User talk:EdJohnston

Cyprus

• Courtier1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikrobølgeovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks for your advisory Ed. This is going to be tricky, but there are some serious allegations involved, and yes I have a feeling that ARBMAC may need to be invoked. Once I figure out what I think should be done, I will discuss my proposed actions with you - two's far better than one in this situation!! Many thanks again for dropping by. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am beginning to consider an interaction ban may be wise for Ron1978 and Mikrobolgeovn, as well as a prohibition on editing certain pages. I would also like to list List of wars involving Cyprus for deletion, as it is a very short list better incorporated into textual articles that can include more context. Thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that one party in this dispute is more warlike than the others. But what do you think about issuing ARBMAC alerts to both Courtier1978 and Mikrobølgeovn? The connection of the Cyprus dispute to Greece (which falls under ARBMAC) seems to be well enough established by a reading of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 124#Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus. You and I previously discussed this at User talk:Buckshot06#Further comment about List of wars involving Cyprus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we can issue discretionary sanctions. The question is what sanctions should be imposed. As a start I will formally advise them both that ARBMAC applies and discretionary sanctions are allowable, whether or not they know that already; it'll serve as a warning. Happy to hear what sanctions you believe ought to be imposed, which should be placed where the blaim lies, not just blanket-equally. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ARBMAC DS were dismissed as inapplicable in Cyprus-related topics by Sandstein during my AE report against now-blocked sock Alexyflemming. Dr. K. 02:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We can still leave notices independent of these issues. Many of the Cyprus disputes involve mainland Greece. Enosis was asking for reunion with what country? EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was my opinion also if you recall. However, Sandstein's close looks pretty definite to me irrespective of the connections to Greece. Perhaps we need to consult him before issuing warnings only to be rebuffed at AE. Also there was the issue that Arbcom did not cover Cyprus under ARBMAC. Dr. K. 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's too soon to ask Arbcom to look at Cyprus again, especially in the waning days of 2015. But if you check the vote in 2012, some arbs were prepared to extend sanctions to Cyprus, and others would have considered it if either a full case or an abbreviated case were opened about specific misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point about the timing. Perhaps a new Arbcom could address this problem through a case request either in general terms or specific to Cyprus. Dr. K. 04:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is fair to let you know, that all three editors that we have been involved in this, we have finally agreed on the issues and that the dispute has been resolved.Ron1978 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If an agreement has been reached, can you link to where that has occurred? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It has occurred here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cypriot_intercommunal_violence and verified again here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus#UnprotectRon1978 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

I'm trying my best to avoid reporting an editor. He doesn't believe me when I claim/assert/state that he has broken the IR rule. See User:Debresser here, who has a long history of being warned this,this this for the most recent examples). On reflection I always require a tutor to clarify this to me when the charge is laid against myself. To avoid AE or some other forum, and the inevitable to-and-fro of argufying from interested parties, and also punitive measures, I wonder if you could do me the courtesy of glancing over the diffs there, and either advising me I am wrong, or informing Dovid that the rule has been broken, as the case may be?. Sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not take this to User:NeilN. He is the admin who most recently applied full protection to Jewish Israeli stone throwing. I can see arguments both ways, so I don't know about the 1RR violation. But there is clearly a dispute. If somebody took this to WP:AN3 the article would most likely get protected again, unless we had an offer from each party to pursue dispute resolution before reverting. (Or, as an alternative, a different admin might say it really is a 1RR violation). EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thank Ed.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrator action requested

See talk page of 2015 Thalys train attack and see the RFC. It has been weeks. Please incorporate the RFC results in the article. This requires administrative action because non admins can't do it. Thanks. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The article was fully protected for a month on October 1 per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Sandra opposed to terrorism. At present there is no open RfC on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack and no edit request. If you have a specific idea of what to do, why not ask User:HighinBC, who indicated on talk that he was prepared to help. Anyway the protection expires in two days. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you see that there is a concluded rfc where the decision was to use the compromise? (About the train crew running away) Would you make the edit to enforce the decision. This would avoid an edit war since you are a neutral admin. Thank you. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The result of the RfC was general and open-ended. Better for someone familiar with the issues to carry it out. Anyway, protection has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Libesruinssineced is back at "List of multiple discoveries"

• Libesruinssineced (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Libesruinssineced, ignoring your warnings, is once more back at "List of multiple discoveries" (please see [1] here).

