User talk:EdJohnston

Editor Cihsai

Hi Ed. Can you please take a look at editor Cihsai. Through the course of this year, he has edited no other article besides the Hemshin peoples and has made no other contribution to it beside removing/reverting a crucial part of the lead, which states that the Hemshin people are believed to have an Armenian origin and which is well sourced. He has carried out the same edit time and time again and has obliquely referred to a "discussion on the talk page", which he has never bothered to make a contribution. I, along with other editors, have reverted such disruptive edits but he persists in making the reverts. I think some sort of action is necessary here and I'd appreciate any help in dealing with this matter. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Notified. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I have seen your message to me. Fact is that the user who complained about me is inserting a statement into the the lead paragraph without discussing it. The lead paragaraph as well as the paragraphs "History" and "Demographics" which are related to the issue are the result of intense discussions and editing compromises from several years ago. Therefore ı beleive the warning should be adressed to the user who is inserting changes without discussion and not to me. ... By the way, it is true that my activity on wikipedia is limited to Hemshin issue; my home region. I wonder whether that is in any way a violation of Wikipedia rules.Cihsai (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You have not participated at Talk:Hemshin since 2008. Yet here you are on 6 November 2013 in this diff where you remove a claim about Armenian origin at the same time as you remove the reference which was intended to support it. If you don't believe that Simonian's book on the Hemshin is a good reference for the claim of Armenian origin, you could try asking for an opinion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In the past year you have reverted the lead 12 times. This looks to be a case of long-term edit warring. If anyone agreed with you, you would not be the only one removing this material. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have inserted a entry in the talk page of the article which may be worthwhile for you to see.. thanksCihsai (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't quite let up. He just continues to revert.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Now topic banned. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I don't mean to raise the alarm bell so quickly again, but just yesterday another user, who has been inactive since 2009, came back to revert the page back to Cihsai's version. The explanations he gave are suspiciously similar to Cihasi's as well. Coincidence? Off-wiki coordination? I can't say for sure, but I thought I'd let you know. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Notified User:Omer182, who has deleted the same material from the lead as Cihsai. Simonian's book has been offered as a reference for the Armenian origin of the Hemshin. If Omer182 doubts the credibility of Simonian's book, he should go through the appropriate discussions to get it removed from the article. Trying to remove it by warring is unlikely to work. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have banned me on grounds that ″I have once again reverted the lead of Hemshin peoples to remove mention of possible Armenian descent, without ever achieving consensus for your views″.:I doubt whether you are fully aware of the following:

• The insertion of “possible Armenian descent” into lead paragraph is done without any prior discussion
• The lead paragraph was a long standing stable paragraph prior to this insertion.
• I have made several reverts because some editors have inserted the same sentence several times.
• By each of my reverts I have requested the inserters to engage in discussion.
• Your “Ban” on me adds up to to your interference into the editing of the article on the side of users who refuse to discuss.
  

Kindly lift the ban and allow me to bring the article back to the stable version.In case you are interested in the details of the article, you are most welcome to participate in the discussion as to whether the insertion is meaningful.

By the way, Hemshin is not in Azarbaijan and has no relation thereto. I was never involved in any article related to Azarbaijan and or numerous Armenian related articles.I understand that the Arbitration decisions cover articles related to the arbitration and that this will be interpreted rather broadly. I still find it rather far fetched when Hemshin People as article and myself as editor are considered to be covered thereunderCihsai (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See the header of the WP:Arbitration enforcement page for the instructions for appealing your ban there. You should use the Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply from Novangelis re: Recurrent laryngeal nerve

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Novangelis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HouseOfArtaxiad

Hi. Is this post not a violation of the topic ban by HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs)? Also, I believe this is not the only edit he's made to AA topics since 15 October. Grandmaster 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no more edits by HOA at Talk:Shusha since 25 November. You should be counting from 15 November because that's when the topic ban was imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. I meant 15 November. And indeed, he made no edits in Wikipedia since 25 November. Grandmaster 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Some help needed

