User talk:EdJohnston

PLEASE the article Cartoon Network Latin America must have

Indefinite semi-protection due to Persistent vandalism.--OliverDF (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Cartoon Network (Latin America) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At present neither side of this dispute is using any reliable sources. Nobody is offering proper explanations on the talk page. Since the IPs are no worse than anyone else, I don't see the case for semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring.
Message added 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment at WP:AN3, can you please take a look? - SudoGhost 03:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply there. I have nothing to add. If problems continue in the future let me know, or make a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So 3RR means nothing as long as some other discussion is at DRN? The report is "stale" because I have no intention of continuing to be harassed by the other editor with edit warring on my talk page? That's not even in regard to the same edit warring, and for the other page there will be no discussion and no resolution because I'm not going to be harassed by someone who can just edit war on my talk page whenever they decide. If 3RR means nothing I'll keep that in mind when disagreeing with another editor, I'll just harass them into going away and of course then the report will be "stale" a few hours after it was created, because they won't continue to edit war with me and then the report will of course be stale. As long as I edit war and harass others "within the rules" it's fine that I edit war far past 3RR on another page, I didn't know this. Thank you for informing me that 3RR apparently went away when I wasn't looking and AN3 is a waste of time. - SudoGhost 04:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for interjecting, I just can't help but notice that you already seem to be quite efficient at "harassing other editors into going away" when you disagree with them ;-) You probably know what (or whom) I'm talking about. If not - no big deal, just disregard the whole thing ;-) 98.113.203.22 (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You need not apologize for interjecting, but I can't take any action on your comment unless I know what it's referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I was curious to what was being referred to, and the only thing I can find that that seems to be relevant is this editor, who took the issue to ANI which resulted in the editor being blocked. They were eventually indefinitely blocked from editing and ended up with over 30 confirmed sockpuppets. Since ~July 2011 the only interaction I've knowingly had with that editor has been opening sockpuppet investigations, none of which were deemed frivolous in any way (and all of them resulted in a block), so if that is what is being referred to, I don't think I'm the reason. If that's not what is being referred to, then I have no idea. - SudoGhost 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you're wrong. It was a different editor, for different reasons. But it doesn't matter anymore, so let's just drop it ;-)98.113.203.22 (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I find that not only unlikely, but also an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence. Unless you'd like to substantiate your claim in some way, it's rather baseless and seems to be a matter of WP:NOTTHEM. Although I suspect you have no desire to reveal the name of the likely indefinitely blocked user due to your seemingly close knowledge of something you appear to have gone out of your way to look for; given your editing history it is rather odd you commented here, or even knew to. - SudoGhost 07:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Help with Anon

Russian nationalist? Who knows. But he is removing referenced info here: [1] and the word "Ukrainian" here: [2]. Help would be appreciated!Faustian (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected the two articles. Let me know if he moves on elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!Faustian (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Why didn't you respond to this?[3] Namely how these two edits[4][5] were the grounds for me edit warring. As I explained "What was removed was clearly wrong aka a 2011 reference for a 2012 event. See IC#19 here. Removal of wrong content The IC don't match the material they are referring to and the Ziv quote looks to be out of thin air. Where is it on either webpage? How is the removal of obviously wrong content edit warring?" Do you have a reply? Please note how Activism 1234 has had almost two days to fix those edits and reintroduce them and hasn't. It isn't like Activism isn't around WP for the last 48 hours either[6]. This post of his can be easily read as canvassing for AFD votes.[7]

Your improper block of me is a permanent record which has been least twice by other edits to trash[8] or misread my intentions[9]. Can you reverse what you did for the permanent record? Please write back....William 12:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you believe material is wrong, you can remove it but your removal is subject to the 3RR limit. Only a small set of things are immune from 3RR. You can see the list of exemptions at WP:3RRNO. There is no exception to 3RR for 'obviously wrong content,' unless it is related to BLP, copyvio, or the edits of a banned editor. It is assumed that if you choose to remove what you consider to be obviously wrong content, you will not need to make such removals more than three times in one day. Persuading others on the talk page is the way to be sure you are correct about 'obviously wrong.' EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

The Sikorsky article-

The rescue operation was very complex, as it was impossible to land near the crash site, leaving as the only options a hike along a steep mountainous path or a rope descent from the air.

A Israeli newspaper-

The rescue operation was complex, since it was impossible to land near the crash site, which meant that the only paths were a hike along a steep mountainous path or a rope descent from the air.

