This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:EdJohnston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Attacks and blanked user talk[edit]

Hi Ed!

I have a question. I put a warning in the user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and he blanked the page. [1] Later, he attacked me in the summary. He told me "so shut your mouth!". [2] What can I do in this case? Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The article White Latin American is now semiprotected per this AN3 complaint. Per WP:OWNTALK he can blank his own user talk whenever he wants to. I suggest ignoring the personal attack for now. If you want to continue working on the article, you can do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Johnston, I ask you before you get into a situation by force, you also have to check more thoroughly, Mr. Bleckter (a Mexican IP is now a user), the fool mistook genetic data with race, and the page white latin american speaks WHITE RACE NO GENETIC DATA, if you wish, I will not return to put the data table of 1940, but it is necessary to return the data of Argentina and Costa Rica with its fountains. You understood? or I explain you with apples?. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
PD.It is obvious that Mr. Becker pretends to be the victim. Say "shut your mouth", do not offend anyone. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You should be holding this discussion at Talk:White Latin American. And please ease off on the personal attacks like 'shut your mouth', and 'tonto'. An editor with your background should not find it difficult to create a Wikipedia account. You should also know how to sign your posts. Anybody who wants to work on race-related topics like White Latin American has my sympathy. The work is technically difficult and there is no definition of success -- others may still disagree even if you do a good job technically. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Myanma election article move[edit]

Hello Ed. I'm not going to take this to MR, but I would like to try and understand the rationale behind the close. Although I appreciate that there was a majority in favour of this move, I had hoped that I had rebutted their arguments successfully. If editors were against the use of "Myanma" for whatever reason, the proper alternative was "Burmese" (as this is still in use even when the country name Myanmar is used - see e.g. here). Thanks, Number 57 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are two of the comments by contributors to the move discussion that I found especially persuasive:
  • User:IgnorantArmies: “..Wikipedia tends to avoid unusual or non-standard demonyms..”
  • User:Old Naval Rooftops: "Burmese" isn't a serious option because we don't need another round of Myanmar-related edit wars.”
If people are here to look up a topic, we shouldn't place extra hurdles in their path. Though the demonym 'Myanma' exists in English text (as shown by Google) it is not a familiar one. As I type this, my spell-checker is putting a red line under 'Myanma' because it thinks it's a misspelling. That was my impression too as I was looking at the list of moves to close. I take it your view is that when a demonym exists in English, however obscure, it should always be used. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the cited comments: Old Naval Rooftops actually opposed the move, stating "The English-language adjectival form is Myanma", and IgnorantArmies' response actually supports my above suggestion that Burmese would have been a better option as they state that one form of adjective is preferred over another – not using a noun.
My view is that the adjectival form should be used as per the guideline, which is why I would be ok with "Burmese", but not "Myanmar". Number 57 21:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, regarding the "placing extra hurdles in their path" comment, there was already a redirect – I don't see how anyone could have failed to find the article. Number 57 21:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi EdJohnston . Please block this user. He is engaged in vandalism in my page. Also writes any mucks in the Azerbaijani language. Here you can examine vandalism examples - here and here. Thanks in advance.--Nicat49 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your last statement[edit]