Dear Ed, I guess you remember you blocked me yesterday for war edits on Holodomor article. I'm not going to complain on that, but I would ask you to be my first tutor on en-wiki, as I'm making my first steps here. There is a group of non-neutral editors, who blocking some changes to the article which they do not like. I opened a new topic on talk page — [1] at ample time, but my agruments (proved by quoted RS) were simply ignored, as well as my additions to the article - [2] — even they were proved by RS given. So, my question is: what should be my further actions, in such situation in the article Holodomor, when a group of editors ignoring arguments and doesn't have a will to find consensus? Thanks in advance. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits so far indicate you are a WP:Single purpose account. You seem to be editing various articles to strengthen the Russian side of certain questions. Here at Pavlo Skoropadsky you decide that the Russian spelling of his name must have priority over the Ukrainian. While single-purpose accounts are not forbidden, you must accept it will take you some time to acquire credibility. If you wait to get consensus at Talk:Holodomor before making your changes again, you should not have any problems. If you provide only sources in the Russian language you must accept that English-speaking admins won't figure out what you are doing. In some cases these topics will must surely have been covered in English as well, and taking the time to find English sources would help you persuade others. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer! May be I explained me wrong, but you focused on my intentions in wikipedia, doesn't matter you were right or wrong, but what I asked you, as a newcomer here, what would be NEXT PLATFORM(what page) to discuss conflict at, as I know already for sure, that on talk page of the Holodomor article we will never find consensus with my opponents, as they simply non-neutral and do not want even to pretend to be neutral. As about translation of texts into English - surely I realize this requirement. At the moment of discussion on Holodomor talk page all my correspondents were Russian-speakers. But, definitely, if discussion would go to another level or any new editors wold join the discussion all translations would be done. So, whom should I apply for resolution on my conflict with non-neutral editors on Holodomor article? What would you suggest? HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Content disputes are solved by the editors involved. WP:DR shows ways of getting more people if you think the group is not representative, but I don't think that's your problem. Since you recently added a work by Kulchytsky to the article maybe you can take a look at "A new view of a famine that killed millions". New York Times. 16 March 2009. This quotes Kulchytsky at length and seems to agree that the famine was a political action targeted at Ukrainians which had millions of casualties. Kulchytsky does believe the casualties were more like 3.5 million instead of the higher figures proposed by others. If you want to argue the credibility of a source you can post at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Again many thanks for your answer. So, do you think that WP:DRN would be right place to open a topic at, in case if we do not find consensus on talk page of Holodomor article? And one more question: you wrote above «...I don't think that's your problem» — so, what do you think my problem is? I have feeling that you missunderstand my intentions in the article Holodomor.HOBOPOCC (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to open a thread at WP:DRN or a WP:Request for comment. It helps if you can make a clear statement of what the dispute is about. Before filing at DRN you could leave a note at Talk:Holodomor giving your proposed statement of the dispute. DRN is voluntary so you are depending on others choosing to participate there. My own observation is that the sourcing should be improved. It looks to me that the talk page discussion made some progress on 30 November. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Ed, sorry for bothering you! You know, one of my oponents blaimed me that I «falsified two sources». I think this is seriuos charge and if it's false by nature (and it's false) editor who acting such way should take responsibility for false charge. Can you, please, give me an advise what WP-page should I enter to file a complain against my oponent as regards these false charges? HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you should be able to negotiate a compromise with User:Lvivske. Lvivske and others are saying that there were political decisions taken by Stalin to ensure special famine suffering in the Ukraine. You should be able to study the sources with enough care to see which historians agree with that and which ones disagree. Nobody denies that there was famine outside the Ukraine. So your statement "famine in Ukraine was in context of all Soviet-Union famine" is trivially true, but not very useful for deciding if there was a Holodomor (a worse-than-usual famine that was politically manipulated). EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, since he wants to actually file a complaint against me as his opponent: I pointed out all the issues I had with his cherry picking of source quotes, others agreed. He'd rather fight the fact that I pointed out his issues ("false charges!") rather than actually defend what he did on the talk page. This is getting silly.