Do you think this is a copyright violation? I know there is the copyright problems board[10] but I don't know how to submit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

Yes, that is certainly too close to the original. Why not try to fix it yourself? If you are afraid of being reverted, just explain the problem on the article talk page and see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I already put it on the talk page. Maybe I'll change it in the morning, because I'm leaving WP for the day very shortly. If you would like to go duck hunting, Syrian Air Flight 501 looks like the work of banned user Ryan Kirkpatrick.(He'd be a nominee for the all time worst spelling editor with over 1000 edits on English wikipedia. Syrian 501 has a few of his gems.) I CSD it, so feel free to shoot it down if you want....William 00:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI review

There is a review that you are familiar with and might find interesting at the bottom of my talk page. As always, I'm an open minded fellow and think your experience may be helpful there. I've notified AGK who made the CU block and another CU. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Folding@home FA nom

Sorry to bug you over this if you've watchlisted the page, but if not I wanted to let you know that I've responded to your comments and made some changes to the prose. • Jesse V.^(talk) 06:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops or not?

On the EW board, did you mean to say unless there is some pattern of long-term warring, there is no obvious reason to sanction StillStanding.? He is the orginator of the EW and I am the alledged edit warrior. I don't recall anyone asking for sanctions against him, so I thought you might have made a mental switcheroo.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It is normal to look at any reverts by the submitter. Also, Arthur Rubin said "..but the two immediate reverts by Scientiom, and the single unjustified revert by the nominator, may also separately constitute edit-warring." EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thx  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 

Sanity check

Please let me know if you believe this is inappropriate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to your comment, but I don't see why it is necessary. Your comment may somehow get others excited, in spite of your intention. Why not wait and see if any problem occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was necessary so that there's a public record in a location relevant to the article, and mostly to make sure nobody inadvertently teased LGR by coming to them with issues related to the article. Unfortunately, it did get someone excited. In fact, since then, they went to WP:ANI about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, for better or for worse, the matter is settled. Thanks for your input; I appreciate your lack of bias. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI/ANEW results around Bitcoin

I see that these "incidents" are closed, however the situation is still not really resolved; HowardStrong has continued to revert the correction even after he had agreed to it, and I have no reason to expect he would not again if I restored it. How can we get this article corrected without allowing him to turn it into an edit war again? Should I make one more attempt to get it fixed? --Luke-Jr (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What correction are you speaking of, and where did he agree? EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The BTC symbol correction; though he left it listed, he removed all the citations for it. HowardStrong agreed to the proposed compromise here. --Luke-Jr (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any correction to which he is speaking of. I have added to the article but I have not reverted any changes.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I will say this user has started edit wars in the Bitcoin article in the past. His changes are often very out there and thus controversial; yet he pushes them. (e.g. a tonal section in the Bitcoin article). I would take his claims with a grain of salt. --HowardStrong (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Luke-Jr is very close to the Bitcoin subject matter. He is a developer of Bitcoind. https://github.com/luke-jr This may violate Wikipedia policy regarding close subject matter.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it is a Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. He can't be making controversial changes without clear consensus. Reported. Thanks!--HowardStrong (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not Luke has a COI, it doesn't take away the need for you to get consensus for your own changes. COI does not disqualify Luke from editing here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll happily have my changes reverted if they are truly against consensus. Luke-Jr cannot provide proper consensus as a impassioned developer with an agenda and alone. I'll happily take a que from others, in which case has had little to no controversy.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you need to get outside opinions (besides Luke) that can be arranged. See WP:Dispute resolution. If you seem to be using procedural gimmicks to push Luke out of the picture, that can backfire on you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that editors agree that some kind of a capital 'B' with one or more vertical strokes through it can be included in the 'Symbol' line of the infobox, as a symbol for Bitcoin, analogous to the '$' for dollars. It appears that Luke-Jr made an entry in the infobox here on October 3 in which two alternative versions of the B symbol are included. It appears to me that there is now only one symbol in the infobox, so somebody must have removed Luke's alternative. In Luke's edit summary he says "Both symbols per agreement reached on Talk page." Has Talk:Bitcoin#Removed non-citations from the second symbol reached a consensus on this? If any more reverts occur before clear consensus is found, the article may be protected against editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It appears that consensus might be found to use an image of a double-stroked B in place of the composed Unicode symbol that Luke originally wanted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

Requesting page be locked. Article Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union has more than 3 reverts by an anonymous IP address...Posting a URL as a source to their commentary that I can not locate anywhere else nor find in published and or peer reviewed sources..

Here is the content added.

According to the Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Pimen, "I must say with a full sense of responsibility that there has not been a single instance of anyone having been tried or detained for his religious beliefs in the Soviet Union. Moreover, Soviet laws do not provide for punishment for "religious beliefs". Believe it or not - religion is a personal matter in the Soviet Union. [11]
This comment appears to be posted on an unreliable and unverifiable source.

Diffs

• 1. [12]
• 2. [13]
• 3. [14]
• 4. [15]

Since this IP continues to post this comment even after it has been repeatedly removed. I request that the page be locked out from anonymous editing for a duration of time set by your discretion.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a month, since the edit warring doesn't show good intentions. I recommend posting on the talk page so newcomers to the article can understand the issue. The material being added might be germane, but puts undue weight on the single opinion of a religious official who might be assumed to be an ally of the regime he is defending. Historians evidently think differently about the existence of persecution. judging from the listed sources. This is complex enough to explain on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)