Is there any way to definitively stop his wrongheaded tampering with the article?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for L. to respond to my latest warning before deciding what to do. He's made no edits since 29 October. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

He appears to have made further edits today, 3 November 2015, as "78.149.192.253" (please see [2] here).

He has not reverted his objectionable edits of 29 October 2015. Nihil novi (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Relisting Process for Page Moves

Ed, since you have participated in discussions regarding Page Moves and the relisting process, I invite you to share your own comments over at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - there is an existing discussion regarding formally banning relisters from voting. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Commented at WT:RM. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RCU on WP:FR

Hello,

It doesn't matter much but:

• S’il y en a un de ceux mentionnés ci-dessus qui est à rapprocher de RodriguezWissam, c’est Anticyclone à banias ; même FAI, et certaines caractéristiques techniques en commun. Après, comme ce sont des plages dynamiques, difficile d’être formel. schlum =^.^= 30 octobre 2015 à 11:37 (CET)

means:

• If there is one of those mentioned here above who is to be linked to RodriguezWissam [a banned account], it is Anticyclone à banias ; same FAI and some other technical caracteristic in common. After, these are dynamic ranges [of IP], difficult to be sure. [signature]

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is regarding WP:AE#Anticyclone à banias. There has been a discussion on Anticyclone's talk page which he has now blanked. A link was provided to a French Wikipedia checkuser case which to me seems inconclusive. The most they would say was the passage you quoted above. I guess FAI is the equivalent of our ISP. I'd probably need to see more edits here on the English Wikipedia by User:Anticyclone à banias before deciding what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston,

I understand. And wp:en is not wp:fr.

FYI: he has just been blocked as sock of a banned user. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Continued from WP:AN/EW#User:Davidwr reported by IP editor (Result: Semi)

Note: Original WP:AN/EW discussion is likely to be archived to 298 or 299 soon.

Begin text copied from WP:AN/EW[3]

Is there anything I should have done differently?

What is the best way to attract other editors to this page to discuss what this article should include (specifically, what is the consensus opinion of the practical definitions of accredited and diploma mill and what does it "take" for an institution that was rightfully put on either list in the past to be removed?). Of course this editor - whether registered or not - would be welcome to participate in such a discussion (however - any editor with any WP:Conflict of interest would of course be expected to declare such a conflict - this especially includes editors who have connections to accreditation agencies or government agencies whose "approval" is relevant to the definitions of these terms).

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have a couple of ideas but would prefer if you would open a section on my User talk and ask the question there. I'd start by asking people who participated in the two AfDs of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, even though the AfDs are in the past. If memory serves, User:DGG and User:John Vandenberg have had some thoughts about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

End copied text

Okay, I've opened the discussion here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My view:

Diploma mill is a subset of unaccredited; the two should not be confused.

In my opinion a list of unaccredited institutions divided by country would be more useful if it includes both those unaccredited in their own country. and those in that country that have been explicitly refused accreditation elsewhere. The problem of course is that most institutions do not apply for accreditation in every possible country, and therefore such a list would need to be selective, and include those for which there are references that they have been explicitly refused accreditation in a major country, or that have been so reported in very reliable 3rd party sources. They have to be indicated separately to avoid confusion. To make the scope manageable that aspect could reasonably be mainly concerned with those schools refused accreditation by any of the major English speaking countries.

