not make a close enough study of the previous blocks. but I thought the user was already making rapid progress towards the exits, under their own power. People are not usually quite this careless unless they are socks. (Socks have little to lose when they are blocked). The fact that KK is a checkuser might help get to the bottom of the situation if there is indeed a sock aspect. Now that the indef is in place I don't see any need to me to participate further. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. EdJohnston (talk)

Greetings

Hi Ed. Sorry for the situation with Bleckter23. He is a sockpuppet with a large history vandalizing pages and insulting users. He took advantage of my inactivity to pretend to be me. Greetings. --Bleckter (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please leave [the discussion OPEN? The reason is that the edit-warring issue with Spider has NOT been resolved. He has been reported by several unrelated editors (as you know) and he has decided NOT to engage in any meaningful discussion on the talk page of the economy of Iran article. NO consensus has been reached there either. That would set a bad precedent IMO if his edits wars are not reverted. Regards,

47.17.27.96 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR cases are not discussions. They are an opportunity for edit wars to be reported. Once the report is made and an admin has decided on an action, you should start again if there is a continuing problem. Since User:SpidErxD has not reverted at Economy of Iran since 8 January, his reverts are stale and no block was justified. If he resumes you can make a new report with a link to the old one. If you think the controversy may be long-term you should consider registering an account instead of editing anonymously. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of courtesy and to keep the PEACE, I have refereed the issue to ANI and another editor to "3RR cases". All his edits should have been reverted until a consensus is reached. Also, please revert your "closure notice" at "3RR". Thank you.47.17.27.96 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am declining to re-open the 3RR case. If you want to restore a previous version of Economy of Iran, why not announce your proposal on the talk page and see if anyone responds. The future behavior of User:SpidErxD is what will decide if any further admin action is needed. If he makes no reply to your talk page arguments, you might consider you have consensus and you could go ahead and change the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston Can you please ask him to update figures according to IMF oct 2016 report [1] and add latest values from CIA World FactBook [2] and also update JCPOA agreement.I am not editing because whenever i update latest values he revert it because he is anti iranian. Honestly i updated after 2 hours reading about Iranian economy and he reverted all my edits. Just ask him to update latest values himself. Also ask him to use his orignal account -> User:SSZ instead of this ip 47.17.27.96. I Updated China and Philippines economy too with latest values but no one reverted my edits there. SpidErxD (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:92slim

Quite recently you blocked User:92slim for making personal attacks at User:Iryna Harpy's talk page. It seems he hasn't learned anything:

  • [2] "didnt add that myself you liar" (as an aside, he *did* add it [3])
  • [4] "self reverted - you're still a liar"
  • [5] "self reverted again - yeah, VM is a liar still"
  • [6] "reverting liar"

This is all in a quick succession (the edit also broke 1RR which applies to Syria related articles).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The revert-then-self-revert-then-revert-then-self-revert seems to be done simply to be able to put "you're liar" in the edit summary a few more times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: From now on, don't lie on edit summaries. Hopefully you will learn your lesson. And no, I didn't - so you're a liar. --92slim (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you reinserted it rather than inserted. Still no excuse for you to call people "a liar".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't reinsert it, I actually removed it. Nice try, though. --92slim (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left the project

I leave Wikipedia in protest because I feel discriminated against my ethnicity. My country is named Hellas and the name Greece offends my ethnicity. The Romans used the name Greece when they conquered my country and they used the word Greek to mean slave. When I wrote the article I used "Hellas (Greece)", then they reverted me and I tried to solve the dispute by using "Hellenic Republic (Greece)" and even "Greece (Hellas)" but they kept reverting me. My country is glorious and I'm a devout Hellene nationalist, calling my country "Greece" is unacceptable because it is a name used by the evil Romans. I edited the Name of Greece article giving sources about the Hellas-Greece issue and references to calls by politicians to change the international name of our country but other users deleted my additions, further offending my ethnicity. I will not edit on Wikipedia anymore as you have offended my national emotions. When the time comes Hellas will establish a worldwide empire and Wikipedia will come under the control of Hellenes, when this happens I will return to this site. For now, goodbye! Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]