User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 13

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


COI help

I see you're active on COI issues; could you please do a sanity check on a situation for me? I posted it on the noticeboard the other day but it hasn't gone anywhere, and the editor in question continues to be certain that the links he proposes are useful and factual. The problem is that they all have some sort of commercial connection to AtHomeNet, including the most recent page he's proposing to add to Community association, - which, when the registry is checked, comes back to AtHomeNet, has banner links to AtHomeNet, has an Amazon store set up by AtHomeNet... you get the idea. Discussion is going on at both Talk:Homeowners' association and Talk:Community association, where most of us seem to be getting to the point of beating our heads on blunt objects. I know I keep reaching for the shiny red block button... the discussion really needs someone else to reaffirm what we are telling this guy. If you could take a look, that would be brilliant. Thanks very much. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I just turned this up as well. Oy vey. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've left a WP:COI warning at User talk:Edenrage. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already been warned about blocks from at least 3 other editors, and I have not tried to replace any of these links, nor do I have any intention of re-inserting them. I will not be silenced to have someone else who is truly nuetral, and not harping about past edits give the cidgab site an honest assessment.I have been arguing that the site should not be blocked simply because it is affiliated with the company athomenet. The site itself does not advertise any services, and all of these other seemingly sane editors refuse to acknowledge the DOZENS of external links that are blatant advertising all over wikipedia. The problem is, no where in wikipedia does it say that simply because a website is affiliated with a commercial site that it cannot be a meaningful reference. THe editors don't seem to be able to differentiate one argument, or link, or issue, or site from another. I hvae not intention of adding any links anywhere...but I will continue to rally for fair treatment of non commercial sites....if it means talking to 200 more editors to get someone to treat this case as individual without constantly bringing up past edits that I have already conceded, then that is what I am prepared to do. There are a lot of different principles involved in this issue that go far beyond one website...which I have already brought up and most of these editors seem to ignore. Edenrage (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to stop adding links. That will be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reorganization on COIN; it looks fine. I've added a final comment there, and at Talk:Community association, and am going to try and disengage before I get really cranky. I appreciate your help on this. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gillian Hiscott

Hi thanks for the notification. I have added my comments to the discussion. As I have said my bungling on the site stems from lack of knowledge rather than any malicious or disresepctful intent. (Gillhiscott (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

warning of a block

I have been warned by other editors of a block LONG AGO...and from that point I have not made any edits to replacing the links in question. If my intent was to just keep doing that, I would not have put out a call to other editors to get involved... Also, per the hoa page, I have pleaded and made quite clear that I am done with that page, and that link... I would appreciate all debate to be focused on the page for community associations and the cidgab link. Thank youEdenrage (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

abusive user

Could you please keep an eye on User:Nukes4Tots and his personal attacks? Since we both are part of WP Guns, we have a few overlapping articles. So far it's only been 2 or 3. But every time I make a change, it's an instant edit war and a flurry of personal attacks. I tried changing the first sentence of Firearm (I have unanimous consensus on the talk page, from 3O, and from WP:Guns project page) and he freaked out, edit warred, called me a stalker, a liar, and a mother*****er. [[1]]. He even removed one of my comments from the talk page under the guise of 'personal attack.' He calls me a liar and a stalker, and i'm the one making personal attacks. In the realm of incivility he's displayed in the past, this was a rather minor incident; however, it's still beyond what would be considered nice behavior. I mean, just last week he 3RR'd on a talk page to INCLUDE a personal attack: [[2]] [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]] and scared away the other editor, seemingly for good. His justification for edit warring to include the attack was "are you blind" is just a question, not an attack; and talk pages don't count as edit warring. No one should have to deal with this abuse, no matter how minor it might be sometimes. It's ridiculous. Also, see (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above link shows that some people are waiting for Arbcom to respond. I'll defer to them. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
They are waiting for ArbCom to respond about a specific situation involving his abusive sockpuppetry and supposed privacy issues related to the sockpuppetry case. I don't think that ArbCom dealing with his sockpuppetry gives him carte blanche to abuse other policies in the meantime, cause the current issues are unrelated to his socking or his off-wiki privacy. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Fugsawugsa


Need more? Collect (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

COI complaint about John Serry articles

Dear Mr. Johnson: So sorry for my error regarding the use of the resolved flag. I was not aware of the fact that I am not permitted to make use of this designation and only applied it in the belief that it could be applied once I made an honest attempt to respond to the objections raised within the proposal for deletion. As per your request I have removed the flag. Feel free to notify me on my talk page if you require additional alterations to the article on John Serry, Sr. and I shall be more that happy to implement whatever legitimate editorial alterations you might wish to prose. Thank you for your assistance pjs012915 march 2009

Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you once again for your insight-Kindly note that some of Mr. Serry's contributions have been documented in a published book entitled A Pictorial history of Radio Library of Congress # 67-23789 from the 1960s and has been referenced in the article onJohn Serry, Sr.. Also kindly not that Mr. Serry's live performances are permantly archived at the highly regarded Paley Center for Media in New York City as documented in the article. Consequently, I am puzzled as to why an editorial committe of an wikipedia based open encyclopedia would wish to remain silent on the subject. The use of a flag to identify the article as requiring additional verification for cross referencing seems to be far more appropriate academic response to your concerns. As er your suggestion I shall be happy to include links to the Nw York Times Web page. Feel free to provide any further guidance and I shall be more than happy to respond.. Thanks again for your assistance.pjs012915
Forgive me for not responding to your questions in detail, but I hope you will read WP:5P to find the answers. It seems likely that the two articles on his individual works may get deleted, but John Serry, Sr. may be kept if it is trimmed down substantially. I hope you'll be cooperative in this process, and it will certainly be better if you confine yourself to the Talk page, rather than edit the article directly.
Regarding the New York Times. You need to search their website to locate the individual articles. Once you have a URL, it can be added to the reference. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Johnston Thank you once again for your insights. In reference to the apparent concerns regarding the objectivity and reliability of the main article on John Serry, Sr. expressed by your fellow editors kindly relay the following information-- 1) the reference to the New York Journal American Newspaper article of May 25, 1953, Pg. 15 contains a photographic image of the actress Shirley Booth standing before an autographed stage door of her dressing room at the historic Empire Theater in New York prior to its demolition at the closing of the last performance of the show Time of the Cuckoo in 1953. The stage door was autographed by members of her cast and orchestra prior to the demolition of the theater and shipped to the Players Club Museum in Hollywood California for posterity due to its historic nature. A close inspection of the center of the photograph reveals John Serry's signature just above Shirley Booth's extended arm on the stage door. 2) My research indicates that Mr. Serry's performances with Shep Fields continue to delight music listeners even to this day. A recent release of the music of Shep Fields entitled That Old Time Feeling which clearly credits John Serry as an accordionist can be viewed at the Barnes and Noble web page by accessing

3) In addition, his performances with the Shep Fields Orchestra in The Big Broadcast of 1938 have also been re-released by Universal Studios on DVD entitle Bob Hope The Tribute Collection (DVD # 21462) and are available nationwide. This DVD contains clear close up images of Serry in concert performance with the orchestra and as a soloist. A visual comparison of the image can easily be compared with the photograph of the artist contained in the main article. 4)My reaseach also indicates that several respected classical accordion instrumentalists of the current generation may be familiar with Serry's contributions and artistic philosophy. Eric Bradler (Professor of Accordion at the Lamont School of Music University of Denver was a student of Professor Robert Davine - an internationally respected concert accordionist who studied with Mr. Serry at the Biviano School of Music in new York City in his youth. Professor Davine was the former director of the Lamont School of Music's Accordion Department for several decades prior to his death several years ago and evidently conveyed some knowledge of Mr. Serry's work to Professor Bradler. Mr. Bradler expressed an interest to me in utilizing Mr. Serry's American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion as an instructional tool in his lectures at the university and accepted copies of these works. Kindly keep in mind that University of Denver is one of the few remaining music conservatories in the Unied States which maintains an active Dept. of Accordion. In addition, Professor Davine indicated an interest in cataloging both works in a history of the accordion which he intended to publish. I am not certain if the work was every completed due to Professor Davine's death. However, Professor Bradler can be reached by E-mail at or by phone at 303 871-6977 if you wish to investigate further. 5) My research also indicates that the noted New york jazz accordionist Angelo Di Pippo may be familiar with Mr. Serry's artistry as a result of his studies in New York City during the 1950's. I do not have Mr. Di Pippo's E-mail address but can verify that he is a resident of Garden City, New York and can be contacted on the internet on at if you wish to investigate further. As per your request I shall attempt to trim my contributions to the section of the article entitled Concert Artistry so as to present them in a more objective fashion for review. Many of the references I have made to the New York Times are for background purposes only and may not explicitly identify the topics cited. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused--my intent was merely to provide supporting information available--including advertisements from music schools in the New York Times ect. Feel free to delete the entire section of published music if this seems to create an article which is too lengthy. Thanks again for your help. I hope something in the article can be salvaged through the use of judicious and scholarly editing--Many thanks sincerely:

P.S. In the even that the editorial board expresses doubts concerning the publication of Serry's music my research into my father's correspondence indicates that his publisher relocated out of New York City sometime ago. My last known address for the Alpha Music Inc. is Alpha Music Inc., 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Spring Valley, NY 10977-6224 Phone 845 356-0800 with Mr. Michael Nurko as President. The Company Web page seems to be listed in German at Sorry that an E-mail address is not available but the editors might phone the publisher directly to verify publication of this music if they have doubts. Many thanks again for your patience and I apologize for being unable to provide more authoritative documentation ---As you can imagine the professional activities of a modest free lance musician can be somewhat difficult to document after a period of 70 years. Thanks again.--Pjs012915 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Pjs012915 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)pjs012915

Dear Mr. Johnston: Just a quick note to thank you for your assistance regarding the proposed deletion of American Rhapsody And Concerto For Free Bass Accordion. I was pleased to learn that these two articles will not be deleted from Wikipedia entirely and have been designated for merger into the parent article. I apologize for being unable to request a rescue of these articles within the required time constraint of five days--As you no doubt concluded, I am totally unfamiliar with the editing process and stumbled upon the instructions for requesting a rescue after a deadline passed. In any event, the proposed merger seems to be equitable and I appreciate your assistance. Many thanks for all your help. I am certain that future generations of music students will benefit from your kind assistance and intervention. I hope that you enjoyed your investigations into this unique period in the musical history of the USA. Best wishes for your future editing activities on Wikipedia, and thanks again. ----Pjs012915 (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Pjs012915 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)pjs012915


Sorry ED, i need a favour,

Pararubbas has returned (7th account, named User:Thn08), and i completely forgot (and cannot find it in my history) what the link to report is. Could you be so kind and send it to me? The rest, of course, is up to me.

Ty very much, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to report Thn08 as a suspected sock of Pararubbas, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Choose the lower button below 'File a request', replacing Casename with Pararubbas. The button to use is the one that requests a checkuser. Hope it works! EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Vasco Amaral, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added my comment to the sock report. Please be careful with the insults in edit summaries, though. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what you're saying! Beware WP:PA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You are correct, my friend, i do have some anger management problems once in a while with vandals, it's just very hard to keep stabbing the beast and never see it dying. I'll try to refrain myself, promise. Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This "person" has returned. He too waited a few days, to see if we would forget (not me!!), then returned with the habitual fervour - i provided some examples there, and already reverted some of his "contributions". Cheers, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Takahashi Meijin

Why did you delete his page? There are plenty of gaming related articles that reference him if you just type his name into google. Here are some links:

Please bring back his page. Darkchun (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the article, and added the above links. Consider improving the article further if you can. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Darkchun (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New front opened up in the "War of the Flashcards"

Hey Ed,
Just wanted to bring to your attention the ongoing shenanigans in the AFD for "Anki", in light of your closure of the COIN entry regarding competing software.
To say that there is an abundance of SPAs is an understatement... so far I'm only counting two established editors, and it's becoming a bit of a free-for-all. One of the SPAs has declared an ulterior motive for his !vote, but I'm not entirely sure whether that's genuine or just taking the piss and fanning the flames.
Anyway, there's probably little that can be done, but I thought I'd highlight it to you as not-entirely-resolved-yet.
onebravemonkey 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anki. There is some silliness going on, but it does not seem to be out of hand yet. I left my own vote in the AfD, and I encourage others to do so. If there are enough votes from regular editors (in either direction) it may drown out the 'noise' contributions from COI-affected IPs. The closing admin can extend the time for the AfD if he believes there are not enough votes for a good decision. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ed! onebravemonkey 00:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents 2009

Hello, sir! I was preparing to join Wikipedia and work as a part of the community that documents terrorist incidents on March 19th. Then I observed as you must of some kind of dispute between the User:Jersay and User: Wikifan145, where User: Jersay kept deleting incidents and not explaining why. Therefore I held off from joining Wikipedia until March 25, 2009 when several other articles caught my attention. However, I have been saving terrorist incidents that I believe need to be posted in list of terrorist incidents 2009. I also believe the same situation will not occur as User:Jersay has been banned and Wikifan145 hasn't been on list of terrorist incidents 2009 since March 26 2009. However, if vandalism does occur again I for once would support another protective ban, protecting the site from vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 (talkcontribs) 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you notice any new problems with the article, they can be reported at WP:ANI. In the meantime, you can certainly list your proposed new terrorist incidents on the Talk page to get comments from others. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello there ED, VASCO here,

I think this account (the seventh!!!) has been blocked indef as well, good teamwork. This leads me to three comments: I have noticed that in the 7th and the 6th's talkpages, no message regarding the blocking of the account is shown? To what is this due?