--Львівське (говорити) 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:HOBOPOCC, if you have no clue on how to collaborate on sourcing with others at Talk:Holodomor it might be simpler to ban you from that topic than cater to your requests for further appeal venues. The other editors are posing reasonable questions to you that you should be able to answer. If you are banned, then you can make your case in the Arbitration enforcement appeal system. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is imposible to find consensus with politicaly non-neutral and hate-motivated group of editors. You wrote yourself now: «So your statement "famine in Ukraine was in context of all Soviet-Union famine" is trivially true», but it was you, who blocked me for edits warring, because my edits, supplied by 4 RSes were deleted by this group of editors by fake reasons. If you are going deeper yourself into discussion on Holodomor article, I want to pay your attention to some words of Assembly Parlamentary of Counsil of Europe Resolution # 1723: Commemorating the victims of the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR... It furthermore encourages the authorities of all these countries to agree on joint activities aimed at commemorating the victims of the Great Famine, regardless of their nationality. Don't you underatsnd that this resolution calls famine as Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR? «Holodomor» — is the name for great famine in Ukraine. But this famine happened not only in Ukraine — this great famine happened «in grain-growing areas of the» USSR, as this Resolution said. And Resolution 1723 correctly, clearly and straight tells about it. Anyhow, I want to make some legal wiki-appropriate steps against editors, who, being not able to defend their edits fair-wiki-way (discussing on oponent's RSes, providing their own Rses proving their position, etc.) are making personal attacks on me and even declaring that I «falsified... sources». Can you help me, please? HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No one can help you, HOBOPOCC, sine you repeatedly show that you do not like to listen comments of other editors. Considering that you define yourself as a Russian Nationalist at Uk-Wiki, I assume that you accept only arguments supporting the controversial hypothesis of Holodomor in context to other famines in USSR. You see only “non-neutral editos”, who basically stop your POV-pushing.--Andrux (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, HOBOPOCC, your reading of Resolution #1723 is indicative of your reading of the article and synthesis you've been pushing on the Holodomor talk page. You have constructed a limited interpretation of the contents and implications. Resolution #1723 at no point states that the COE have closed this chapter and given it a generic title. There is no, "Henceforth, it will be known as the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR for the rest of written history.". How did you manage come to such a conclusion, given that they are encouraging the opening of archives and access to as much information as exists in order that regional 'peculiarities' can be better analysed and understood by researchers from all parts of the world? The Resolution marks a beginning for recognition of the events of that era, not the end. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ed, I'm waiting for your answer. HOBOPOCC (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My advice is to work with the other editors on the talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for your options. You've already opened an WP:RFC. You can pursue the issues that people mention in the RfC, and try to find better sources. I don't see the argument that you are dealing with "politicaly non-neutral and hate-motivated group of editors". Eastern Europe is always difficult and it takes patience. Consider the possibility that you are being outvoted by a group of well-intentioned people. Try to change their minds, if you can. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ed, please, just have a look at posts my opponents made recently: (a) Lvivske «passing a ball»; (b) Iryna Harpy took it and «giving her pass». Productive discussion, doesn't it? Don't you think now that this is pure personal attacks? I paid attention of administrators in the past, and not once, that posts of Iryna Harpy at talk pages contain almost no any subject-related-information, but personal attacks only — one, two — but it wasn't any outcome. Positive input of Iryna Harpy to discussion is almost zero, her posts at their mosts are personal attacks only. How can such beheviour be stopped? HOBOPOCC (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, EdJohnston has already been called in as a third party and has involved himself in as much as is in his capacity (and as much as he feels is prudent). He has provided you with a link to options for other forms of dispute resolution (link above). His work on the matter is done. If you wish to lodge formal complaints against me, by all means do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:BlurredLines at it again immediately following the end of his block

