User talk:EdJohnston

RogerThatOne72

This user is still adding stacks of content promoting Yogi Bhajan to the kundalini page.[1] I've removed it again but I have little doubt he will soon be back. I'm thinking of taking it to AN/I if he turns up again - I can't block him myself since I have edited the page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Roger's last edit was in June. My suggestion would be to open a new section on the article talk page in which you link to all the past discussions of the Yogi Bhajan disputes. This might serve as an introduction to the problem for anyone who wants to look into the matter. If that were done, you could either open an RfC or make a post at WP:NPOVN as needed. You could also leave a warning for the new editor User:Sparkadelic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure such actions will help much. NPOVN doesn't have teeth and RFC's often prove ineffective. I'm inclined to simply take the matter to AN or AN/I to see if I can get some quick action. I'm really tired of seeing Wikipedia being misused as a vehicle for promotion of causes, it's doing enormous harm to the project's credibility and it's something we should have no tolerance for. But I'll keep in mind your suggestion to make a list of prior disputes on this topic, it should be helpful in making a case. Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

3 years and 7 months... go figure.

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you have a word

Hi EdJohnston, could you have a word with this editor on a matter which you recently addressed. Having made my position very clear as to their posting on my User talk page, which was causing me exasperation from interacting with the editor and resulting in the request for Arb enforcement. Having made the request not once, but twice, they continue to post in a condescending manner and despite removing their posts, they continue to post, and revert me when I remove them. This has happened despite clear edit summaries, all to no effect describing my edit as vandalism then saying they did not mean to. Making a baseless accusation of wiki hounding is of little interest to me, but could you just ask them to stop posting on my talk page. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism edit was an accident that occurred due to hitting the wrong button on Twinkle; hence why I reverted it straight away. Why would I do that on purpose? As for all this "condescending" business, I fail to see how asking for an explanation in the nicest and most mature way I possibly could is in any way condescending. If you trawl my contributions and revert constructive edits without so much as an edit summary, I'm going to ask you why. JonChapple^Talk 19:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

if you look at the edit history of José Carlos Fernández Vázquez, you will find several IPs from an English-based anon "user" whom i suspect is on my case for nearly two years now, after i blocked some IPs/protected some pages due to disruptive editing.

As you can clearly see from this edit (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=prev&oldid=445143881), this is both vandalism and a personal attack (well on my personal work at WP), this guy even went the extra mile as to remove the AEK ATHENS F.C. PLAYERS category even though it is that of the club where he plays NOW! He also removed the category SPANISH EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS (meaning a footballers which is playing outside his country, he's a Spaniard playing in Greece), he's trying to get on my nerve and he's succeeding. Plus, he has a vast array of IPs.

Please have a look to some of the messages i sent him explaining what he was adding to the article was WRONG (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.163.52.66 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.163.205.60). Of course, if he is who i think he is (not an AEK football fan, but a vandal who's after me trying me to lose it - and succeeding!), this means nothing.

Appreciate everything you can provide in help/assistance, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there are some good contributions from this IP range, so a rangeblock would be hard to justify. Please list all the IPs that you believe have been causing trouble. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• As i mentioned before, due to his vast array of IPs, i expected something in the order of a page protection. However, am at a loss: with my first diff, where the guy is CLEARLY seen removing stuff that is correct in categories (and he did it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=next&oldid=437919776 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=440477775&oldid=440418181 as well!), i thought it was crystal clear he was trying to annoy me, but OK. Sorry Ed, i know you seem quite confused as you are not very adept in soccer stuff (correct me if i'm wrong), but it's vandalism (if i removed U.S. PRESIDENTS category in Barack Obama three times would it be good faith?)!

Also, as you ask, here are ALL the English IPs in José Carlos' article: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.44.152), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.166.188.25), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.205.60), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.53.152), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.52.66) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.206.80). Some "good contributions"?? Most edits with these IPs are in the article i bring to your attention, undoing my work! Again, keep in mind: whether it's a genuine AEK fan, or the English punk that's been on my case for TWO (two!) years, they are removing valid information (categories, stats in infobox inflated) and writing in POV/WEASEL manner (if you take a quick glance at this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=445144583&oldid=445144482 - just the AEK ATHENS part, you'll see it's filled with unreferenced - and FALSE, trust me! - information.