Also related, i do acknowledge again the rude language and the insults are totally out of order in this site (i reiterate again i will try to improve in this area of interaction), but i should (and so should every well-intended user) be allowed to, at least, question the intelligence or good faith of this "person" which has been warned and/or threatened in every possible fashion and could not care less about other people's work. I noticed that, whilst in some articles he does add some stuff (infoboxes highly appreciated, i told him that once or twice, but mostly it's POV/WEASEL stuff, in very very poor Engish), i noticed, including in the latest account that he does the following: he enters one article, glues sentences, removes links/refs/signs/some templates and adds nothing, so he's a pure downright vandal, nothing more.

A third note, this one more personal (albeit not intimate :)) - Since you are an admin, obviously you have had your share of vandalism in all its forms and shapes. My question is: is this Pararubbas case not one of the worst in sockpuppetry you have ever encountered?

Ty in advance, have a very nice week, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked, Pararubbas is not the worst. His edits can be recognized through the type of changes he makes. The admin who closed the last SPI case said it was not even necessary to get a checkuser, because it was so obvious. Block notices are not always left on the pages of repeat socks, because the closing admin does not have time. If you continue to put the {{sockpuppet}} template on each sock's user page, that will be helpful, because the socks will go into the proper category. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

re WT:AN3 - Refactoring

Thanks! I'll take it to the editors talk pages right away next time. --Ronz (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice

New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues regarding sustainability article and problem with Themfromspace user

Dear Ed,

Previously I got into a spat with user Themfromspace on the article on simple living. It was my fault since I was not using an account. I am learning some of the nuiances of Wikipedia etiquette as I go along though it will take quite a lot of time to master it.

Now I have an account and I discussed the issue of an external link [8] to be put in the article. The editors Oked and so the link to a newspaper article was put by me. In fact some of them even suggested that it should be put in the article simple living from where Themfromspace was continously removing it. Immediately Themfromspace removed it saying that since I had tried to insert some material in simple living before without an account hence it should be removed. I find that very immature behaviour and a personal vendata.

I am now requesting your help in resolving this issue.


Ruralface (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

Thanks for your feedback. As an outcome of these discussions is that one user User:Ckatz has been systematically trawling the Wikipedia and removing all the links posted by me even if they are 3-4 years old. Nobody has objected to those links till now but it seems this user has taken it on himself the crusade of removing them. Qiute a number of these links are of scientific papers published in leading journals in the world and I get a feeling that the user is neither aware of their significance or has cared to read. If this is not vandalism then what is it? I will greatly appreciate if you can kindly note this and do hope a corrective action is taken.

I appreciate that Wikipedia provides an open format for people to insert links and material but in the absence of maturity and appreciation of the subject it is becoming an exercise in shallow editing and removal. I have been associated with Encyclopedia Britannica to some degree and most of the articles were written by experts and peer reviewed. Somehow with the type of immaturity and disregard shown by the some of editors that I have interacted in Wikipedia is a cause of concern. I do hope you as one of the adminstrator and an editor would like to bring this to the notice of other senior editors. I must also say that there have been pleasant interactions with quite a number of editors.

Thanks. Ruralface (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are concerned about specific links that Ckatz may have removed, it would help to give me some examples. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The links are in articles on Phaltan, renewable energy, solar energy and anywhere where the link is shown. It seems Themfromspace and Ckatz are working in tandem. I do hope they are not the same person with different wikipedia identity.

Thanks for all the help in the resolution. If there is a genuine mistake on my part I am ready to accept it but ganging up is not very helpful for Wikipedia. Ruralface (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ialso found out that Ckatz also removed links from Dew and sweet sorghum articles. Ruralface (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed, hello, sorry you've been dragged into this matter. The editor in question appears to have a direct conflict of interest; in addition, the links I've reviewed and removed appear to all be either linkspam in the EL sections (in some cases, groups of three or four!) or "references" used to justify text with limited or no encyclopedic value. Several editors on different pages have questioned the links; the standard response is a claim of "vandalism" from Ruralface (or his/her other related accounts.) Anyway, do with this what you will; please feel free to ask if you have any additional questions. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 10:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left a final warning for Ruralface over at User talk:Ruralface#Block warning about links. Ckatz, if you prefer to be the one to take care of this issue, let me know and I'll abstain from further action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving the warning, and no, I don't mind either way; this one may require several people to keep an eye on it. The more this develops, the clearer it seems to become - another new account appeared today (User:Creatie) with the only two edits being to restore text about Nariphalatan (along with the obligatory URL). I've blocked that account and tagged it as being tied to Ruralface and User:Akraj. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 18:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A question

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

I want to pose you another wiki-question, my friend: you said earlier that i should not notify many people about a vandal (sock or not) and do it in the proper fields, lest it should be a potential waste of time of everyone involved. Although i agree totally it should be done in the areas for the purpose, i fail to see how warning people about a disruptive vandal is not helpful, but that's another story (speaking of which, i have no news on the Pararubbas front, i even fear to have a look at Portuguese football articles and see them damaged, but if/when i will and find his "contributions", he will be reported and "socked").

This leads to me the question, as i also want to waste my time as little as possible: if a vandal's account (sock or not) is blocked indefinitely, will ALL his edits be reverted? If so, it is a great help, because then, i (and everybody else who faces this situation) will only have to: 1- Insert sock; 2- File report/checkuser; 2.1 - Provide a couple of examples, much less tiresome.

Thank you very much in advance, keep up the good work,

Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The people who close the WP:SPI reports don't make it their business to revert any edits of the socks. Is there a particular sock of Pararubbas that you are concerned about? The 'Undo' button is pretty quick if it is needed. Socks can make a few good edits, so reverting everything they do is not always wise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reply, Ed. I thought that maybe all the edits by vandals were reverted automatically after they were blocked, i never imagined that it would be reverted edit by edit by the people at WP:SPI, i thought it was granted, hence my doubt. I do agree some socks can make some good edits on occasion, but not this one (infoboxes yes, but that is expendable, if the text is good and informative; the rest is, as i told you earlier, POV/WEASEL, overlinking like i never saw - he once linked one word three times in less than two lines - and the removals we all know...) Here i go again shooting my mouth off... :)

"Catch" you later, hopefully with no bad news,

Vasco - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 23:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Akraj block

Dear Ed,

I am amazed at the paranoia of Ckatz. I have nothing to do with the new account. I had two accounts Akraj and Rural face and hence am amazed at the accusations that you level.

I must however say that the relentless vandalism that user Ckatz has done has gone totally unchecked by all of you. This is what ails Wikipedia and more and more people are writing articles on it. If there was any improprierty done by me I accepted it (and said it in so many words to you) but removing the links which had been on the wikipedia for almost 3-4 years just because they had or is height of vandalism. All those links were about articles on various projects and papers and because of the vendatta that you are all engaged in they have now been removed.

I will still urge you and your adminstrators to please see reason and please stop vandalising and being paranoid.

Ruralface (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

People who are familiar with our policy will probably see the logic of what has happened. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion, even for good causes. Please consider improving the encyclopedia in other ways. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say thank you

Thanks EdJohnston. Arilang talk 14:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, please have a look at User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Roving ambassador for China, do you think it can survive as a wiki if I move it out of the sandbox? Arilang talk 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is there yet. Here is a reasonable test: will our readers still find this episode of great interest in five years' time? Stuff that happened only in the past week, unless it was quite earthshaking, may not belong in our articles. Particularly in a whole separate article. It's a turn of phrase that somebody used in a political speech. Is anyone going to remember that phrase? If Kevin Rudd were to resign because of it, then OK, but that seems unlikely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comment, I value very much your advice. However, I shall continue working on it, hopefully this phrase being picked up and used on someone else, instead of being used on Kevin Rudd alone. I just kind of have the feeling that soon it shall become a catchy and popular internet phrase. But then I might be wrong. Arilang talk 19:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If it becomes catchy and popular, you should be able to find lots of reliable sources that use that phrase. If you do find such sources, they will improve the notability of your article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
My feeling tells me that it shall become "catchy and popular", but then it remains to be seen. What you think of User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Roving ambassador for China#PM under Chinese cyber attack accusation story, is it warrant another new wiki? I think the Chinese cyber attack news would become bigger news in the near future. Arilang talk 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think I've said everything I need to, unless there is a DRV. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you, anyhow. I didn't mean to harm anybody. Spring12 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

Thanks. As you say, I'm taking a break (nothing dreadful, just fancied a change). However, I've commented at the DRV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bruno P. Dori

Hello ED, VASCO here,

Thanks for the tip. This situation seemed unsolvable, as everyoby warned this person about three-revert rule and akin, and he engaged in no conversation whatsoever, nor did he write edit summaries. One day, out of the blue, he responded to me, in what i longtime suspected to be his (mine too) mothertongue, Portuguese.

I have since (after a few - last month i believe - friendly messages that "promised" hard teamwork) lost all track of him, although i notice he continues to write no summaries and has received some (NEW) warnings about edit warring in his page. In his first message, he assured he was not a vandal, only a newbie who was trying to know his way around. I believe(d) him, so have pretty much shut that case. Cannot say the same about Pararubbas though, would not be surprised if the 8th account has been opened as we speak, i have been trying to avoid Portuguese soccer articles as much as possible...

Ty very much for the attention, have a nice week, from Portugal,

Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp

Thank you for looking in at the article. I would delete the section in question myself; User:Collect has already deleted it and reworded the text. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Bogardus

Hello EdJohnston, Thank you for your cautionary note. This "war" is not about winning popularity contests, but rather an attempt to introduce style to a clique of rabid conservatives and pharisees. It is a forlorn battle against entrenched mob rule which is grandly styled "consensus". Some of these are people who would not know aesthetics if you handed it to them on a skewer - do see the history and discussion at Walter Hood Fitch for the latest demonstration. ciao Rotational (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning about WP:SPAM and WP:Conflict of interest

Hello Ed, Many thanks for looking into this. I accept Administrators have the right to edit entries from time to time, but how do I know who is an Administrator? It looked to me that this was a personal attack by IanMacM. If he’s an administrator it would be nice to know that in some way as we could have avoided all this. I also accept Wikipedia articles doesn’t like links with alleged copyright violations, but that was an assumption on IanMacM’s part, as I DO have written permission. --Tlrampa (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Tlrampa. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the update Ed --Tlrampa (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

William C Rader article

User:Oldy2 has taken User:Super1122's place in reverting this article. --Leuqarte (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew the problem was beyond me, Ed. Thanks for looking into it, and for all the good advice. --Minjul (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pararubbas 2

Hi there Ed, Vasco here,

Pararubbas opened his eighth account, User:Asz08 ("contributions" here, and i reported him here (

Could you drop a word, please? This time, i kept the insults, and they are many, to myself. In a related note, i won't leave Wikipedia, but i'll work less and less on Portuguese soccer, this guy is sick in the head or i don't know, but he is IMPOSSIBLE to work with, i have failed to see his approach - being myself an eternal optimist who can't know a vandal if/when he sees one...Pityful.

Ty very much in advance, Vasco Amaral - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He has not edited since 7 April. Let's see if your report gets a response. By 'gluing sentences' you must mean that he combines all the separate paragraphs into one. Not sure what you mean by 'removing signs in infobox.' I did notice him taking out the two links. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes ED, you got the first point right, gluing sentences is depriving them of its paragraphs, making it very hard to read some times. While i am at WP, i came up with an expression...Breathing space in articles, please :) Not sure why he does that, to annoy maybe?

In the second issue, what do i mean with signs in infobox? Take this example: if you see the infobox closely, when a player is loaned (as opposed to sold) to a new club, an arrow points out that such business has occurred, not a buy (looks something like this →); it's been a pattern used in great deal by the vast majority of users, the vandal removes it just because.