Extended discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sigh! User:BlurredLines has still not learned his lesson following his 48 hour block. Directly following the editor's block—in which he claimed to you that if you'd rescind it, he'd discuss and pursue the matter with me and the others constructively—he made out this bogus report on me at Administrative Noticeboards and sent me this [3] and this [4] at my user talkpage. As you'll be able to note from his report at the ANI Noticeboards, BlurredLines is more than willing to lie, distort and misrepresent the issues to get his way. However, as noted by the respondents at the ANI noticeboards, no one's buying this editor's obvious ploys and the editor is sniping at them for it (as shown here [5]). Beyond that, BlurredLines took it upon himself to not only once again revert the edit that three editors have taken exception to [6], but he has prevented further discussion on the matter by making this response on the talkpage yesterday [7] and then IMMEDIATELY following it by closing the discussion to prevent myself and others from talking out the matter (as shown here [8]. Also, I've been of the impression this editor is on wikibreak multiple times now because announcements like this ([9], [10], [11]). However, the editor will come back shortly thereafter and again start making a ruckus. As you are familiar with this editor's troublesome behaviors, could you be of an assistance. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC) @AmericanDad86: I am not trying to be disruptive here, I provided proof on the edit summary (on The Simpsons) that the link you provided is not reliable. Yes, I did close the discussion because you, and nobody else haven't responded to it in three days, in which I figured you were done with the conversation, as I was too when I closed it. Just because that I reverted you edits because the source isn't reliable, doesn't mean that all of my edits are disruptive, or vandalistic. Also, every word that I said on that report to the AN/I was not lies, mostly you think that because it was all about you, and also my replies were not "snippy", and that's kind of mean to refer to someone's replies like that. Actually, I did learn something from my block, make a noticeboard discussion before reverting, because if I didn't learn anything from my block, I would of reverted it back without putting anything in the edit summary, and give you a notification that your edits were disruptive. Also, I come to differ that I'm back right now, and I am not trying to cause a "ruckus" that you speak of, also as you were reference to my one wikibreak also. Mostly, how can you say I have troublesome behaviors, just because I reverted your edits as I was making points in the edit summaries, that you wouldn't follow? As I said on the report, you are not familiar with the verification policy, and that could be risky when you get into situations like this, as you are trying to make me the victim because you are not realizing your mistakes. Blurred Lines 17:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I only now see that user: Blurred Lines' has started up a discussion on this matter at [12]. I should inform you however, that User: Blurred Line never informs editors he's been in contention with of these discussions he starts up that aren't located at the article's talk page. Blurred Lines has made a previous attempt to get this edit changed, only at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (as shown here [13]). User:EarwigBot had to inform me of that discussion at my talk page because Blurred Lines tried to seek a consensus on the matter without informing the users in dispute with him (as shown here [14]). Once I informed by the other editor, I responded in that very discussion. Blurred Lines was then promptly dismissed because he hadn't attempted much of a discussion at The Simpsons article talk page (his dismissal as shown here [15]). With that, I was under the impression he was going to make an actual effort to constructively discuss at the article talk page, but instead he just headed to another noticeboard without informing any of the editors in contention with him. Blurred Lines only decided to inform of this discussion upon making the revert and after only a mere two editors offered their opinion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Furthermore, Blurred Lines is distorting the situation about my "not responding on the talk page." As shown here [16], BlurredLines opens the discussion on the 25th of the month, I respond on the 25th of the month, he then responds on the 28th... but announces another wikibreak shortly thereafter as shown here [17]. Upon returning from his "wikibreak," he makes a report on me at ANI, takes it upon himself to have a discussion that other editors are not informed of at a different noticeboard, then closes the discussion here [18] to prevent interaction regarding the edit. If this is how the user seeks consensus that is entirely troublesome to me. It should not be up to this editor to close discussions for which he shares such integral involvement in. If anything, that should be the work of a liaison which I was acting as when I stepped in this dispute between him and two other editors. Also, only 2 editors have actually responded at the Reliable Source Noticeboard before BlurredLines made his determination to close and revert this edit first made by User:WikiAnthony and User:Grapesoda. One of those 2 editors at the Reliable Source Noticeboard did not even support Blurred Lines position which is that "my source was unreliable and therefor cannot be used to support anything." User:Mark Miller contended with Blurred Lines that my source was in fact reliable but simply didn't feel that the source stated the show as being an adult cartoon, as shown here [19]. I felt the source pretty much did state this because it reads: "The Simpsons, a leading proponent of the adult cartoon wave." Anyways Blurred Lines thought that comment made by user Mark Miller and one other one gave him free reign to jump in and make a revert, then close the discussion on the articles talk page. Although Mike Miller is one mere editor and one who hardly agreed with Blurred Lines that Blurred Lines would then later use to support his reversion and discussion close, I will just be the bigger man and provide a source which more explicitly states the show to being an adult cartoon. Per Mark Miller's request for different source, I have provided a source which explicitly states The Simpsons as being an "adult cartoon series" (as shown here [20]. Ed Johnson, if you have any contention with this, please let me know. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yozer1