If you can't or won't do anything, never mind, i'll be ready for the VANDAL (what he is nothing less nothing more, i have tried to approach him politely, he says - without talking - "up yours") when (not if, WHEN) he returns. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected José Carlos Fernández Vázquez per your slightly more clear explanation. There is too much good faith activity in the 86.163.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) range to allow a block of the entire range. This is the smallest range that would cover all of his IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Help! Part 2

Thanks for the above ED!

Another serious matter: after extensive talkpage discussions, the Quique Sánchez Flores article was changed to Quique Flores, as the person is known more as the latter in the English media and football circles. A Colombian anon user (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.84.23.35), kept reverting us (even calling people vandals! see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores&diff=435871016&oldid=435866861) and now (am 99,9999999% sure it's him) changed it again. Ah, and he did not participate in the discussion, other than saying "it's his name" (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores).

Could you please duly change it back? This lack of respect for other people's work as got to stop. I also would like to know (even if you don't change title of article) if it's possible to see if the user i mention above and the account that did this, User:Xxxx693, are the same person. Thanks, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• As you see, per this message i have just received (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=cur), the page being re-moved is backedup, not me just throwing a wiki-tantrum. I've also filed a report here. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for the mistake. Was going to fix both situations, but someone already beat me to it... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

*Bonking myself in the head*

I should have asked you before doing so, so slap me with a trout or hammerhead shark or whatever, but I unblocked Rainbowwrasse. They pledged in an unblock appeal to not only stop edit-warring, but to immediately engage in a discussion to resolve the conflict. My unblock was accompanied by a strong warning not to revert any further, with an explanation why we don't allow any to engage in edit wars. I'll watch their user talk page to see that they don't get up to any further shenanigans. But again, I should have asked you first, so I apologize. -- Atama頭 18:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for explaining. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for engaging in edit warring, and also for not making it clear in my response that I will adhere to Wikipedia policies. I do realize that the block was justified, no matter what my reasons for repeated reversion were. It will not happen again. I was frustrated at the time and should have known better. As you know, I felt that my edits were simply being dismissed with no explanation, and that no real discussion was taking place. The discussion has since become more civil and productive. Again, sorry for the trouble. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard

I did the last time, and I was blocked anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill clinton history

Hi, you recently blocked Bill clinton history for 31 hours as a consequence of edit warring. He has come straight back and started again - removing validly cited content from Jaffrelot, inserting copyvios, reinserting material which they had previously added & which had been removed because the sources simply do not support the statements etc. What can I do about this? They have even told me not to post stuff on their talk page. diff of some recent edits. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant to add ... I am sorry for loading you with a couple of rather cryptic reports at WP:AN3 over the last couple of days. Your summaries said things one heck of a lot better than my original reports did. I intend to learn by your example (but really would rather not have to file the things in the first instance!). - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Letting you know about this Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being the one posting this, I was disturbed in real life by my family. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See diff.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Gold standard

I see you have semi-protected Gold standard for 3 months. I'm not sure it is the best thing for the article to semi-protect it for so long. A lot of good contributions come to that article from unregistered users, and the recent edit warring by an IP-user is the first of those in quite a long time. I think it would be better if we just start with a week long semi-protection, and then see how things are going. A lot of newbies quite quickly see that edit-warring doesn't get you anything.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I reduced the semi-protection to one week. Let's see how it goes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Clinton History

Sir,i reverted only irrlevent statement from the section.section was on origin of Yadav But the statement had nothing about origin.the origional contributer did not revert my edit on this particular topic.moreover the statement had incomplete detail of yadav castes.so i edited another statement with well cited information.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, I did not revert because it would just sustain the warring. That does not mean that I agree with your removal or that it was correct. Your own sources for a completely different statement are (a) old, (b) in many cases only available in snippet view, and (c) often full of words such as "probably", "could be" and "claim". Despite the recent WP:DRN thread you are still showing a tendency not to appreciate what constitutes a reliable source and which ones should be selected in the event that there are several available.

If you felt that it was in the wrong section then the correct thing to do is to move it to a more appropriate section, not delete the thing. I have a gut feeling that you are a Yadav yourself and it is getting in the way of your ability to contribute neutrally. Obviously, I do not expect you to confirm or deny this but the signs are that there is some sort of vested interest on your part. It might be worth you reading about conflicts of interest, just for some useful background information.