That's all for the moment (i still shake at the idea of what you told me once, that this is NOT the WORST case of sockpuppetry you have come across), ty for your inputs, "see you", Vasco Amaral, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I understand what you're saying about his usual editing pattern, I've added a comment in the SPI report. I will wait to see if anyone objects to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, blocked and tagged. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tenacious pest

He's back (talk · contribs). NJGW (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside the former range. I added an entry at WT:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis. The IP that you cite above is already tagged by Arbiteroftruth (on 3 April) as User:ColourWolf. Same guy as Yasis? EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I considered Colourwolf in the past, but when I asked Arbiteroftruth (talk · contribs) he thought they had very different MOs. NJGW (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you check both:
to see all his IPs, a lot of them are in 218.186.12.* just like Yasis. I haven't looked at ColourWolf's behavior. I'm getting some ideas for a new rangeblock, but we may need to wait and see for a bit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yasis (talk · contribs) started editing in 2004 and only edited articles having to do with history and politics (many controversial topics and a few lines of conspiracy that he continued to push all that time). ColourWolf (talk · contribs) and his socks only edited fantasy (mainly anime) articles and futbol articles, and the main account (probably a sock of some older account) crashed and burned 7-8 months before Yasis ever got blocked. The only possibility that I can imagine is that Yasis doesn't edit any more, but for some reason Colourwolf acts like Yasis towards me. I doubt that, as Colourwolf and I never crossed paths (as far as I can see), and the edits directed towards me are very different in character from those made from ColourWolf's socks (Yasis is much more venomous and single minded with very little variation in tone or content); I can however see Yasis' old fervor over Carroll Quigley and various conspiracies transfered over to harassing me, especially after I called him out on being Ah Poh (talk · contribs). NJGW (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Scamspam who looks to be ColourWolf has been harassing Arbiteroftruth as recently as March 2009, as you may see from the contributions. Could we have two long-term socks on the same ISP? EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any similarities in the methods. ColourWolf looks like he's having fun, Yasis seems enraged all the time. J.delanoy (talk · contribs) just proactively deleted tonight's (new) and last night's escapades from my talk page history. I asked him to log it at the usual location. NJGW (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

no good deed goes unpunished

Ed, thanks for responding. My frustrations are definitely not directed at you. Besides semi-protection, could you and a few others keep eyes on those pages and be quick with any suspicious accounts? We've got a passel of banned editors playing games with us. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind helping out, but more data would be good. What other articles are having the problem? EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dr Sushil Kumar

I see you have just {{prod}}ed this article. Just FYI I originally proposed it on 1st April (in this version) and Directorichr (talk · contribs) removed the tag 9 hours later, so I imagine this one will have to go through AfD. The Proposed deletion policy says an article can't be renominated anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked. In place of the PROD, I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Sushil Kumar. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NonResidentFellow

Hello EdJohnston. I noticed your comment and I'd like to ask you to just go ahead and block the two socks indef. This is pretty standard, and since they were already blocked as socks, a check is not likely to be ran on the two accounts. Synergy 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Appreciated. Closed and archived. Synergy 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick and effective action in dealing with this situation. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC))


You might be interested in WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Johnadonovan_and_Royal_Dutch_Shell, as it appears you brought up an issue on COIN a few months ago regarding the same editor. Best regards —Eustress talk 23:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal and "Wiki-haunt" threats

Please note that User: has placed what appears to be some sort of legal or vandalism threat on my talk page. Dan D. Ric (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I have replied on your Talk. Since our exchange, the same IP left a message here on my Talk. I have reverted that comment since he appears to be the sock of an indef-blocked user. If this person wants to get the attention of admins, and he used to have an account, he can use {{unblock|Your reason here}} on the talk page of his last account to pass on his message. He can also send email to EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The illustration of the Zachman Framework

Hi, Ed.

After a period of rest, user:Phogg2 is back claiming the removal, and removing the free 2002 illustration of the Zachman Framework, now at the John Zachman article.

Phogg2 and I have argued about it for a very long time, and in the mean time I dug up the real history of this illustration: That it was created in 2002 by the Enterprise Architecture projectteam of the US department of Veteran Affairs, in a time when John Zachman was working as an advisor. But as Phogg2 confirmed, he had nothing to do with the production of this image.

The situation seems to be that seven years later, the Zachman cooperation has developed several new versions of the framework, and he wants that 2002 framework eliminated, claiming it doesn't represent the current view/it is outdated/incorrect labelled/we should respect Zachman International's wishes.

I think it is unacceptable, that Zachman cooperation continues to try to turn the John Zachman and Zachman Framework article into their promotion material, censoring developements by others.

Now you know the situation, and I wonder if you would think of any solution here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are quite sure that you have a VA diagram that is not a derivative work of a John Zachman diagram, then I think JZ doesn't have legal control over what happens to that new diagram. However I continue to be doubtful of the copyright status of the VA diagrams, and would welcome something more authoritative. Though you've argued that you know the real history of those diagrams, can that actually be documented from published sources or from signed letters of which you have copies? Do you know the names of the authors of the VA diagrams? EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have traced back the illustration to the Feb 15 2002 presentation of Al Zuech, Director, Enterprise Architecture Service at the US Department of Veterans Affairs. This source is added at Wikicommons with the image template, with a link that is still active.
Now I am pretty sure it is not derivative work because the simplified design is in many details different from the original in that time. The use of the blue colour for example, John Zachman didn't use untill a new 2005 Framework. A second argument is that this VA framework is around for more then 7 years and published by other authors. John Zachman worked with the US VA department 7 years ago. If it was derived work, that would have been the time to take action. But the fanny thing is, in that time John Zachman was extremly positive about the work of the US VA department. The only thing if haven't discovered yet, is what happened between the two parties, that the framework is considered so wrong nowadays.
Phogg2 has made it quite clear, that he is in contact with John Zachman, and he is not happy with that.... Now I am not happy about the situation either. But there attempts to censor both articles is agains everything I stand for.... But, maybe I have a solution here. I will propose it on the talk:John Zachman page, soon. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I read the derivative work article some more, and realized it is also important wheter or not the VA framework is original and contain sufficient new expression. Now I think it does. The authors not only simplified the framework, they created a base for a series of illustration of the basics of the Zachman Framework, such as the File:A Tutorial on the Zachman Architecture Framework.jpg shows. instead of the illustration of one framework, they created a series of illustrations. Now I admitt it is not rock solid. But I think these are some hard evidence.
The problem with a derivative work is that you can't publish it without permission of the original copyright owner. So if any of JZ's original artwork still survives in the new diagram, he is still one of the copyright owners. This problem can be circumvented if you completely re-draw the diagram, though. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand. I seems to me the US VA dept. has created a new original work, which is not to be considered derivative work. The words you are used "any of JZ's original artwork still survives in the new diagram", "completely re-draw the diagram" are not the things I have read in the derivative work article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The arguments you use, about "sufficient new expression" are appropriate for defining something as being a derivative work, but it doesn't get us off the hook. To create something to which JZ's copyright doesn't apply it has to be a new work that has no cutting and pasting from JZ's original. Note the first line of Derivative work: In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work. (Emphasis added). If you look at File:Simplification Zachman Enterprise Framework.jpg, are you quite sure it doesn't contain any lettering or decorative elements copied from a work of Zachman? Was the VA work republished by others in reliable sources? If so do those publications include a copyright acknowledgment? Who do they acknowledge? EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I am not an expert, but the whole idea of the idea of the VA Zachman Framework image being a derived work seems to makes less and less sense if we go into the details.

That first line of Derivative work speaks about a "previously created first work". In order to judge if the VA Zachman Framework includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, we have to know what is "previously created first work", we have to compare it with? And even which elements we are talking about?

When the VA Zachman Framework was created in 2002, there where already dozens of different illustrations of the Zachman Framework, developed by dozens of people and published in dozens of articles and books. The most original framework is considered the 1987 version, see here, republished in A Framework for Information Systems Architecture". In: IBM Systems Journal, vol. 38, no. 2&3, 1999. IBM.

Now if we compare the 2002 VA Zachman Framework and the 1987 Framework for Information Systems Architecture by John Zachman, I notice a lot of differences:

  1. The title is different : "Framework for Information Systems Architecture" versus "VA Zachman Framework"
  2. The shape of the matrix is different : "5 by 3" versus "6 by 6"
  3. The description of the rows are all different
  4. The description of the columns are all different
  5. The content of the fields are significantly different: there is "text and a detailed image" versus a simple "icon"
  6. The color scheme and colors used are all different: "dusty colors" versus "primary colors"

The similarity, in my perception, is only in the idea of a matrix representing different a mix of views. That idea is not copyrighted. I just established that the expression of the idea in the VA Zachman Framework is different from it's 1987 original in all it's visual building blocks.

The 2002 VA Framework does have more similarities with the 1997 Framework for Enterprise Architecture, which the Zachman framework article allready explained was based on the 1992 Framework by John Sowa and Zachman, and others. These 1992 and 1997 frameworks are also derivatived from the 1987, and it doesn't seem to me they could classify as the original.

The funny thing is that the 2005/2007 Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture has more similarities with the 2002 VA Zachman Framework. It seems to me that 2005/07 Zachman Framework is much more a derived work of the 2002, then the other way around.

An one other thing. John Zachman didn't coined the term "Zachman Framework". It seems the idea was named after him somewhere in the 1990s. All Zachman Frameworks ever created in theory or applied in other frameworks have some similarity with Zachman's 1987 original. I can't image that because of that "some similarity" John Zachman owns the copyright of all these images ever created, ever to be created until 70 years after his death. I read some where that in case of applied art, there is only a period of 15 years after publication.

So you see, if you look into the details there is almost no indication there is a matter of derived work here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC) -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe it would be nice to ask an Wikipedia expert to look into this for once.

P.S.S. The other publication of the VA Zachman Framework was in Bill Inmon (2005) John Zachman - One of the Best Architects I Know.

You don't find my arguments convincing, and this discussion is already quite long. I'm leaving this topic for now, except I'm going to wait and see if Phogg2 will respond to the question that I posted on his talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think your arguments are convincing. You speak of a new work that has no cutting and pasting from ... the ... original. The Zachman Framework is not just one original image, but a type of diagram which has evolved into many originals by JZ and others, which has been simplified by many others and which has been applied in many specific situation. Now every specific diagram will have cutting edges and pasting from its first original, take for example the UML diagrams. I can't image they should all be considered derived work. Or if so, they should all be deleted from Wiki commons. I do thank you for bouncing the ball back to Phogg2, challenging Zachman International to claim copyright. Thanks for all your respons. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ed, could you rename the Zachman framework to the Zachman Framework. Three months have passed and nobody objected. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Response by User:Stevonmfl


Please stay out of this as I am attempting to deal with your structural issues with cobaltblue. To wit:

And how do I file a complaint about nasty language and personal attacks by an editor? Specifically Nightshift36. Or is that a one way street as well? I am disgusted not by your content rules but by your double standards and the way in which you administer the rules. Is there a ladder of administration where I can point out the structural problems that I have encountered. Again, I am not referring to the rules but in your enforcement techniques and how each editor turns a blind eye to it while throwing a well-meaning and informed contributor of much needed and valuable information under the wikipedia bus. I am on the verge of being blocked while "editors" get away with bad language, sarcasm and general disrespect under a color of authority. You allow and support loose cannons who in effect put an end to contributions by their manner and style and it is resented. I will be spreading this information to my collegues as I go about my work. Stevonmfl (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When contributors want to insert mention of their own work into articles, they need to use great care, and listen to feedback from others. You didn't seem to be listening, so people raised their voices. Believe it or not, a lot of people navigate this problem successfully. We are not hostile to experts, but they have to wait for other editors to check out their proposed material to be sure it belongs. New contributors who seeem to be forcing their own material into articles can encounter resistance. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you call it? "raised their voices"? there is that double standard again. i am new to this and made some beginner mistakes. I will follow the advise of cobaltblueTony and pursue the admin channels. I raised my voice to a person with a major superiority complex and who likes to verbally beat up on people (Nightshift36, a police officer). And you ignored it and jumped on me. Maybe I should have used a surname like "Smith" like I thought of doing in the first place. You see, we are used to this crap. Maybe the both of you need to do something else rather than blocking those of us who have much needed knowledge we wish to share with those who are looking for same in order to work better with minority young people. Stevonmfl (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Stevonmfl (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • While my profession is not relevant to this matter, the insulting behavior (including today) by Steve is relevant. While he is here (and on other admins pages) playing the victim, he is engaging in the same conduct he is protesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to use the RFC option and am officially notifying you. Please hold off on your BLOCK button until I figure out how to do this.Stevonmfl (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Return of Nangaparbat

Special:Contributions/ Kashmir Jammu and Kashmir Religious violence in India Special:Contributions/ British Pakistanis Special:Contributions/ Special:Contributions/

This jerk never disappears forever... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, Nishkid64 has semiprotected the above four articles already. EdJohnston (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy alert

Thank you for alerting Npovshark to the WP:ANI report. I don't know if you noticed but I had already informed him 1 day beforehand at the time the report was posted, as is usual. I didn't give the link and it's possible he doesn't know his way around that well. :-) Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I overlooked that he had already been notified. EdJohnston (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