A list of diploma mills would be those so considered by reliable 3rd party authorities in any country. We do not currently have so a list. It could reasonably be written & I think it should. The country -by-country descriptions in the Diploma mill article are bad in several respects: first, they confuse unaccredited with diploma mill--the list of hwat each country counts as an accredited institution belongs in an article on that topic. Most countries do not define Diploma mill exactly, so a list of those definitions would be appropriate, but it would be much shorter. Second, the inclusion of institutions here is erratic and arbitrary, and gives excessive weight to the onres that are included. that information belongs in a List of Diploma mills/List of unaccredited, depending on what they say.

In general, ambiguous or disputed situations for a particular school need to be explained--they can not always be summarized in word or two. Th efull description belongsi nthe article on the institution. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

These sound like good ideas. Any objection to linking to this discussion from Talk:Diploma mill and Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education?

Also, in some if not most disputed cases where the article doesn't clearly show that the institution meets WP:CORP (absent the "nearly free pass" that is given to meaningfully-accredited schools as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), there will be no article about the institution because it will be PRODded away or will fall to RfA AfD (sidebar: whether a "disputed case" school's article falls to RfA AfD or not may depend more on the RfA AfD participants than the content of the article and its references or the reputation of the school). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection to making links. Not sure what you mean by 'RfA.' Did you mean to say AfD? EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been preoccupied with that AfD RfA reform proposal (that, and getting ready to celebrate the 5 Millions article). Thanks for the catch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Very broadly agree with DGG's summary and suggestions on future improvement of this topical area.

I'm still trying to work out the specifics of this 'edit war'; is this about the 11 institutions in Mexico? If so, which ones specifically are being contested? If not, please help me out and give specific names for the contested institutions so I can familiarise myself with them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there are 3 schools that are contested: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Atlantic International University and Alliant International University. The Atlantic international University article was deleted although it would seem to pass the AfD criteria referred to earlier, specifically: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools 73.49.178.221 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've slept since the last time I had the answer to that question so I don't have it in my head anymore. I'll have to re-read it in order to answer your question, and I'll need to sleep again before I do that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 10:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The List of unaccredited institutions of higher education needs to be updated and the schools mentioned below needs to be removed

Akamai University accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164

Atlantic International University accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164

Delta International University of New Orleans accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c1642605:E000:6009:9700:C03B:642B:A7BB:5228 (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, any discussion about the inclusion of Delta International University of New Orleans should be held on the talk page at List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. In the normal sense of accreditation of degree programs, I can't find any evidence that Delta is accredited. It is on the list of institutions recognized by ASIC but it seems they don't accredit degrees. Plus, how significant is it for Delta to be recognized by a UK organization when it is based in the USA. Our article on Delta says that the State of Louisiana expected them to apply to apply to ACICS by 2012 but that organization's web site says nothing about Delta. The page at http://www.delta-university.org/?P=accreditation says that Delta are a member of CHEA but the CHEA list that they link to does not include their name. The wording of Delta's accreditation page seems to studiously avoid the issues. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok EdJohnston, just an FYI, there are two different accrediting agencies. One accredits the institution and the other accredits the program which is called "programmic accreditation" also known as specialized or professional accreditation. Its designed for specialized departments, programs, schools or colleges within and institution (e.g., School of Law, School of Business, School of Engineering etc..) Programmic accreditation looks for specific aspects of a department to which the institution that has accreditation, it's an extra accreditation. There is no such accreditation agency that accredits the actual "Degree" hence the reason for the institutions being accredited. Here's reference. See Q and A's regarding accreditation. See this. 2605:E000:6009:9700:C03B:642B:A7BB:5228 (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My role in this was only to handle the edit warring complaint. Any content discussion should take place at Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education or other suitable venue. If agreement can't be found, consider a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Warith Deen Umar and User:TruthNeverLies

Greetings! Yesterday, you semi-protected Warith Deen Umar. Today, a new account was created, TruthNeverLies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That account immediately started editing Umar's article: moving it to a new title, removing sourced paragraphs, and adding unsourced paragraphs. He also claimed to be a relative of Umar, although he later recanted that statement.