I will be generous and assume a great deal of "good faith" following Yozer1's removal of information stating, "No mention of a massacre in source",[21] when the sources were after the following sentence. Clearly this source[22], states there was a massacre and to find it one simply has to click on the link. I have already mentioned this on Yozer1's talk page, suggesting he avoid deleting such information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ed, this user was actually topic banned. [23] None of the admins closed the AE request and post the topic ban on his talk page when all 3 admins (You, Georgewilliamherbert and Sandstein) agreed that he should be. And it it was automatically archived today. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear, I thanked you for informing me and did not revert it. Take a break.

Hi Yerevanci, I was not topic banned until now. Will be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozer1 (talk • contribs)

The topic ban from AA2 is now logged. I suggest that Yozer1 might want to remove his 'nightmare' comment unless he wants it as part of the record. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe EdJohnston acted in haste. Yozer1 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a full discussion at WP:AE#Yozer1, a thread where you participated. Three admins agreed on the result. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Macau

I do not agree with your action that since those are the official names for those flags.--TINHO (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to open a WP:Requested move discussion at Talk:Flag of Macau. I can assist if you don't know how to do this. See also WP:OFFICIAL for our practices regarding official names. Official names "..should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notification: Les Etoiles de Ma Vie

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidentsregarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Veriss (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Ed, I am doing my best to stay 100% faithful to my topic ban, so please indicate if I erred at all here User talk:Plot Spoiler#Please explain yourself and if I need to self-rv or anything else. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I also finding it troubling and unconstructive that dlv999 [24] appears to be stalking my contributions. Three out of his/her four total edits over the past five days are related to my topic ban. It doesn't appear s/he is committed to constructively building Wikipedia and is instead interested in treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You should avoid the USS Liberty incident. That incident took place during one of the Arab-Israeli wars. There is an ARBPIA notice on the talk page of Richard A. Falk and in my opinion you should avoid it as well. There is nothing wrong with other editors reviewing your contributions to see if they conform to your ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I've self-rvd those two edits. Thanks Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for your note. I'm not trawling back for the (abundant) additional evidence but will keep my eye out. Your note resulted in a fairly typical swarming of Austrian Economics contributors and the usual inability to understand policy + misrepresentation. Thus, I've started documenting already. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Documentation is good. This reminds me of a comment yesterday by one of the arbitrators on a different subject at RFAR:

If there are clear examples, supported by good evidence, identifying specific editors and/or administrators then this can and should be handled at AE. If there are none of these things, it is currently too nebulous for a case.