George Weisgerber

A new IP (Special:Contributions/ just showed up using the same edit pattern as the last several you blocked (WP:Suspected sock puppets/ (2nd)) for vandalizing George Weisgerber. Given the threats issued by this particular user, it would be great to get a speedy block. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. It is lucky that his pattern is so obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Can you please revert them for me? I'm quite worried if I'd violate the 3RR. Thanks. --Mark Chung (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have rollbacked them all for you. Also, you probably want to read WP:3RR and see what it really says: it's three content reverts to a single given page, not three or more reverts in succession. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 05:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Can some administrator look at this case on the noticeboard? It has been going on for days with no help and is still going on. All other cases have been addressed, even all of the more recent ones. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thank you! Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

COI report

you'd be interested to know after you warned User:Zip1010 for potential conflict of interest, another user (that Zip1010 has admitted knowing) is now suddenly editing the same articles in very similar style. see Ansonrosew (talk · contribs). thanks LibStar (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Zip and Anson are single-purpose accounts and they seem to know each other. We can't object too much if they only add new, useful, material. If they start reverting changes by regular editors then we should take notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Ansonrosew has already started to change edits of other editors. and simply dumping a whole lot of links with incidential mentions of BBY and Glenn Rosewall is not helpful. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

YTB or

Hello Copstead. I see that you have resumed editing and related articles without joining in any discussions. It is likely that you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia if you are unwilling to engage. You have not replied to the complaint at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I suppose to discuss this with anyone? The information that has been created about the company has been created by competitors to attack YTB. I'm trying to put up actual information, and correct the page from to YTB. So what is the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copstead (talkcontribs) 18:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

From Stevonmfl

For the record and maybe more as it is important to keep insults credited correctly here as this seems to be a favored method of operating, the above discussion by Smatse is NOT CREDITED CORRECTLY. To wit: "...It was clear that Stevonmfl was in the wrong pretty quickly. Comments like "Maybe you're just not used to people who aren't bowled over by your "expertise", but I'm not some grad student or TA who is required to scrape and bow to you"[9] don't really help us to have civilised discussions." In fact, the above comment on being "bowled over" was actually uttered by Nightshift36 as an insult to me. Smartse assumed it was me and I was blocked like a child. Maybe you need to ask yourself why you made such an assumption. At any rate, I am too used to these kinds of "mistakes" and suffering the repercussions from same and wish you all well. Have a white day.Stevonmfl (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Stevonmfl (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this need my response? I'm not sure if this is addressed to me, since you sent the same message to several people. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pararubbas 1

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Longtime no "see" and, unfortunately, i am addressing with more bad news: Mr.Pararubbas has returned, now as Qaz08 - never mind the customary 08 in account name, if it wasn't i would recognize the patterns in a nanosecond.

I have reported the situation here (, could you "drop a line" there? Guess he won't stop...Guess what? I won't either, until the cows come home!!!

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been handled. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: American Rhapsody merger into John Serry Sr.

Dear Mr. Johnston: Thank you for your message concerning the merger of this article into the parent article John Serry Sr. I am currently attempting to complete the redirect of this page to the parent article and shall also attempt to merge the Concerto For Free Bass Accordion article into the parent article as well. Thank you for your patience in this regard--I have been attempting to reference the Wikipedia Help instructions in order to execute the merge as expeditiously as possible. Thnaks again for your help and advise--it is greatly appreciated. --Pjs012915 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Since you are already watching the article, could you look into the talk page antics? Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. These seems to be a flood of WP:SPAs engaging in circular discussions. This is quite overwhelming and disruptive to the good faith editors who are trying to improve the article. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Is there a reason I was the only one warned? I've asked for additional comments on the Massachusetts WikiProject talk page. Hopefully this can be resolved soon. --Polaron | Talk 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for being fair then. --Polaron | Talk 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)



Balawaristan National Front

Controversial issues surrounding Slumdog Millionaire

Poverty in India


Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[British Bangladeshi]]Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to give long semiprotections to the involved articles. But I see you asked Nishkid64 as well. I'll wait to see if he does something. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you at least block his current ip Special:Contributions/ Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Block wikireader the vandal and ill stop (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

new ip Special:Contributions/ please block Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to his mystic powers, Nishkid64 has anticipated us and issued the blocks already. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Serious issue

I have a very serious issue to deal with that requires a secure medium. Please advice, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact for how to contact Wikipedia officially. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you,,,

Revert/Edit war to start again!

Regarding: Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces

Thea article reflects Hans view since he was the last person to revert before you too actin. The fasted reverter wins -- unfair!
I have been compromising lots and beyond truth (away from what’s official) and as always objectively argued with examples and facts, paragraph after paragraph to move forward. It is extremely hard to stick to the truth as everyone is there to assure that their title is presented according to their wish, especially when there are 19,000 employed officers, but only 700 troops left as a result of 30 years of downsizing. Some of my alternations have reached consensus thou and I saw some hope.
We were set after lots of work, but then this happens: Without any discussions, notes or any attempts in the direction of conflict resolutions(wikis recomendations), Hans Engstroms started editing the artilce to force his view through AGAIN. I am extremely angry and crying at this point; the edit/revert war is just about to realize again.

Upon that, Hans Engstrom includes personal threats in the forum like, I know where you are ,,, I can google who you are, which is out of the scoope fo the article.

What do you recommend me to do? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that an active discussion is occurring at Talk:Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces. I hope that all participants will abide by whatever consensus is reached there. If you think that the situation is deadlocked, you can open formal WP:Dispute resolution. However, the discussion seems to be making progress so I don't yet see the deadlock. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert

Well done for piercing Tennis expert's smokescreen, EdJohnston! The responses by Tennis expert are indeed risible. Over the last 6 months, I have learned all about his modus operandi - his conspiracy theories, legendary edit warring, and attempts to pervert the truth by calling black white, and cooperation 'tag-team warring'. Of course, Tennis may sincerely believe what he's saying, in which case he appears to inhabit a rather different reality than the rest of us. Optimistically, he may be brought back into the same universe as everyone else, but then, pigs might fly. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: John Serry, Sr. editing by Damiens.rf

Dear Administrator Johnston - Just a quick inquiry regarding the editing practices of User:Damiens.rf on the parent article John Serry, Sr. and the recently merged article American Rhapsody. Please note the User:Damiens.rf established a redirect tag to the article American Rhapsody without making an effort to preserve any portion of the article despite the clear outcome of a deletion review which called for the articles to be merged. In addition, he complained on my talk page that I improperly removed his redirect before I could make an effort to salvage part of the article and correctly establish the redirect link (I needed time to review the instructions). Futhermore, he is consistently tagging the archive section of the article John Serry, Sr. as requiring cleanup and failing to provided proper verification despite the fact that I have provided direct links to the listed archives with clarification as to how the links can be properly referenced to acquire verification. In addition, User:Damiens.rf advised me against seeking a deletion review concerning the photograph of the musician in the parent article--arguing that it would be virtually impossible to continue using the photograph. In actuality, an expedited review of the photograph resulted in its restoration. With these observations in mind, I wonder if I might request that you instruct User:Damiens.rf to exercise more judicious use of his editorial skills while engaged in Cleanup Activities on this article so as to avoid such unnecessary confusions and controversies in the future. He has been assured that every effort is being made to address any objections he might have to the article's content and that all interests will be served through cooperative editing. Kindly note that I have completed my editing of the article and do not anticipate initiating any further contributions to the encyclopedia. I look forward to any modifications which you deem necessary in the months ahead. Thanks again for your kind assistance. It has been a pleasure communication with you and best wishes for the future. --Pjs012915 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Replied at your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply to your observations: Thanks again for your insights. I hae attempted to merge the two articles by retrieving the histroical archive. I hope this is satisfactory. My concern at this juncture rests with the final corrections to the archive section of the parent article John Serry Sr. Evidently User:Damiens.rf is operating under the assumption that it is improper to list this two archives within the article since they do not provide an on-line lisitng of the musician's compositions. I have explained to User:Damiens.rf that the on-line lisitngs do not contain entries for the musical comspositions simply due to the fact that 1) The Sibley Music Library has restricted access to the musical scores to students of the Eastman School of Music in accordance with my wishes and does not provide a complete on-line directory for this reason and 2) the Paley Center for Media only provides an on-line directory of its archive holdings for soloists, but will verify that the archive contains these compositions if contacted directly at the New York City branch. I have provided instructions for verification purposes within the archive section and removed the clarification tag placed on this section by User:Damiens.rf after he replaced it on several occassions. I hope that this confusion on his part can be rectified so as to avoid any additional difficultiy in thsi regard. Thanks again for your insights. I'm certain that the article will undergo additional editing and I shall look forward to your contributions in the months ahead. In the meantime I shall attempt to ask the archivist at the Sibley Music Library to consider ammending his on-line lisitings to include a reference to the his holdings of John Serry Sr.'s music. Perhaps this might be helpful. Thanks again for your thoughts..Regards --Pjs012915 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)pjs012915
Material which is held in archives and was never released by a publisher is not a publication. So in general such material can't be used in an article to support any point of fact. Your removal of tags from this article may expose you to sanctions under WP:COI so I recommend that you stop. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Johnston--thank you for your insights. I appologize for removing the tag but once again did so only after User:Damiens.rf indicated in his editing comment that I could remove the tag if I believed that I had corrected the problem. Once again, I seem to be receiving poor advise from him. Sorry for the confusions. Kindly note that in an attempt to clarify this verification issue I have contacted

the Special Collections Archivist and librarian at the Eastman School of Music. I have been assured that copies of the scores have been accepted at the library as a gift for the benefit of students even though they have not been published as works for piano. (This is due to the fact that the Free-Bass Accordion is similar to a piano in its keyboard configuration as the article on Accordion indicates).He notes, however, that he is prohibited from listing the scores on the library's on-line directory since I gifted copies of the scores rather than the originals. (Alas, I was led to believe that even copies would be properly archived by the library).This technical distinction prohibits him as a professional archivist from presenting the scores to researchers as part of an archive within the On-line Directory at the library. I hope to learn in the near future whether he will allow me to include a link to the library indicating that it retains copies as a reference material. I'm not certain whether this would constitute an acceptable verification for the purposes of Wikipedia quality standards, however. In so far as a variety of technical issues remain unresolved and ambiguous, I shall simply eliminate any reference to the the Sibley library until I have further clarifications from you and the archivist. I'm certain that the article can be amended at some future time to include any reference to an archive in the event that you find such a lisiting to be permitted. I shall not remove any tags placed into the article, however, as per your advise. I shall simply remove the entire archive section since it appears to be unverifiable in its present formulation. I hope that this is the proper course of action. Clearly, I am operating within a realm which is beyond my level of expertise. (Interestingly enough, none of these issues surfaced when I submitted the article as a purely biographical description.) Evidently, I lack adequate knowledge of the editorial process to proceed further so I shall commend the article to your hands for final disposition and refrain from any further editorial attempts on the encyclopedia. I hope that some portion of the article will survive the final editorial process for the benefit of futre music students. Thanks again for all your help and best wishes for your future endeavors at Wikipedia. --Pjs012915 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)pjs012915 Thanks again...--Pjs012915 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915


(This post is regarding WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal)

Hello EdJohnston:

I just noticed that you think Corticopia is in fact an anon. IP editing the article Geography of Mexico. I can assure you he is. He has been using multiple accounts for years. I personally have reported several of those, and I got him blocked. What is sad is that he comes and goes.

Please check my user talk to see evidence about Corticopia and his other accounts. The evidence is clear and almost stupid, since he is always editing the same articles, a very well consistent edit pattern.

Please, help us out to stop his disruptive edits. When he is gone, nobody disrupts the pages, and every person agree with the content. He is the only one starting edit wars.

AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 10:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Anyhow, please consult the reporter's (long) block history. User-216-234-60-106 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alex. It might help if you would add a comment at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again Ed. I've commented but at this point I don't know if that's enough or if it will really work. I've checked another user who has always been suspecting to me, by the name User:Ixtapl. Edit pattern consisent with Corticopia's and the anon. user. Do you think it is possible to draw the attention of others into this matter. He has been doing this for several years now. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Project management

Hi Ed,

I have been having a hard time managing the project management article, removing several new material because I want the article to give an overview.

Now a new editor keeps adding his brand new article Project management for Media and Entertainment to the see also section, dispite several of my removals, edit summaries, messages on his talkpage, and a general note on the article. I have removed that link three times now, but he has reverted this removal three times as well.

Could you please take a look, and give me your opinion. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Now I wonder if there is a more permanent solution here. I don't want to give the impression I own the PM article. But I do want to keep it in a certain shape. I guess the featured electrical engineering article is my big example here. Could you maybe give me some advice here.