EdJohnston, I apologise for commenting here. It would have been better placed on Bill's own talk page had their response to your enquiry not been posted here. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now had to issue another warning for edit warring, together with yet another explanation of why the article cannot mention the points which BCH desires to include. BCH reverted despite a similar explanation on the article talk page, to which BCH even responded. It is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you might open a WP:Request for comment about the connection between the Yadavs and Yadava. This could be advertised in the usual ways and it might serve to bring in more editors. At this point you should be looking for a consensus to back up your position. I don't know if you feel that this point has already been discussed and adequately resolved at Talk:Yadav. If so you could make a post there summarizing those discussions. If admins see this is as just a two-person dispute between you and Bch, it may be hard to get them to intervene. If you can frame the issue properly, WP:RS/N might help as well. I see there is previous mention of Yadav at RSN on 12 August but on a different issue. It is possible that the Yadav/Yadava issue is too confusing for RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is BCH vs at least three others (myself, MatthewVanitas, Qwyrxian). BCH has thrown tens of citations at the article and its talk page without once providing the link. OTOH, there is clear evidence of dubiety even in the best of the sources they have provided & there are also sources which deny it (one of which is Jaffrelot & the point is specifically made in the article). This has been gone through time and again with BCH, and not just by me. It is an "I don't like it" situation. BCH has been getting away with it for too long now. This is the second suggestion for an RFC of a caste article issue that I have had today, both of which look likely to be a necessary evil. If people just followed the policies and guidelines etc then the RFCs would simply not be required. I think that the issue here is RFCU more than RFC about the content, especially since BCH always avoids the point (they ignore requests for a specific cite of the Yadav/Yadava connection, for example, and of course have ignored your request to show anyone else who agrees with them). I am fed up of people running rings round the "system" but will have a think. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the above was a little intemperate. It says what I feel but omitted the most important bit: thanks for the input. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin‎

Ta William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:History of Morocco

hi

i answered about it here: [2]

Dzlinker (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cockaboose Railroad

In 1990, cabooses renovated in Gamecock colors and decor became part of the already famous South Carolina tailgate scene. They sit on a dormant railroad track just yards from Williams-Brice Stadium and have taken on a life of their own, in terms of parties on game days. The Cockaboose Railroad has contributed to Carolina's gameday atmosphere being named "Best in the SEC" twice by SECsports.com.

Above is the text I copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football in the traditions section. Can you add the reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caboose#Preservation_and_reuse_of_cabooses. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famu98ee (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have already added the information at Caboose. You might consider adding a link to http://gamecocksonline.cstv.com/trads/scar-trads.html#Cockaboose%20Railroad as a reference in Caboose. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Do what you volunteered for

ARBPIA says nothing about needing a template to notify an editor. However, it is clear that there should be counseling before action. You have blocked someone without even explaining why. I agree that the block is probably the best course of action but you should at least attempt to offer support before something that is completely negative to an editor's growth. SCptnono (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Conventional ARPIA sanctions need a warning in advance, but Arbcom agrees that 1RR violations do not need any preliminaries. He was even warned explicitly that he had violated 1RR and asked to self-revert, but would do not do so. Article 1RR restrictions work the same across all of Wikipedia. We only require that the person have had a reasonable chance to become aware that article was under a 1RR at the time they crossed it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then there is the duration... is 72 hours for a first block not excessive? Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if you allowed to do it. It matters if it was right or not. You volunteered to help out the project. It is often considered more beneficial to discuss with an editor than to template and block. Asking someone to self-revert and a generic template is much different than actually breaking down what is going on in the topic area and why their actions are so frowned upon. And four months is not around that long. You do not have to promote a more hospitable editing environment but as an admin you should want to do more than what you did. But if you chose to be defensive instead of considering the criticism then so be it. And I agree that 72 is excessive and counterproductive.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would like you to comment as an interested party. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help...

..with regard to the category issue but how do you suggest I approach editing of Anti-Estonian sentiment and the tagging and AfD that I linked in my last AE statement? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your questions here. I see no reason why you can't vote in an AfD and give your opinion. You are still not able to reply to him directly, or ask him any questions in your AfD comments. In any article, you can't revert his changes, but you can advocate for changes on the talk page, and possibly some other editor will take care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)