Since you handled the protection yesterday, would you care to opine on whether this account is continuing in the same vein as yesterday's disruption, or is this likely a new editor? —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Four days ago, the account was created. The account was created 13 minutes after 41.151.92.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) edited the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If you wanted to block User:TruthNeverLies one month for abusing multiple accounts, that would be logical. The block could be lifted as soon as he agreed to start following Wikipedia policy. If more registered accounts get created with the same pattern then an SPI could be filed. In case it's relevant, the reverting IPs that I checked were all from South Africa. The biographical details for Warith Deen Umar can be attested from places such as the New York Times. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

	We couldn't have done it without you
	Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good. Celebrate 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface

So you plan to leave the article with incorrect information? And a lack of information? Shouldn't it be reverted to before any of the recent edits were made to the infobox? WikIan -(talk) 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not propose your version on the talk page? Start an RfC if you wish. Over the last month more than a dozen people have edited the article. If your version gets general support, someone else will make the edit. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Onefortyone

• Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Onefortyone is active again and engaged in similar behavior to what has gotten him sanctioned numerous times. I've taken a deeper look into his edits—he is quite intent on introducing poorly sourced gossip about Elvis Presley and related subjects into various articles. His edits generally pass WP:V (although I've found page number mismatches) but the source material is very poor (second and third-hand gossip and theories) and certainly has significant issues with WP:RS and WP:PROFRINGE. I've avoided dealing with him as an admin because I've had conflict with him in the past as FAC Coordinator when I nearly had to have him banned from participating at FAC. But, this will almost certainly end up AN/I again. Someone is socking to edit war with him, which will likely become a red herring when dealing with Onefortyone's behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume the articles now in question are

• Graceland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Personal relationships of Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Memphis Mafia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Toilet-related injuries and deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The other editor you're talking about must be Excelse (talk · contribs). At first glance I've no idea who is more likely to be right about including this material. There is also a thread at WP:RSN about the Presley articles that was just opened by User:Hoary.

There was an arb case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone back in 2005. Per this remedy he was placed on probation regarding biographies of celebrities. "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." It seems that provision is still in effect and so an AE complaint is theoretically possible. The data would need to be very clear. I'll watch for now but am not planning on taking any action myself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this matter. I responded to the RS/N thread to demonstrate that this is an example of the exact behavior Onefortyone is on probation to prevent. He deliberately misinterpreted and combined sources in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to write that Elvis died on the toilet, and then edit warred to keep it in when it was challenged. I don't have a POV about Elvis (Onefortyone frequently claims he is targeted by "Elvis fans") and I don't have a horse in this race other than the general interest in keeping poorly sourced and fringe theories out of Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are not well informed about my "probation". It is true that in 2005 I was taken to arbitration because some of my contributions were not in line with the opinion of one or two other editors. However, my opponents in this case were later banned from the related articles because of their false accusations. Here is what the arbcom says: "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See [4]. Therefore, my opponent Lochdale, who had shown "evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" and "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley," was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." It could well be that Excelse and his sockpuppets are identical with Lochdale or another editor who attacked me some years ago in a similar way. Interestingly, Excelse and his sockpuppets have only removed Elvis-related paragraphs that are not in line with their personal opinion, among them quotations from reliable sources. See [5], [6], [7], [8]. Interestingly, the consensus for allowing many of those sources now in question in the articles' texts has stood for many years. As Excelse says in one of his edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see [9]), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars, for which he was banned from Elvis-related articles. Onefortyone (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointer to the second arb case. Per the terms of the 2006 decision, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis#Onefortyone on probation, your probation on 'articles which concern celebrities' is reaffirmed. If you continue to edit war about Elvis material, any admin can choose to invoke the sanctions and ban you from editing Elvis-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not understand why my probation is still in effect, as all of my edits are well sourced. Concerning the death of Elvis, according to many independent sources there can be no doubt that the singer died on the toilet. Here is a clear statement by Greil Marcus from his study, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (Harvard University Press 1991): "Elvis died on the toilet" (p.154). Some other sources:

Material that belongs on the talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dylan Jones, Elvis Has Left the Building: The Day the King Died (New York and London 2014), chapter 2: The Day Elvis Died: "Elvis Presley died aged fortytwo on August 16th, 1977, in the bathroom of the star's own Graceland mansion in Memphis. Sitting on the toilet, he had toppled like a toy soldier and collapsed onto the floor, where he lay in a pool of his own vomit. His light blue pyjamas were around his ankles." Joel Williamson, Elvis Presley: A Southern Life (Oxford University Press 2015): "For some reason—perhaps involving a reaction to the codeine and attempts to move his bowels—he experienced pain and fright while sitting on the toilet. Alarmed, he stood up, dropped the book he was reading, stumbled forward, and fell face down in the fetal position. He struggled weakly and drooled on the rug. Unable to breathe, he died." (p.18) Victor Pross, "Elvis Presley: Universal Rock Icon", in Icons & Idols: Pop Goes the Culture (Bloomington, IN 2009): "Elvis Presley died, at age 42, in 1977 in Memphis. It was an ignominious tumble off a toilet into a pool of vomit, but it heralded perhaps the most glorious resurrection in pop culture history." (p.11) Joel Williamson, "Graceland", in William E. Leuchtenburg, American Places: Encounters with History (Oxford University Press 2000): "It was … a wall-to-wall red rug in an upstairs bathroom with threeinch pile in which Elvis died face down, having risen from his reputedly wallhung black ceramic toilet with a seat padded in imitation black leather and having collapsed in the proximity of teddy bears, empty syringes, and an illustrated book of Asian derivasion that coordinated the birth dates of men and women with certain cosmically optimal sexual positions." Frank Coffey, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Elvis (1997): "Hospital officials present at the autopsy later admitted that Elvis died from polypharmacy— multiple drug ingestion. Other examinations of the evidence have yielded other plausible causes of Elvis' death, including: a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use); anaphylactic shock (caused by either an extreme allergic reaction or reaction to potent — i.e., street — drugs); even suffocation (after blacking out) on the thick carpeting of his bathroom." (p.247) Charles Reagan Wilson, "The Death of Southern Heroes: Historic Funerals of the South," Southern Cultures, Volume 1 (Duke University Press, Fall 1994), p.17: "Presley died at Graceland of massive drug abuse that led to heart failure while he sat on the toilet reading a book on the Shroud of Turin. He was discovered face down on the plush red carpet." John Voelz, King Me (Littleton, CO 2010): "I was a kid when The King died on his throne. On August 16th, 1977, Elvis Presley died in his Graceland mansion. On the toilet. Well, on the floor. After he fell off the toilet. Not a very “kingly” way to go." (p.10). Warren Allen Smith, Who's who in Hell: A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalists, Rationalists, and Non-theists (Barricade Books 2000): "Two who literally died 'on the throne', as the toilet stool is sometimes called, were singers Judy Garland and Elvis Presley." (p.1098) Onefortyone (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Last but not least, here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about Elvis's death at Graceland: The only thing that appeared to have been missed, aside from the empty syringes, was the book that Elvis had in the bathroom with him when he died, a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs. Warlick found a stain on the bathroom carpeting, too, that seemed to indicate where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet. It looked to the medical investigator as if he had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died." ... nine pathologists from Baptist cond acted the examination in full knowledge that the world was watching but that the results would be released to Elvis' father alone. ... Francisco announced the results of the autopsy, even as the autopsy was still going on. Death, he said, was "due to cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat." ... But there were in fact at that time no results to report. The autopsy proper went on for another couple of hours. Specimens were collected and carefully preserved, the internal organs were examined and the heart found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary atherosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been "mobile and functional within eight hours of his death." It was certainly possible that he had been taken while "straining at stool," and no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing. The pathologists, however, were satisfied to wait for the lab results, which they were confident would overrule Dr. Francisco's precipitate, and somewhat meaningless, announcement, as indeed they eventually did. There was little disagreement in fact between the two principal laboratory reports and analyses filed two months later, with each stating a strong belief that the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity. Codeine appeared at ten times the therapeutic level, methaqualone (Quaalude) in an arguably toxic amount, three other drugs appeared to be on the borderline of toxicity taken in and of themselves, and "the combined effect of the central nervous system depressants and the codeine" had to be given heavy consideration. See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp.651-652. This latter source was quoted by me. I do not understand what should be wrong with this source. To my mind, some Elvis fans are trying to remove this well-sourced information from Elvis-related articles, as it is not in line with their personal view of the mega-star. Onefortyone (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Having edits that you consider well-sourced is not enough. You need to convince the other participants on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached, you can open an WP:RFC or use the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I do not understand why I need to convince other editors, if studies from university presses and other reliable sources are cited in order to support my edits. Onefortyone (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is basic on Wikipedia. See WP:CON. Stuff does not get in merely by being sourced, it gets in through the agreement of editors that it belongs. If you and User:Excelse continue to revert each other on Elvis articles, admin action is likely. You should wait for a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I fear it will not be possible to reach consensus here, as the other user is simply removing well-sourced content. You should also take into account that Excelse and his sockpuppets are new users whose edits are nothing more than an attempt to remove content from Elvis-related pages that is not in line with their personal opinion, but was part of these articles for many years. Onefortyone (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Laser Brain and User:Onefortyone, do you think that this static IP was me? Obviously it was not me. I have told before too, that I had one of these articles on my watchlist and when I saw that Onefortyone has been indeed trolling by calling fair edits a vandalism,[10] now at this situation any editor would want to look up the recent contribution history of such editor. That's what I did and reverted him. When I made this edit, I had actually found out that Onefortyone has been the only editor who makes these edits and these edits have no confirmation since his insertions[11] outside wikipedia than gossip forums. While other editors always removes such content,[12][13] Onefortyone inserts back,[14][15] despite no consensus on talk page.[16]