Thanks. I indeed am not going to revert his action any more. That is why I contacted you and Ronz. I agree his addition of is not inherently ridiculous. But alone in the category:project management there are 180 articles, which could all be listed in that "see also" section. And ... the addition we are talking about is just a stub.
... But on the other hand, I don't want to discourage new editor or editors, which created a new article. I guess a Project management portal would be te place to list these kind of initiatives.
I would like a more permanent solution there. I guess the place to start this discussion is the Project management talk page. I will see what I can do myself tomorrow. Anyway thanks for your feed back. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A twisted "user" indeed

Hi ED, VASCO here,

I think you might find this report interesting, and also drop a word ( As i also say there, but am most obliged to repeat it here, i find this behaviour very odd (and/or sad): this guy had his last account Qaz08, still not blocked, and opened another, the one reported minutes ago (Wsx08).

The patterns are all there, and the one still not observed (REF/links removal) will be too, if the account is not blocked (and, repeating what i already stated in my report, he did remove - anon - tags placed there by someone else).

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted to notify you that I have filed a Wikiquette complaint against this user and would like you to take a look at what I've got there. Apparently, this user has a long history of unconstructiveness and aggression towards other editors, especially those who choose to remain anonymous. I would like your honest input on this matter. Thank you very much in advance and I do apologize that your time gets wasted with this kind of bullshit. (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. Based on your multiple postings at many, many noticeboards. Your activities put a severe strain on the assumption of good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh? How can I assume good faith after being told to "go f' myself?" What speaks for itself here, my slightly aggravated attempts to defend myself from endless false accusations – or Keltie's assault on my talk page, along with many other talk pages? Please make sure you know the evidence before you judge the situation. (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal/Archive

I'm interested by your comment on the relationship between the filler and Corticopia. Can you please give me a bit more background on this guy? I don't want to confirm or deny any accounts as of now because I couldn't find any team tagging, but User-216-234-60-106 is using more than one account and is editing anonymously on Mexico related articles. -- Luk talk (lucasbfr) 07:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Luk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Intelius Naveen Jain

Look at Whois for the IP address [10] - someone should have checked it before as it is Naveen Jain himself. Is there anyway of tagging the talk page to identify him? Anything else needed right now? Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I note that another editor identified him as Naveen Jain, but it isn't immediately noticeable. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point! That does nail down the COI pretty good. For previous history, besides the WP:COIN report, see Talk:Naveen Jain. Individual IPs have been blocked from time to time. (Not every COI case is quite so blatant, in the sense of persistent reverting of well-sourced criticism using arguments that appear bogus). I put indefinite semi on Naveen Jain last fall and so far nobody has questioned it. Other than that, I can't think of anything else to do. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I was thinking of an edit at the top of his talk page identifying him, like a share IP template, but perhaps that isn't appropriate, even in this case. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area
Last: 03/29/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello, if you'd like to check those edits, you'll notice that its not edit warring. I'm actually in the process of making a large edit (which I still haven't quite finished, several edits later). Ht686rg90 seems to object to the article's very existence, and keeps trying to delete it without going through the proper deletion process.

Regards, Anthony on Stilts (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthony on Stilts thinks that Theodicy is a more general subject than an answer to the problem of evil but has presented no sources for this claim. He is also now making many other large scale edits without discussion, deleting sourced material, and inserting unsourced. But that is a content dispute and not relevant for the 3RR. He clearly broken the rule and continued edit warring as seen in the diffs presented by me after being warned.Ht686rg90 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Can we block this poster who makes such ugly comments and or remove my talk page entirely which now serves only as a posting board for his hate filled comments not worth repeating. This vandal clearly enjoys the game, adds nothing constructive, and only motive is to post insulting comments. Appreciate any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grockl (talkcontribs) 08:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This vandal has been blocked for a week by SoWhy. Let me know if you want to semi-protect your Talk, which will prevent all IPs from leaving comments. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, just so you know, you're protecting a shameful self-promoter that has a vested interest in a certain nasal irrigation product. I realize that my harassment of him is inappropriate, but it's hilarious, and he deserves it. In the meantime, I'm making constructive arguments to discredit all of his sources on the Nasal Irrigation page. Feel free to watch and enjoy the show! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice one bro. Real nice. Make sure to read before you block. (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Please read this, my friend, you know what it is about (, drop a line there if possible.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


I did not know that he was unblocked. Sorry. --Abce2|Howdy! 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation

Thank you for your help with the poster. He continually accuses me of being Dr. Grossan which I am not and I understand this is just one more breach of wikipedia policy to try and identify an editor, however, I am not Dr. Grossan. This poster is not a medical expert or an expert in the field of nasal irrigation. I have invited a medical review of the citations or the claim by contributing ENT's or allergists. The article is nasal irrigation not neti pots. To omit pulsatile irrigation as a viable modality from the category is absurd much like the posters comments. His attempt to pick apart medical transcripts and interpet to his POV only demonstrates his lack of expertise and quite frankly ignorance. His repeated use of anti gay and obscene comments further demonstrates he should not be taken seriously and should be banned however I expect he will simply find another IP to continue his rants. On a side note I think it is worth pointing out that while the poster spends a considerable amount of time maligning Dr. Grossan that thye AMA awared the Certificate of Merit to Dr. Grossan nearly 30 years ago for his work on nasal muciliary function the basis of nasal irirgation and the importance of restoring ciliary function through the use of pulsatile irrigation. I think the poster should educate himself and refrain from further personal attacks.--Grockl (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • As a result of this discussion started by Durova, the anonymous user who vandalised the article and Grockl's talk page is now a regular user and has found a mentor. I think the semiprotection is no longer necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank Lorenzo

EdJohnston - My edits to the Frank Lorenzo page are an attempt at POV. I realize now that I have inadvertently deleted sources, which I have noted. That said, the editing on this page is not factually correct. I have posted a discussion on the board for the page noting as much and suggesting a factual consensus on the page. Please refer to my post on the page. Whether the facts paint Frank Lorenzo in a poor or positive light is irrelevant. Should all the opinion be taken out (both positive and negative) and leave only facts, it should stand unedited.


Wikilore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilore (talkcontribs) 19:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your concerns to the article's Talk page. It should be possible to find consensus on how to improve the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Thanks for your attention, and your help. Ghaly (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

The ip that was the subject of discussion regarding Ayn Rand and whom you blocked for a week is now the subject of discussion at ANI. I have commented there regarding the discussion on my talkpage, but I see you have some comments on this page and may wish to note this at ANI. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've posted to the above ANI thread, and linked to the comments that others had left on this page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy EdJohnston/Archive 13's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:EdJohnston/Archive 13 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as EdJohnston/Archive 13's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear EdJohnston/Archive 13!


A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar Abuse

EdJohnston, thanks for the information. I am concerned about the conduct of TharsHammar. He has been pretty aggressive towards the situation and would revert changes that were against the consensus reached in the discussion area (even on points that he himself agreed with in the discusion). Then, he went on some tirade against me in another forum. Want to act in good faith, seeking your advice on how to handle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the note on my talk page about AWB. I have reapplied as 7. I knew that the CHUU would end up conflicting with something. (I would normally reply on my own talk page but I am trying to let the old history of my proper name clear out of there).    7  talk to me }     22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Please revisit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Damiens.rf reported by Allstarecho (Result: Both editors warned) as more info has been added. Also see this ANI thread. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 06:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lock down of Objectivism article

Why did you lock down and therefore protect the edits of the IP you were supposedly protecting the article against? And why was I (Damian) blocked instead? (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're evading your block. Make a proper unblock request on your own Talk page. (Admins may sanction you for the evasion). I really don't understand your apparent request to get Connolly to block you for 3RR, and boldly announcing you had made six reverts. This is a strange crusade you are on. And the article: Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semi-protected. The Rand articles seem to be a twilight zone that encourage strange behavior by otherwise normal people. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed, since you've semi-protected the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) from the anon IP 160, can you please semi-protect the Ayn Rand, too? The IP 160 refuses to talk about any of his contentious edits on the talk page, preferring disruption and drama to collegial editing. Semi-protection would go a long way towards getting the IP to the discussion table. If not, at least 160 will be forced to register an account and follow the rules of editing. Please consider it. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is at least one good-faith IP working at Ayn Rand, and semiprotection would shut down their activities as well. How would you feel about a thread at WP:AN to impose a topic ban of the IP 160 from articles relating to Ayn Rand? It seems that the Arbcom decision is worded so as to make this possible. I would participate in this thread, but have to rely on others to supply diffs of past behavior who are familiar with this IP's record. I know little besides what I have read lately on ANI. And I *do* notice that this guy doesn't join in on Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'm in the middle of my day-job right now. (I shouldn't even be typing this message from the office). If you're okay holding off for a few hours, I can come back to this situation tonight at my home, sift through the edits, and demonstrate what the problems are. There are incivility and bad-faith issues; Inability to discuss edits or participate on the talk page despite numerous requests; Contentious edits, followed by contentious reverts, followed by BOLD CASE SHOUTING AT EDITORS WHO DISAGREE; and let's not forget the almost undeniable single-purpose account aspect of anon IP 160's editing, which, to be fair, would not be a problem if it were not for other abovementioned issues. I'll come back to this issue tonight. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Over the last couple of months, a number of editors have been working to sort out the problems on the Rand articles. There are disagreements, but considerable progress has been made. The problem which can't be resolved on the talk page is the work of the IP editor who has consistently refused to discuss his/her work either there on personal talk pages for an extended period of time. I urge that IP editor (160) should again be warned and blocked for refusing to edit collaboratively. (Obviously blocking Peter Damian doesn't help at all, but that's a whole other issue).KD Tries Again (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Since the IP has been doing his thing on the Rand articles for *five months* already, and never talks to people no matter what, a short block will probably have little effect on his behavior. (It seems that you can't reason with him). It would be necessary to apply to WP:AN for a long block, like a month. That might not be approved. It is easier to get support for semiprotection than a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP in question, while without doubt engaging in disruptive editing, has added more quality content to Objectivist articles than any other editor I have seen in three years. Please, if you intend on taking action, review the full extent of contributions to the relevant articles since WP:RANDARB. Scapegoating the silent to mollify editors of Damian's bent will not result in improved articles. On another note, I don't think user talkpages are the best places to be discussing these issues and suggest this be moved to a central forum. Regards, Skomorokh 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I filed a complaint against anon IP 160 at WP:ANI. You can view it here. J Readings (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please restate the rationale for semi-protecting Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I don't see any need for it in relation to IP 160. --Karbinski (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the semiprotection, since the disruptive IP has been topic-banned, and can't edit the article for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tomdobb

I realize we generally require users to bear their misfortunes like a scarlet letter, but if this user is truly leaving I don't see any harm in going ahead and letting him blank his talk page. I even told him he was free to do so when I declined his request to have the page completely deleted. I've spoken with the user by email and have blanked his talk page at his request. --auburnpilot talk 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If I'd noticed your comment in his Talk page history, I'd have left it alone. He added a bunch of nonsense revisions to his page for some reason and I didn't see your discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Looks like he's changed service providers (at home rather than the cafe/library?), and I'm almost proud that he's evolved a little to using "-in life".[11] Only one vandalism this time, but I'll let you know if it picks up. NJGW (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitefish Mountain Resort serves alcohol to minors intentionally

Hi EdJohnson, We are about ready for another edit war over the mountain being cited TWICE last season for serving alcohol to underage patrons. This is a very big problem here in Montana where the majority of roadway fatalities involve alcohol and frequently, minors in possession of alcohol. If barek does not believe that there's a concensus, or even a problem, he must not be from the area and should not dictate what goes on here.

Please do not let him protect the page again as threatened.