In other words, if you actually have organized evidence present it to admins, and try handling it at the admin level. If you *don't* have organized evidence then (in his opinion) it's not worth opening an Arbcom case. 'Nebulous' I think is an apt description for both the case he was referring to and the Austrian economics thing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd actually already documented stuff at my original ANI complaint. As is common with Aust. Ec. stuff, someone opened a new thread and it was overtaken by events. That tendency itself is rising to the level of disruptiveness but several of those involved seem to do it as a matter of course. Since the provision of decent diffs is generally lacking in the topic area, it looks like I'll have to step up to the mark. There is the added bonus that I'm in neither one camp nor the other :) - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For correcting Ancient Pueblo peoples! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Regarding Your Notification on Hemshin peoples

Hello Ed, Thank you for the notice on my talk. I do understand your concern. Nevertheless, I feel the need to appeal to you to make sure that you have a complete understanding of the development history of this article as briefly outlined below. I also kindly as for your clarification and guidance regarding my below raised questions- as your intervention raised my curiosity and interest:

• The article has experienced lengthy and detailed discussions earlier through which it reached the maturity level to ensure stability for a number of years. During these discussions, the article was considered section by section and gradually improved using all the referenced material available- occasionally resorting to mediation procedures initiated by me to avoid wholesale reverts. It is interesting to note that most of the editors who used to implement such wholesale reverts or refused discussion now appear in the list of supervised editors in mentioned arbitration. The discussions to a great extent included exchanges related to the very recent insertion repeatedly made into the lead with no discussion or effort for consensus.

A brief look at Talk:Hemshin and the body of the article will make it evident to you that the recent insertion undermines recorded discussions that involved several admins and calls for mediation. Now, I would be grateful if you could clarify the below and guide me through your recently imposed notice:

• I am having difficulty in understanding why it is the case that an undiscussed modification to the lead of an article which has achieved its current form through a lengthy consensus building is ok in your perspective, whereas my call for discussion before engaging in such major edits is not? Interesting to note also that your warning to me comes right after my very first intervention whereas repeated insertion of the same clause to the lead of a stable article does not deserve any notification.
• I happen to be interested in the Hemshin region and its history, and therefore contribute mostly on this article. Is this in contradiction with any Wikipedia policies? I am not a professional wiki editor, but feel the need to contribute here as I do have relevant material. My edit came recently simply because I observed an undermining of earlier discussions after a period of stability. Having said this, could you please comment on your remarks here about my intervention in relation to Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

It is nice to have an admin interested in the article, as it experienced intense edits wars earlier before it enjoyed stability for 4 years as a result of the detailed discussions on the talk page – until recent- undiscussed edits along the lines of those who are now supervised under mentioned arbitration. I kindly ask for you clarification and guidance along the above issues.Omer182 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is funny to see people reverting in 2013 based on what they claim was decided by consensus in 2008. I am not sure that a consensus was reached in 2008. My attention was drawn to this article by one of the participants since User:Cihsai had been conducting a slow edit war over 12 months to remove a particular mention of possible Armenian origin from the lead, while never using the talk page. You showed up in the apparent effort to continue User:Cihsai's edit war, though I take note that you did participate in the 2008 discussions. There is a current discussion which asks whether Simonian's book is to be relied on for its statement about Armenian origin of the Hemshin. Feel free to participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Gordon Gee

Are you going to move E. Gordon Gee back to where it should be: Gordon Gee? Here is evidence the the latter is actually the common usuage. Thanks for your time. --Ttownfeen (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to open a new move discussion. This link to OSU's web site (see bottom of page) shows he was still signing himself as E. Gordon Gee as of January 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad

Ed, what's your opinion on whether this article should be subject to WP:SCWGS? I'm involved in a content dispute on the article, and I've been involved before (quite some time ago). Interesting, given al-Assad's position, the article has nonetheless stayed on the periphery of the contentious editing surrounding the Syrian civil war, but in reading it a few moments ago, I decided it probably is subject to general sanctions. Frankly, I'd never thought about it before. I'd appreciate an uninvolved opinion. If you think it is, feel free to slap on a talk page notice to that effect and an edit notice if you wish. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've placed the Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions on the article but for now I won't add the edit notice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop User:Sitush