For deeper analysis of his edits, read this discussion. I made discussion on his talk page, because he was floating same material on at least five articles and making discussion on each article talk page is only repetitive. He has not discussed about content, and only made attacks.

I am editing for 2 years, and I edited Elvis article[17] before too.

What I have seen about Onefortyone is:-

• He canvasses.[18][19]
• He misrepresent and make false sources :- Once again he has tendentiously reinserted this material, even though I had told[20] him that the source [21] is from 1995, and it is not even mentioning Graceland or saying that Biltmore is 2nd most visited.
• Edit wars. Like explained above.
• He don't discuss content, he only make personal attacks[22] and call fair edits a vandalism.[23][24][25][26]

This all comes from last 5 days, if we make a list of his last 10 years of disruption, it would be huge.

I have already noted about this recent edit, now talking about other one, he use a source[27] that regard it as "plausible theory" and not "authentic theory", and treats it as similar as other theory that Elvis died from Bone Cancer. These edits came after you had warned him not to make any more controversial edits.[28]

Onefortyone has already proven that he is not going to consider any warnings and he is not going to give up disrupting these articles. If it is possible to ban or block him for stopping this disturbance, then it should be done. Even if he gives up making these edits he will return after a few weeks and create this drama again. Excelse (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits are not disruptive, as I am citing many reliable sources supporting my contributions. Query: did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments for his massive removals of content? No, he didn't. Where are his reliable sources contradicting my edits? I have cited many independent sources supporting my contributions. And this is what counts on Wikipedia, not the personal opinions of some Elvis fans. See also this discussion. Onefortyone (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protection for Medieval Bulgarian army

Hi EdJohnston. I saw that you protected Medieval Bulgarian Army. I am wondering if you might take a look at WT:AN#BulgariaSources because I think the "MBA" IP edits may possibly be related in some way to the edits discussed in the linked ANI thread based upon [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], and [35], etc. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)