We have already endured a single purpose account on the Whitefish Mountain payroll doing the sanitization on the page, please don't let more editors in collusion with the mountain do the cleanup any more. Thanks72.160.4.98 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello--Quicksand Survivor (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

More PAs even

[12] a couple of hours, Ratel still has not had the cup of tea. I find his continued remarks made on a personal basis about me to be tiring indeed. [13] shows he does this to others as well. [14] lecture mode accusing a person of COI. ec. If I go back more then 3 days, I find much more -- including his WQA at [15]. I hope this will help you. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this aren't very charming but might not be judged to be personal attacks. Conflict of interest complaints can be raised at WP:COIN. Editors should not be warned for COI without some credible basis for a COI, either a known connection to the article subject or at the very least a pattern of promotional editing in favor of the subject. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Try [16] "If you cannot grasp all that, ask for help somewhere else." " you really need to learn", [17] accuses another editor of PA for his edit [18] which is a stement of seeking more eyes on the article. [19] accusing an editor of seekimng to "suppress" material, [20] accusing me of a campaign against him *as though changing a pound sign to a dollar sign is a campaign?), [21] direct PA (and I had just suggested a cip of tea), and yet another at [22] (he actually got remostrated with at [23] fpr his COI claims, and by Blueboar for his continued PAs on me at [24] etc. I only went back 3 days -- do you need more examples? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Concerning this block that you made, a request has been received on unblock-en-l to create an account jimgaconcept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I have created it, and will monitor it, but any help you can offer will be appreciated. Fred Talk 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Pararubbas 12

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

This is getting personal, he will get tired before of me, this i guarantee you ( Drop a word if you can please.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Symonds already took care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality control and genetic algorithms

Hi Ed, could you express your opinion about the ongoing issues at the Quality control and genetic algorithms article. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


This user Ixtapl is possibly a new Corticopia sockpuppet. He was kinda retired, then after all the problems with Corticopia and anonymous IP users, he "went back" just to edit the articles the anon and Corticopia used to edit. Check please. Somebody has to stop this, cause it has been going for years. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems possible. But can you find any diffs showing Ixtapl making the same edits as Corticopia, or having the same POV? EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ixtapl and Corticopia share pretty much the same edit pattern. Personally and knowing very well the way Corticopia works, he created that account to make weight in a past debate in the talk page Mexico, then he abbandoned the account, until recently, to make it appear like it has "some history". And yes it does has history, the same edit pattern as Corticopia's.
Here some diff with his POV push (Ixtapl/Corticopia):
  • Middle America [25] - [26] (In this one another proved Corticopia sock E Pluribus Anthony also contribuited [27])
  • Geography of Mexico [28] - [29][30] (Here the "anonymous IP" did the same POV push [31])
  • Geography of Mesoamerica [32] - [33] (diff of another "anon IP" from Toronto [34]. This anon was blocked for edit warring in Mexico related articles)
Here other contribuitions that make both account's edit pattern consistent:
All of Corticopia's past accounts and evidence can be already found in my user talk. Hope you can help out here. I have a request to do. He got the templates Countries of Central America [45] and Central American topic [46] blocked for his edit warring. Sadly, the Admin did not follow the rule to revert the article to its previous state, BEFORE the new undiscussed changes were implemented. Could you please restore the article to its previous state? This is the main reason Corticopia and his anon. accounts have not been online a lot, because he got what he wanted, templates blocked with his POV. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Anon, also from Toronto, Canada just reverted a map in Central America article. Again, the same behaviourial pattern and modus operandi. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Now it is more than obvious. Ixtpl just reverted Geography of Mexico at 18:00, 19 May 2009 [47] and the anon. IP reverted Central America at 18:07, 19 May 2009 [48]. This clearly is now out of control, he is willing to disrupt every article no matter what. He needs to be stopped. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 05:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The 'reporter' just decides to revert without comment every now and then, seems to only do this now, and hurls accusations. So, who needs to be stopped? Ixtapl (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for collecting this info. I have asked Spacepotato if he has any suggestions for calming down the various edit wars. The options are blocks, protections or persuasion. I find the Central America stuff confusing, and except for some possible IP abuse by Corticopia, and strange 3RR reports, there is not much other than a straight content dispute so far. The sockery probably would not get a lot of traction at WP:SPI unless there was other bad behavior. So the result is, I don't know what to do yet. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Given their contributions and stylistic traits, I agree that User:Ixtapl and User:Corticopia are probably the same editor. However, I don't think the term sockpuppet is appropriate as I don't see any violation of our policy on alternative accounts.
These edit wars on the extent of Central America and the importance of Middle America have been going on for over two years now. The combatants are User:AlexCovarrubias, User:Jcmenal and User:Supaman89 on one side, and User:Corticopia (and now his alternative account User:Ixtapl) on the other. Spacepotato (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Spacepotato for the reply.
  • I've left a comment in the Jcmenal SPI case which points to this sock data. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


You might wish to see if this qualifies as "inserting negative material" in the article. [49] removing mention of countersuit by Copperfield, [50] removing expository material, [51] extending material about plaintiff's case, [52] eliminating any accidental mention of a counter-suit, [53] reintroducing "sexual assault allegations". Mpme of these edits were mentioned in Talk, and most certainly have no consensus for them. Collect (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything that could be defamatory in this sequence of edits by Ratel. The sexual assault investigation comes from a CNN article by Katherine Barrett, so it is OK to include. Am I missing something? I am only watching for BLP-sensitive material at this point and the nuances of the various lawsuits are not my concern. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I had thought Ratel had been instructed to seek consensus for any substantial edits here? [54] is now a revert of an attempt to make the claims fit the actual cite ( which does not support his claim as to what the plaintiffs say. If he reverts minor stuff, I think he is back in full-fldged edit-mode.Collect (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
My WP:AN3 warning said: I've told Ratel that he may be blocked without further notice if he inserts negative material about Copperfield without first getting consensus on the article Talk page that is OK under WP:BLP. At present the relevant BLP material is "targeting women" and "secret family," which are the topics covered by the RFC. Note that the RFC started on 18 May and is still running. When enough time passes you could ask for an admin to close it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) [55] 00:25 20 May [56] 01:45 20 May [57] 02:26 20 May [58] 02:29 20 May (not consecutive) making 4RR in 2 hours and four minutes. At this rate, he could hit 50RR in a day. For sure Ratel is in major edit-mode. Collect (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see four reverts. If you object to some of these changes, open a specific discussion on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm keeping an eye on this section. I'm being very careful in my editing of the page, and I am open to correction on any error I make. ► RATEL ◄ 05:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I hoped you were watching the page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Although I am supposedly the bad boy du jour, please note that Cameron Scott (talk · contribs · count) is wreaking mayhem in the article by removing sourced material willy-nilly, including pro-Copperfield data added by Karelin7, and making clear errors, e.g. claiming that sources are misquoted and removing material on that basis. Note also the use of profanity in the edit summaries. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed, please also consider this Talk page edit by this editor. I would have thought this would earn a permanent ban diff ► RATEL ◄ 07:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
When you report that he was sued for $16 million and the sources actually says "reportedly" then yes you are misquoting it. We write about subjects of BLP articles in a conservative manner - a single two paragraph article that uses "reportedly" three times and is not supported by any RS source to suggest this actually happened does not cut it. The problem with that article is that we have two camps - the DC supporters lead by themagicofDC who wants a PR piece and Ratal who (for reasons that escape me) want us to highlight every negative incident involving DC. I was alerted to this article via the BLP board and my only interest is ensuring that it conforms to WP:BLP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If you did some homework yourself on the issue of the subcontractor liens (work! heaven forbid, it's more fun to delete, hey?), or learned how to tag facts you felt to be shaky, you would have found this [59]. I might add that you have fouled up the order of the article with your reorg, and it doesn't read well to me at all now. ► RATEL ◄ 08:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[60] 04:55 30 May - clear revert. [61] 05:30 20 May clear revert. Have we hit 3RR for sure yet in only five hours? Collect (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I counted four reverts at 3:03, 4:21, 4:55 and 5:30 (UTC), so I've blocked Ratel for a 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your response at AN/I

Hi Ed, i'd like to know why you decided to only bring up my mistake when commenting here. I don't mind people pointing out my mistakes, its the only way to learn and move forward. But the links I provided clearly showed the trolling Rirunmot was doing! Did you only read as far as the first two diffs before deciding I was the guilty party? Because it was quite clear to everyone else that Rirunmot was trolling my talk page (with a sock puppet as well)! I'm not looking for any action from you, as far as i'm concerned the matter is settled as long as Rirunmot remains clear of my talk page. All I want is some clarification! Cheers. John Sloan @ 14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Each person who comments at ANI does what they can. Your report of the situation seemed incomplete, so I did a small amount of investigation. You were objecting to an IP voting in the AfD who could have been a sock, but the visible AfD did not contain any IP votes. Then I found the IP's vote had already been removed, and I stopped looking into it at that point. Somebody else finished the job by blocking the actual sock who edited your Talk age. Since you supplied so many diffs, I figured you were an experienced editor, and so I was baffled that you were over-reacting to the vote by the throwaway IP. We normally just tag them with {{subst:spa}} and then go on about our business. You *do* know that IPs are allowed to vote in AfDs, right? Voters, whether IP or registered, who have very few edits besides those in the AfD are typically discounted by the closing admin. But, IPs with a track record should be taken seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I do know IP's can !vote at AfD and fully support it. I didn't start the AN/I case because of the IP !vote that appeared to be !vote stacking. I made it because of the trolling on my talk page by the user I accused (his puppeteering at my talk page just advances my suspicion that he was indeed !vote stacking with his IP). I'm a semi-experienced editor, been here about a year and a half. I am still learning, and will use {{subst:spa}} next time I come across this situation. Thanks for the explanation! John Sloan @ 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sora Kake Girl vandal block

You blocked in response to my filing on AIV. However, I originally asked for a rangeblock of; this was later "corrected" by a user who doesn't seem to use the CDIR range script/gadget. The wider IP range shows 16 different addresses, the one you blocked only catches 12 of them. I've reviewed all of the edits in the reported range; they all consist of the same type of vandalism, with the earliest in 2007 and most of them occurring since April. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not easy to justify such a large block as /16. The vandalism needs to be quite horrible. If the /24 leaves four addresses open, could those IPs be blocked individually? A /16 could be justified if you have the patience to study the whole /16 range and don't see any good-faith editors working there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I've reviewed all edits coming from the /16 range, and they all consist of the same type of vandalism. If there are some IP addresses that have been missed in my review that the rangeblock would hit, it's a problem with MediaWiki:Gadget-contribsrange.js, not with my review. That being said, of the four IP addresses outside the /24 range, only has made any edits since the beginning of the year, so I would be fine with a "wait-and-see" mentality with them. =) ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 17:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK for now. Let me know if further problems occur. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ed, I have 'replied' to you at WP:AN3. What would you like to know about this situation? JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended-range bass has been protected for three days. I hope the warring editors will use the time to search for a compromise on the Talk page. Thank you for adding a comment at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi there ED, i have a request for you,

Don't know if it is possible, but if it is, could you block these two anonymous addresses ( ( Rest assured both are PARARUBBAS. Furthermore, he has already worked with 5, 6 others (all starting with 92) in several other pages i visited (can't remember which or when), take my honest word for it, it's him, 100% sure!

Thank you very much in advance, good weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can well believe that they are Pararubbas, but each one has only edited for a single day (one on May 12, the other on May 15). If they are dynamic IPs, he is unlikely to return to use them again. Let me know if you see any new edits from either one, and a block can be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ed, another tip i need from you, mate: is it possible (i think it is) to determine from which country the person is editing by the "code" in the anonymous address? I am very positive PARARUBBAS is Portuguese, or at least speaks the language due to the years spent in the country, due to the field in which he chose to "contribute" (this case, Portuguese soccer), but there is a (VERY) small chance i am wrong, your answer will surely enlighten me further (but how much more "enlightenment" do we need with 11 sock accounts?).

Attentively, and again ty very much in advance,

VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Open up the IP editor's 'Contributions' page. At the lower left you will see a 'WHOIS' link. Click on that. Sometimes 'Geolocate' will also help. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is extremely odd: both addresses hailed from...ENGLAND!! To confirm it, i did the same proceedings with my anon IP, and it showed PORTUGAL. Of course it could be he lives in England and does not speak the language (thus ignoring the messages), but i find that very hard to believe.

Again ty, have a good week - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

waring by Slp1 and WLU to attack the canadian Children's Rights Council

WLU and Slp1 and their fr8iends have destroyed the permnanent linbs and content of the article about the Canadian Children's Rights Council. They have falsely stated that it is a father's right organization rather than a child rights organization.

They use some female supremacist reference as an authority.