Your last statement is not entirely correct. I was pushed to the limits of my patience by the support for anti-Israeli language. The group doing so, handed out barnstars to each other after their success. The reason I was topic-banned was due to finding consensus when it wasn't as clear as I thought it was. That and repeated complaints about the misconduct of a few users which were deemed not strong enough. I did not use my account to fight that lost battle or appeal the sanction. I wanted to set the record straight about the polemics policy. But you've stated your bias and ignored the questions so I'm basically talking to the wind here. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with your AE sanction you can appeal to the arbitration committee. The way you've been bringing up your 2012 dispute with Tiamut repeatedly in different venues does look like forum-shopping. But going to Arbcom would not be forum shopping. When you posted at User talk:Callanecc/Archive 20#Review of past issues you did not reveal that you had received a topic ban in 2012 because of your insistence on that very issue. Failure to be candid about past events may have hurt any argument you would otherwise have for getting your ban lifted. The canvassing about the WP:UP RfC that has been documented on your talk page by User:Serialjoepsycho didn't help either. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, not entirely correct.
a) I purposefully avoided hyperlinking to Tiamut or mentioning their user-name since I am not interested in them. This became a big problem for my focus since everyone would remark: "Can you at least link to something". My interest in the general principle was focused on links to comments by admins that show they do not understand the purpose of the policy. e.g. disturbing material but "not illegal".[3] You yourself were condoning 3 advocacy quotes directed at Jews, Israelis and Zionists. It was a bit more than just "a quote from Shakespeare where the word 'Jew' is replaced by 'Palestinian.'".[4] Btw, Israeli setters are occupying me, but I will "sharpen the weapons" and rise in victory does sound like proposition for violence.
b) I disclosed I was herded off wikipedia and I asked to bring the 'polemics' issue to ARBCOM.[5] This is also in the links I provided on ARBCOM.
c) I am not interested in getting back to editing in the current state of the project. I.e. rampant wiki-cliquing, purposely derailed discussions, and uneven application of policy. I notified this to T.Canens earlier, when I mentioned I have edited a bit anonymously outside the scope of the ban.
d) The participation of editors wanting to keep anti-Israel diatribes on their user-page is just as bad, if not worse than my openly linking to wikiproject France. In fact, The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion., is deemed appropriate.
e) Saying that, it was a bad idea to extend that with a few emails (to contributors of the Paris attack article). It doesn't change the current deeply rooted problems mentioned above.
Am I talking to the wind here? JaakobouChalk Talk 07:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I probably am because you (and the others) haven't answered the policy related question. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Another example to illustrate the point:
"I don't think it covers the non-project-related polemic",[6] I opened the thread to clarify policy. Esp. considering polemics supporting/promoting violence against civilians in a real conflict with daily casualties. Yes. There are casualties in Israel, and no, I don't have examples of ISIS supporters circumventing policy. It is besides the point anyway. 09:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yet another example to illustrate the point:
"would be perfectly acceptable to John Locke, the father of liberalism"[7] How is liberalism connected? That argument would mean there is a prerogative to use user-pages for campaigning. Perhaps in favor of ISIL as well. This argument misses the purpose of Wikipedia and the intention of the policy. The rest of the argument is in violation of WP:BATTLE, btw. A good show. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In light of input from uninvolved editors, I've come up with a new suggestion - here. I'd welcome your view as well. Is it free speech for all or avoid advocating on your wikipedia user-page about real world disputes? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:38, 20 Novembaer 2015 (UTC)

Since you already mentioned words from the I-P conflict in your statement of the RfC at WT:User pages#Rephrase suggestion to WP:UP#POLEMIC ("mukawama", "jihad") I don't see how you can continue the discussion there. Anything you say will be a contravention of your ARBPIA ban. Your failure to observe the ban may be taken into account by whoever closes the complaint at WP:AE#Jaakobou. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Two notes and a question:
1) I paid attention to the comments at ARBCOM. My latest comments[8][9] are very respectful of ARBCOM's concerns and completely avoid Israel-related content.
2) "mukawama" and "jihad" are not exclusive to the Israeli-Arab conflict and my links about related laws were given from UK, France, and Australia. I.e., these are applicable to the recent attack in Mali as well as recent ISIS activity in Europe. This is not a mention of the I-P conflict. I am aware that I did mention it though, talking about the recent stabbings and citing the knife hashtag as example. I will refrain further examples related to Israel-Arab conflicts even in the context of the policy discussion. I hope ARBCOM will leave some reasonable leeway here and 'not forget to clear the policy matter. For example, there is confusion whether it is or isn't permissible to use dead children from active real-world conflicts as part of your user-page advocacy.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 19:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You can't help it, can you, now asserting I use dead children for advocacy. Look at the editors of Death of Yehuda Shoham, Murder of Shalhevet Pass, Murder of Hatuel family. They documented a tragic reality. I refrain from writing such articles for the 'other side' though dozens are possible for the same reasons. I simply don't think one should 'use dead children' to make articles. If I advocate anything subtextually, it is the necessity to feel the same way, and look at similar events the same way, whatever the ethnicity of the victim. That's not advocacy. It's called humanism, and is an integral part of the ethics of Judaism, not too speak of many ethical traditions, high and low, and the common sentiments of humankind.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No. On this thread you did that yourself. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Your name has been invoked[edit]

Hi, Ed. Your name has been invoked without a ping at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Logos. - Location (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but the situation doesn't require any further comment from me. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Cheers! - Location (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Converts Articles[edit]

Do you think forced conversions should be allowed in list of convert articles? For example, if somebody forces a person to convert to a different religion than his own and he goes back to his original religion, should that be included in the converts list or does that violate WP policy? I think that the conversion was not sincere, so it should not be included. What is your opinion? Xtremedood (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be surprising if editors decided to count forced conversions as real conversions. Though I don't see what it has to do with Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Ed, last December you topic banned Bhargavaflame (talk · contribs). Since that time, there have been numerous attempts by anons to reinstate the dreadfully-sourced material at Bhargava. The most recent is this. Yes, I could take it to DRN but I doubt the anons would turn up. Anyway, my query to you is whether you think the anons may in fact be Bhargavaflame circumventing their topic ban. They did, after all, breach it very soon after you imposed the thing. I'm not good at spotting socks and in any event, SPI are not going to link an account to an IP address even if the CU evidence was not stale. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. I was going to semiprotect but User:Bishonen has already taken care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I guess Bish watches this page. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry, I thought I'd posted here to say I'd semi'd, but I guess I forgot to save. Also, I wanted to mention that when you topic banned Bhargavaflame, Ed, he said his fight for truth on Wikipedia would continue.[10] Rather suggestive. But it doesn't much matter whose IPs they are, they can be kept out with semi. If the user should create a sock account we can think about SPI and CU. My god, we speak in pretty opaque code these days. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC).
The fight for truth takes many forms, a variety of new accounts have been using my talk page as the refdesk for castes now, just see the questions I'm getting! —SpacemanSpiff 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