SIR, User:Sitush has some serious issues particularly with Meenas wiki page. This article has been evolved, corrected and referenced over last 7 years and User:Sitush has not provided any evidence to counter any of the facts presented in this article. Simple deleting some text does not make article valid or correct. Put some efforts and ready history books, gazette letter found on Google book related to Meenas past and history. All I can see from Sitush is biased and unfair text removal from this article. Someone need to stop user Sitush, and I also see his own page is full of complains.

TO ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE: It is now confirmed that sitush is intentionally behind Meenas article..he is continuously hiding the well known Truth and distorting the article since Beginning. In his eyes..Any reference is not valid which shows the Truth. Like Tod he is fond of rajputs and Now he had inserted Negative points for the most loyal community of India/Meenas... by indirectly calling them bandits or criminals. He messed the article. THE ARTICLE WAS BEST AND COMPLETELY TRUE AS ON 01/01/2012. IN WIKI as a contributor our mission is to present the real truth and real history of a community or race. Am asking the administrators..what is the need of this great n huge wikipedia...when it fails to show the TRUTH.

Somebody has to stop him and he should blocked him to edit Minas article anymore..

You can see all other editors are complaing about him since 1year.. SIR OUR REQUEST IS "PLEASE STOP HIM TO EDIT ARTICLE MEENA" Others comment about him..

Expermely hippocratic argument and you are right about your self "we don't tolerate caste POV warriors here". I have seen more of your edits are dehumanising, derogatory towards certain communities. Also, you are just self proclaimed ignorant.

Sir Please block him for this article..this is our request since 1.5 year.Omkara1188 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conducting an edit war at Meenas. In March 2012 you were notified under Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Caste articles have suffered from promotional editing for a long time, and these sanctions were put in place to allow administrators to take action against anyone who doesn't seem to be following Wikipedia policy. If you revert again at Meenas you risk being blocked for WP:Edit warring or being banned from this topic under the caste sanctions. Instead of reverting, you should join in discussion on the talk page. If you possess good sources for your views you should be able to provide them. It is best to supply the actual wording of the source and the page number where it occurs. Questions about the reliability of a source can be taken to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

Ed, so you left a very lovely note on my talk page. Of course, I responded. You said: WP:No personal attacks provides that "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

Though I know very well the definition of "derogatory" I did look it up again for your purposes and according to Merriam-Webster, it is defined as: expressing a low opinion of someone or something; showing a lack of respect for someone or something.

Now certainly, how one defines and perceives lowly or disrespectful is subjective to the individual. My question to you, since you defend the removal of comments of others before engaging in diplomacy is this: if "I" feel a comment towards me is "derogatory" to myself, am "I" allowed to remove such comments under WP:No personal attacks? Or is this a privilege that is only given to the select elites of the community? Because surely, Ed, two can play the game and I have felt derogatory statements made against me, though you seem to sort of "pick and choose" so to speak, of what you deem worthy of your attention. It would, of course be quite nice for you to address the additional questions I posed to you on my talk page. That is, since I consider you an "involved" admin, given your relationship with Bbb23. You take care now. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Enfield poltergeist

Your comments and warning are totally incorrect.

I am not reverting the page to something "New" im reverting it back! Why should i have to come to a "consensus" on the talk page as i was not looking to change the page in the first place. Also its a little bit difficult to come to a consensus when the agent provocateurs trying to rewrite history wont go on the talk page. Why does everyone on wikipedia speak like robots? There is a huge injustice happening here but no one seems to care about the facts. It seems the only concern of Wikipedia is procedure.

Please answer this one simple question for me....If other users wont come to the talk page and reach a consensus, what shall i do then?

Best Regards.