Thhey have also attacked wevery entry in Wikipedia thaqt contains a refernce to the Canadian Children's Rights Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You would have more influence here if you would express a willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. After violating our guideline on WP:Conflict of interest and removing well-sourced material from the CCRC article, you guys have apparently threatened WP:OUTING against an editor. Were you hoping to convince us to take you seriously? EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
We disagree with the above statements. The edits were done for the sole purpose of taking off links to the on all Wiki articles that have links into the website of the Canadian Children's Rights Council and to provide incorrect information about us. No one from the Canadian Children's Rights Council made any changes to the Wikipedia articles. Apparently, if one feminist can be quoted someplace as calling us a "men's rights" organisation, then that person must be right.... No discussion is needed,. Just have 2 people Slp1 and WSU agree and it must be the truth.....right. Only on Wikipedia is there such dribble. The Canadian Children's Rights Council doesn't edit anything on Wikipedia anymore. We do show the content about us on Wikpedia to potential donors and it impresses them that totalitairian feminists are against us. It also is good for recruiting young men and women volunteers. We don't encourage any of our volunteers to write on Wikipedia. WLU and Slp1 attack the CanadianCRC at their own risk of constant editing by others and not by us. It has nothing to do with us. Sheila M. VP Canadian Children's Rights CouncilS-MorrisVP (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
And we've justified every single edit in our summaries and talk page postings, I agree that one of my purposes was to remove convenience links to the CCRC website for a variety of reasons (copyvio, partisan links, highlighting "important bits" and spamming CCRC's work and POV). And saying "no-one from CCRC made any changes to the Wikipedia articles" seems to be a blatant lie given, say, this diff. I don't identify as a feminist, Slp1 doesn't seem to, but we both agree that Routledge is a reliable publisher and there are few other sources to verify text about CCRC. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Central America

Could you please semi protect the page Central America? This anon IP, that we all know who might be, is reverting a map. He is using his IP to avoid scrutinity. Make it semi protected so only registered users can change it. No body has objected the new map but Corticopia. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I am open to suggestions how to address the overall dispute. One idea is to do semiprotection of all the affected articles, and then have a focused SPI case on any registered accounts that appear to be socks. A solution has to be in mind before going to WP:SPI, because if not it is likely that the complaint will be rejected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and willingness to slove this problem. Yes, I think that semi protection is the way to go now. Althought several articles in which Corticopia used to edit-war were protected, not following the Wikipedia rule of reverting the article to its previous state, before the controversial changes were introduced. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 10:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi there ED,

speaking of the devil, he has returned, with the 12th sock account (sick individual), called Wsa08. I did not file a report because, from what i have seen, he has not removed anything (, in fact he has added, but he did just that in a couple of accounts, maybe he was in a hurry: i don't know if he was the one creating the templates, but he added both the PORTUGUESE GOALKEEPER OF THE YEAR AWARD and PORTUGUESE LEAGUE TOP SCORER templates to several articles, removing nothing. I told him, in Portuguese and English, such additions were highly appreciated, but that he was not to remove stuff (obviously you know his answer :()

This account has already been warned by me, the minute i see something is removed, the report will be filed. Also, check this (i guess i will have to go back on that "no stuff removed" statement about him): in João Pereira's article, he, once again, removed loan signs in INFOBOX (sometimes, it is habitual for a soccer team to have a player only on loan before buying him permanently), thus displaying his habitual pattern of "i don't care, i do it my way, you can go suck on a lemon".

Hope something can be done, if a block emerged just from this message it would be BEAUTIFUL, have a nice week yourself,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Declan Ganley Sources

Hi, one user quotation man is violating Wikipedia policy by constantly removing well referenced material in order to make the subject look more favourable. I looked up more than 8 verifiable sources (BBC, Irish Times, Financial Times, not tabloids), and he has removed almost all of them. He has been previously banned for 24 hours for engaging in edit wars and violating policy. The page has also been vandalised by IP addresses originating in Libertas Headquarters.

Can I (or anyone) undo his edits and restore our sourced content? Thank you.

I just don't like seeing Wiki being used as a propaganda tool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthinirishpolitics (talkcontribs) 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please make a proposal at Talk:Declan Ganley listing the items you would like to restore. Then see if anyone wants to comment on your plan. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

on NIMSOffice

Yes, I can explain what I meant when I wrote that NIMSOffice uses a fake email address to send anonymous emails and for stalking people. NIMSOffice uses an email address that is similar to (I am not allowed to post the actual email address, but just to give you an idea). About 1 month ago NIMSOffice wrote from that fake email address a series of messages to me, stating that he "does not appreciate" my involvement in Wikipedia. NIMSOffice did not disclose his identity, in spite of my request. I found his anonymous emails highly annoying and irrelevant.Aoganov (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the mails appeared to come from NIMSOffice, I assume that you knew his identity as a WP editor, even though you did not know his real-life identity. Wikipedia allows people to edit anonymously. I'm missing out on what the abuse was. The rival parties at Talk:Boron have already said unpleasant things to each other; how was this worse? EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish to draw your attention to this

I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, hi! I see from the above that I was one of the editors named by User:QuotationMan. To defend myself from accusations of POV editing, you may wish to go thru my edits and reassure yourself of my bona fides. If that is not sufficient, then you can ask User:AndrewRT or User:Ipigott to do the same (the former is a Libertas party member - scrupulously neutral, btw - and the latter asked me to put Libertas party policy on the article - which I did). Again, for the record, I am not connected with the PeopleKorps blog and I have never edited it. The sources I use for Wikipedia Libertas articles are, and I hope you will forgive me putting this on your talk page, but accusations of POV editing are quite serious and I am keen to preserve my reputation. Any questions, don't be afraid to ask. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. This has also been discussed above at #QuotationMan. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


This user is being very troublesome still and removing sources see [62] and [63]. As the user is removing good WP:RS I think something should be done. Catapla (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:QuotationMan for the follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to attract your attention to the following: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuotationMan (talkcontribs) 09:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

reply to unblock

Correct - I will not edit any of the pages you just named. I hope that you will also take a tough stance towards users such as Catalpa, Anameofmyveryown and Truthinirishpolitics' if you judge that they are in any way attacking the reputation/privacy of Ganley and Libertas on Wikipedia. They are all related to a blog called PeopleKorps[64] - which is a semi-professional campaign against Libertas.

Wikipedia pages about living persons must be written conservatively and in favour of the persons reputation and privacy. WP:BLP I do not believe the current Declan Ganley article lives up to this. --QuotationMan (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'm watching the Libertas articles for COI or non-neutral editing, and at present I've seen no problems from you or from the other two editors named by QuotationMan. He claimed you were 'related to a blog..', whatever that means. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that. To reassure you further, please feel free to continue overseeing my edits as you feel appropriate. As for User:QuotationMan's contention that I am "...related to a blog...", I assume he means that I edit that blog. I do not edit that blog. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that Quotation Man has no proof I am related to some obscure blog I have not heard about. It is interesting to note that QuotationMan only edits Declan Ganleys page a) during working hours and b) When something (well sourced) which he does not like appears. While he was temporarily banned from editing IP addresses from Libertas headquarters edited the page. But of course we heard no complaints about conflict of interest then.

Would you be able to revert this users edits pleased? I accept any language that is perceived as negative, skewed etc. should of course be removed. Truthinirishpolitics (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Carpenter Family

Ed, Thank you. I am still new at this and sometimes advise is conflicting and procedures not as clear as I am used to.

Iwanafish(aliases, and hit the Rehoboth Carpenter family page again on 24 May at abt 2130. I reverted the page just a few minutes ago. Your warning to him is appreciated. What is strange is that he did not hit the other pages he has hit before. I am thankful for that.

It is very frustrating when he refuses to communicate. Many have tried. I have known him for over a decade on the Carpenter Roots web forum. He was difficult then, but at least he would discuss items. Here he hides under his user name.

Any help is very appreciated. And I aplogise for my clumbsy efforts to get help.

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One comment: you should probably not use the word 'vandalism' in your edit summaries on this article. Though Iwanafish (talk · contribs) is edit warring, this is a content dispute, which is not considered vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. But at what point does edit warring under multiple aliases just becomes vandalisim? For example, the name is different, but the behavior is the same for now Kungtzu sockpuppet of Iwanafish. And the game goes on. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Iwanafish and Kungtzu have been temporarily blocked. If any IPs spring up in their place, let me know. Semiprotection can be considered. I hope that some talk discussion will occur, so we can reason with this editor. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Discussion and compromise is always better. Thank you for watching this.
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:David Cameron

On Talk:David Cameron, I noticed two duplicate threads made by User:Kowalmistrz simultaneously at 21:44, 13 May.[65][66] I don't know for sure, but it looks like the user pressed submit twice. In any case, without thinking of our agreement yesterday, I removed one of them.[67] Is this a problem? Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I wasn't thinking when I did that. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

H hath no fury

See [68] appears to want to get even with me. I consider his acts to be objectionable. Collect (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since he is talking in front of Arbcom, he may believe that he can't be censured for personal attacks. I would be surprised if this is true. The committee can review the behavior of *all* participants in a case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If I can count, the case will not be taken up (the ostensible purpose is to stop me edit warring long after my last conceivable edit war and where I took full blame and apologized (to too many people, it appears, as one was angry at me apologizing to him))). He also posted on my UT page material which may also be a PA (to wit, an article saying collectors are brain damaged) see [69] "But in my professional life I deal with people who have disorders in the anxiety spectrum (OCD, social phobia, GAD, depression, etc), and a remarkably high number of them are packrats who love collecting things. Watching you over the last few months provokes a sense of deja vu in me." and [70] "Enjoy: [71] " which you might read and see if it is in any way disparaging of collecting. Many thanks. I do not know precisely what Ratel intends, but it does not appear to coincide with AGF by a teeny bit. Collect (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel is appealing an indef block for his quite odd BLP views -- and he is trying to shift the blame to me (and accusing Gwen Gale who acted on another person's complaint entirely of being my "friend". I am concerned that his continued PAs on me are actually making some believe his claims. You likely should apprise yourself of the reasoning behind the block as you are pretty well aware of his acts on David Copperfield by now. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

At it once more -- seems he can not avoid it. [[ 10:47 28 May Suggest you read Grand jury. We's all know if the investigation was over

[72] 6:42 28 May FBI Investigation: this is not an issue of the past)

[73] 00:26 28 May Reverted to revision 292745459 by Cameron Scott; Prefer this version. Making 3RR when he had sworn to uphold BLP to Gwen Gale.

along with very un-utile talk page comments [74] [75] [76] accusing Flowanda of being corrupt, [77] accusation of siding with "socks and gophers" etc. ad nauseam. Collect (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Citing One's Credentials is Defamatory?

Hi Ed. I'm the anonymous editor that is trying to cite Brian Switek's credentials on Darwinius. A few points here:

  • His credentials were listed in the article before I started editing it. Before I tried to improve the article's credibility by removing the blog references (and encouraging the use of non-blog sources), the article reads "Brian Switek, an ecology and evolution university student and a blogger..." See
  • He is in fact a Rutger's University undergraduate and professional blogger. He states this himself:
  • Using a blog (of any kind) as a source is still a hotly debated subject. I feel strongly that the use of self-published sources lessen the credibility of an article, and I am not the only one; this debate is far from resolved, regardless of what has happened at Darwinius. I happen to agree with Brian in this particular case, but his is still a self-published source.
  • My attempts at compromise were rejected. When my attempts to remove the blog references were met with resistance, I did not insist, and suggested a compromise: that we restore the credentials of the blogger so that the reader could weigh the statements appropriately. This compromise was not far fetched; the page listed Brian's credentials for quite some time, before I started editing the page. However, the compromise was rejected without explanation.
  • The comnplaint filed against me states that I am in violation of WP:BLP. Specifically, the complaint states that I am "adding a slightly derogatory description of the author, without sources and hence a violation of WP:BLP." This is clearly pretext. Not once in the discussion did anyone dispute the credentials. If providing a source for the credentials listed was truly the issue, then it should have been brought to my attention. In any case, the URL I've provided above is from Brian's website and states in no uncertain terms his credentials. This is clearly not in violation of WP:BLP.
  • I am an anonymous editor. In my opinion, this is what is at the core of the issue. I edit anonymously, and some people don't like that. Situations like this one are a common setback. However, my edits can and should be evaluated at face value.
  • More reputable sources exist that back up the claims in question. Some are even being used in the current article, making the case for citing a blog quite weak.

The editors in favor of hiding Brian's credentials know that by revealing his credentials, the impact of the his opinion will be diminished. In my opinion, this is appropriate; if the truth about Brian's credentials lessens his credibility, and other equally applicable sources exist that will not reduce the credibility of the article, then the appropriate remedy is to replace the weaker sources with the stronger ones, not to hide the credentials of the current source. However, as I've stated many times, I'd be satisfied just to list his credentials alongside his opinion.

Wikipedia allows for anonymous editing on the grounds that the edits themselves are more important than the identity of those making the edits. My purpose here is clearly not vandalism, and in fact my efforts are aimed at improving the credibility of the article.

I would encourage you to keep the article semi-protected. I will only edit anonymously, so long as the article remains semi-protected, I will not edit it. This is my choice. In this way, the conflict is resolved, but is the article better off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You were edit warring at Darwinius, a fact that causes you no remorse. You were the reason the article had to be semiprotected. The fact that your changes were reverted by everyone else probably makes no impression. I'm not sure why anyone should take you seriously about your good intentions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes more than one person to make an edit war. You should look at what happened, and think about it before you pass judgment. You are however correct about one thing --- I have no remorse about my actions because they were justified. If at any point that page is unprotected and Brian's credentials are still missing from his opinions, I will edit them in. To do otherwise is just plain deceitful, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of me or of anonymous editing. (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please join the long line of people who are angry that Wikipedia has standards, and won't accept random contributions from just anybody who has a grievance. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Jennings Carpenter

I prodded this one - the creator expanded it a little, added a couple of references, and removed the prod. I'm still not entirely convinced the subject meets the notability guidelines, but I'd appreciate someone with a more practiced eye looking it over and positing an opinion. Mind having a look? Also, could you please drop me a note on my talk page once you have? Thanks in advance. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If a journal of mosquito systematics wrote a memorial article on him, I'm pretty sure he's notable! Unfortunately the entire article may be a copyvio. I hope someone may have the patience to fix it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just wasn't sure the journal was quite major enough to serve as a source. I'll categorize the dates and leave it be, then. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I took a little time with it. I am sure it needs a bit more tweaking. I see what you mean by copyvio even with the "slight editing for this venue" by the author. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Self promotion

I have a question about self promotion. Please see:

I wonder if the paintings reflect self promotion by work of the submitter than adding to the articles. Your thoughts or comments?