Clear the requests. --The Avengers (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see ARCA[edit]

Please see this request at WP:ARCA. Thank you, RGloucester 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please correct your statement[edit]

I can accept the basic premise on why I should withhold myself from that thread, but please review the matter again and correct your statement regarding conflict enhancement jargon. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been enough of the wikilawyering already.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Federal Reserve[edit]

Please unprotect the article on Criticism of the Federal Reserve.

Volunteer Marek has yet again deleted material on the Inflation of the 1970's being caused by Federal Reserve money printing. The citation sources for that material were Federal Reserve websites and a history of the Federal Reserve website article written by a Federal Reserve employee.

I would like to reinsert the following deleted material

According to Economist Allen H. Meltzer the "Great Inflation" from 1965 to 1984 was the climactic monetary event of the late 20th century[1] and could have been mitigated or prevented by a change in monetary policy.[2] Meltzer asserts that one of the reasons that monetary policy was not changed to reduce inflation was that Federal Reserve Chairman William McChesney Martin, and his staff did not have "a valid theory of inflation, or much of a theory at all"[3] while the Federal Reserve Board under the following Chairman Arthur F. Burns was unwilling to tighten monetary policy when unemployment was in excess of 4.25 to 4.5%[4] The inflationary era ended with the tight monetary policies of Chairman Paul Volcker.

There is little debate about the cause. The origins of the Great Inflation were Federal Reserve policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money.[5] 1.Jump up ^ Allen H Meltzer,Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, March/April 2005, page 145 Origins of the Great Inflation − 2.Jump up ^ ibid page 152 3.Jump up ^ ibid page 152 4.Jump up ^ ibid page 171 5.Jump up ^ Michael Bryan, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, The Great Inflation, 1965 to 1982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please try to persuade the other editors on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please advise what I need to get consensus of. The article by Meltzer is published in the "Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review". a Federal Reserve publication and therefore clearly a reliable and verifiable source. The other source is a website on the history of the Federal Reserve and per the article, the author is a Federal Reserve employee.
and what happens if nobody responds on the article talk page? or engages in shameless attacks, a not uncommon experience of mine with ignorant editors with a know-it-all attitude? (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
On the average, Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve gets 150 edits a year. If your changes have credibility, someone should respond. It's always possible that others don't agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of military occupations[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at List of military occupations. Hello, since I don't want to get reported to AE again, please see the page and talk page. Serialjoespycho is resorting to wikilawyering, ownership, uncivility, etc. I have put a disputed tag on the article because of Gaza, East Jerusale and the Golan HEights, we were discussing it on the talk page and he removed it, and he claimed he removed it because of Gaza, but the article is still disputed. If you look at the talk page, other editors have chimed in, while he ignores them, they can't be ignored by Wikipedia. I have reported him already to AN but he still thinks he own the article. Please do something about it. How many more editors must he chase away? (Look at the talk page and see) Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is some kind of weird hybrid between canvassing and forum shopping.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Serialjoepsycho removing sourced content and not being civil. The {{disputed}} tag needs consensus to remain, like any other article content. There is an WP:RfC running at Talk:List of military occupations#RfC: Including East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. After enough time has passed, you can ask for the RfC to be formally closed at WP:AN/RFC. You used to to User:Yossiea~enwiki. Your own conduct has been lately reviewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive184#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki. If you want to stay out of trouble, you shouldn't do inappropriate WP:CANVASSING with un-neutral notices like this one. It is good practice to make a redirect from your old account to your new one. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

BulgariaSources again[edit]

Hi EdJohnston. The previous thread about BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has already been archived, so I am starting another one. The 1 week block you placed on them has expired and they are back to doing what they were previously doing on Bulgaria national football team. As stated in that archived thread, I did start an ANI discussion about them, but it was archived twice without anything being done. (See WT:AN#BulgariaSources) They seem to only edit in spurts a few weeks apart, so short term blocks seem to have had no effect on them at all. Not sure what should be done at this point since they never have responded at all to any of the warnings or attempts at discussion left on their user talk, etc. Any suggestions you may have would be appreciated. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 38#Page protection for Medieval Bulgarian army. I'm leaving a new notice on the editor's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Honestly, please tell me why I keep being singled out in that whole tug-of-war nonsense on that page. This is extremely frustrating and I would like some guidance. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

At least three people disagree with your addition at Metallica, since you have been repeatedly reverted. Plus, I don't see any comments by you on the article talk page. Your change needs to get consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)