It also appears that the first painting used for Scott Carpenter article (near bottom) was named - - and is nominated for deletion on 29 May 2009. A duplicate of the same picture at: - - I am not sure if the title was a mistake or what.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian discrimination against Roma people

I saw that you semi-protected Hungarian discrimination against Roma people. You think I should AfD the article? Most of the article just details the plight of the Roma people, and relies on some flawed logic to attribute this to Hungarian discrimination. Also, there are hardly any references available to back up the article's "claims". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, deletion would be good. The article was created in early 2008, in a version that mostly survives till this day, by Panel 2008 (talk · contribs), who seems to have had a mixed career on Wikipedia, getting many scoldings for his edits at Central Europe. (I only looked at his talk, not what the actual issues are). He stopped being active at the end of 2008. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the user making the most recent edits and I could not agree more with the decision to delete the whole article for the above mentioned reasons. Please note that I did no IP-hopping; I first edited from New Mexico then from Hungary.Lordofdepths —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Please see my comment on a 24 hour block you imposed on User:Cool Nerd, at that page. Edison (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at WP:AN3 and at Cool's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

Please see and comment here. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talkcontribs) 14:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the topic ban of User:Aoganov, and have added a comment at the thread on WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Remind me to not bother to edit political pages

Sheesh, what a storm of snarkiness. Sorry to bother you on your page, do you have any idea what is being demanded of me by this edit [78]? I don't see anyone asking me previously to 'fix my link', let alone "go fix your link already!". Really a lack of WP:CIVIL, IMO. Good heavens - all because I asked that people document their non-vandalism revisions on a talk page of an article on probation. Thanks in advance. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See your own comment at the top of Talk:Barack Obama#Relevancy. You say: I question this edit: [4], but the diff provided as #4 seems not to be what you intended. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, and I apologize for not noticing that. Sorry, too, that I didn't notice (maybe buried in the commentary?) anyone asking me about that before. I'll fix the ref. Thanks for being very clear. Cheers! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: removal of an external link to Oganov's work

Regarding removal of Science daily press-release on the article by Oganov. Only quality reasons: Boron must go to GA and FA, as all element pages. As such, it should contain links to the original articles (such as the Nature paper by Oganov, which by all means should be there) rather than press releases. The mentioned press release (as usual) contains scientific inaccuracies, such as boron is "ionic crystal", which phrasing was vehelmently opposed by the author himself on the boron talk pages :) (Just let me know if you need the diffs). Best regards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not right:
  • First, WP often refers to press articles and this is considered normal. Moreover, after reading the Science Daily article, Materialscientist should have understood that speaking about the "discovery" of Zarechnaya-Dubrovinskaia on WP pages (as he did) is not right, but he made no correction to such claims.
  • Second, the Science Daily article contained a very clear reference to our Nature paper (even a web-link), and that reference was ignored.
  • Third, the Science Daily article is, in my personal view, very high quality. I am unaware of any significant inaccuracies there. Chemical bonding in gamma-boron has both ionic and covalent components. Speaking about a "purely ionic" crystal is certainly not correct (pure ionic bond does not exist anyway), but "partially ionic" is perfectly right (and partial ionicity was indeed mentioned in Science Daily).
This story, among others, is indeed a reason for the edit-conflict with Materialscientist and for my suggestion to topic-ban him on the basis of a COI. Artem R. Oganov (talk)

First, please do sign your message with four tildas every time you edit, even from an IP (I've done it for you, but without a date as my reply is many hours late). Second, I'm not going to pick up this fight, unless specifically asked by a third party. Your peer-reviewed Nature paper was clearly mentioned there and having a separate, extra, non-reviewed, much shortened press release on the very same results is not what is expected from a GA/FA. As to "this story .. is indeed a reason", I've never heard of this particular "story" utill EdJohnston pointed me to it yesterday .. Thats to the point of face values. Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at WP:AN. If Aoganov is looking forward to a return to normal editing, I urge him not to evade the block on his registered account by using an IP to post here. In spite of the quality of his scientific work, he has already caused a lot of trouble on the Boron article. If you want to be forgiven for sockpuppeting in the past, continuing to sockpuppet even now is not much of a recommendation for you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI/N#Taos Institute

Hey, Ed, I noticed the COI/N entry for Taos Institute, and the names there rang a bell … or perhaps a gong. Within the past year, there has been an issue with this group either at COI/N, AN/I or perhaps elsewhere over those creating and editing these articles. I’ve been trying to run these down, but without success. Is there a way to <search> the archives for these pages?

Basically, the group was a nest of COI issues – which they weren’t admitting to although kept unintentionally revealing (it was a gang that couldn’t shoot straight) – producing a promotional page for the institute and creating bios for their members (autobios for a few). There might also have been a fringe issue as well with the institute’s program. As I recall, Mary Gergen and one or two other bios were AfD’d and perhaps an article on the institute itself. I think some of the Taos editors were blocked as well. In any case, this time around Dialogical seems to be the main editor, although other Taos Institute-related SPAs include Correspondencebias, GoVeg, Josephlogan69, and Jean Redmass. In short, this submission may require deeper digging to resolve. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked Google Scholar for Taos Institute but turned up mostly their own publications. I'd not be opposed to the speedy deletion of the article. 'Whatlinkshere' to Taos Institute doesn't find much previous discussion. Maybe the same command could be tried on the individual biographies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I made a very minor change to your comment at the COI page because I really really don't like being called 'Jethro' - I trust this minor change won't concern you too much. Aside from that, thanks for your comments. My main concern is with the self-promotion of the user's website, which prior to their own addition of links to it in Wikipedia articles, did not seem to be a well-known resource. But it doesn't seem appropriate that a website gain some kind of perceived notability in Wikipedia articles by its introduction into those articles by the creator of the website. Perhaps I am being overly concerned? I'd like to emphasise that I'm not suggesting the user should not be editing articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for misspelling your name. I think we should be more concerned about whether Wikipedia benefits from adding the link rather than whether the owner of the linked site benefits. I remember that the last time this was at COIN, it was hard to decide what to do because the site appeared useful, and the editor himself seemed to be a bona-fide contributor. Do you think he is preventing some desirable improvement to the article? EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the user's introduction of their own site into articles. But aside from that there is also a tendency of the user to 'protect' Russell's reputation. Because there is no clear consensus on issues I have raised, it would be in the editor's interest to be able to have a clear resolution regarding his COI that he can point to in the future.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The COI due to operating a website that is linked from the article is fairly obvious. Not sure how it would be more clear. The question is whether other editors would agree that he is editing neutrally. If you could show that he is obstructing progress on the article, that would be significant, but I've seen no data to show that so far. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the quick protection of Hey, Slavs, I'll get back to you once we've got everything sorted out. Cheers! Dotty••|TALK 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Just found this, and have to share it with you:

PARARUBBAS, here anonymously (, removed signs in INFOBOXES, links and REFS at Orlando Sá and Luis Aguiar ( and Most incredibly, the person i often accuse of writing appalling English in a variety of football articles (not my fault if he writes in poor fashion), did this in a user's page (, and

Almost erudite level of English, incredible the level of mockery he can achieve. So he vandalizes, writes in poor english when he can write well, removes whatever he wants, and what is done? NOTHING!! And now that i know he "contributes" from England, more than nothing!! I guess i would be more at risk, if i dare insult such a kind man (although i do acknowledge it does not solve anything, but neither does NOT insulting).

What a pityful disgraceful man (not you ED :)). Seriously, even though i know a long-range block is impossible, something has to be possible man...How about blocking anon IPs one-by-one? Is that a possibility?

Cheers from PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Additionally, i would also like to ask you (maybe i still haven't got it!!): when someone has a dynamic IP, are there any limits to the number of IP with which one edits (even though they repeat at times)?

Ty very much in advance, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The IP has been blocked. There is no problem blocking IPs one at a time. If you want to help out, you could start keeping a list of the IPs he uses. Then, after a few IPs have been recorded, we could decide if a rangeblock is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Attentively, VASCO, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

These IPs are too far apart to make it worth blocking the range. However, sometimes dynamic IPs are used in succession, so blocking the latest one is all you have to do. None of these were used since 30 May, so I wouldn't bother doing anything. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Was getting a love note every few days, but now it's spilled over into other users' talk pages and article space. [79] NJGW (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 777 Promotion

Thanks for the information but I can't find myself!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 3rd June 2009.

Hello DAFMM. The ANI discussion about you has been archived. It is now at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#FYI User:DAFMM. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 8th June 2009.


Need some help on the Kosovo page. It is being attacked constantly by people refusing to accept fact.

  • One example; the article talks of Serbian boys taken as "slave booty" to Asia during the Ottoman period - the source is Serb historian with no reputation
  • My source; Ira Lapidus - is standard university text for the study of Islamic societies (in this case the Ottoman empire), explains how Christian boys were taken from the Balkans - not from Serbia in particular - and enlisted in the Janissary corps when they were older

Thuranx ( I think he is an administrator?) keeps editing, for no apparent reason. I have tried to instigate discussion with him here on my talk page, but he gives no specific examples of my "vandalism". He seems to be pushing POV or in any case, wants to maintain the status quo regarding the Kosovo article. It should be noted that the Kosovo article is tagged as not neutral and full of misleading citations. I have tried to add numerous citations but there is a huge problem with the editors (possibly administrator (s)) on the page. I would like to know what you think.

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

You might consider following the steps of Dispute resolution. For example, raise a specific question on the Talk page and find out what different editors think. Wait for consensus to be reached before deciding how to change the article. Open a WP:Request for comment if necessary. I hope you are not surprised at being reverted on a highly-contentious topic like Kosovo. Great patience and diplomacy as well as good sources are required to edit there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply, and thanks for the advice. I will try and apply it. (Interestedinfairness ([[User

talk:Interestedinfairness|talk]]) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

Brett Frana

hi i was told my page was nomitated for deletion.. i have had my wiki page for a long time now and have not had an issue.. however i tried to update it and put alot more informationn about me and the projects i am involved in. i was then told that it was not allowed for me to do that. whick i do understand that your pages must be worded a certin way. however after talking to other people that work for the wiki i was told if i just put it back to the way it was before i had edited anything that it would be fine because that was already preapproved content. so i had dont that and put it all back to exactly the way it was last week and month the way it was when it was created.. i would hate to see it get deleted is there anyway to prevent this from happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettfrana (talkcontribs) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC for Corp Usernames

I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand, IP 160, and a New Allegation

Ed, you might want to take a look into this latest allegation by a new user. The user claims that IP 160/James Valliant/Pelargius1 are all one in the same person.[80] I have no idea if it's true. All I know is that a new user (Pelargius1) appeared today wanting all James Valliant's material put back everywhere on Wikipedia. It prompted a welcome, albeit lengthy, discussion. If the user is IP 160, the user is evading its block by way of a new account without notifying anyone. If it's Valliant, it's a conflict of interest and someone needs to be notified. And if they're all one in the same, I don't know what needs to be done. Should a checkuser report be filed on Pelargius1 to see if the user is IP 160? J Readings (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the article Talk. He should be welcome to participate on talk, since his original block expired, and his topic ban does not include the talk page. If he chooses to edit the article directly to promote his own work, and won't obey consensus, further sanctions are possible. The rules of WP:COI still apply. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue has attracted attention across a number of objectivist websites. Worth scrolling down here.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I found the link by inserting 'www' in front of your version. Be aware that we are limited in how we can use off-wiki information in any WP:COI cases. If there is an Ayn Rand editor who is truly motivated to follow up, and if there is an admin who is willing to block Pelagius1 for violating the IP's topic ban, then a filing at WP:SPI may be considered. (That would allow a checkuser to investigate). Meanwhile, it is still proper to observe that Pelagius1 is promoting the ideas of James Valliant in our articles. We can also ask him to self-disclose. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as self-disclosure goes, it is all getting a bit too weird today.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Ed, Pelagius1 has now identified himself as James Valliant's "book agent" (taking the statement literally, no doubt). He claims that he lives with James Valliant (???) and therefore any checkuser on him will yield a result showing James Valliant's internet IP. He also states categorically on the Wikipedia page that he is an "avid and shameless" promoter of James Valliant's work. Am I alone in thinking this situation is getting a little weird? If that's not conflict of interest, what is? J Readings (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a little weird. You're the editor who originally opened the topic ban discussion for the IP 160 at WP:ANI. Do you want to propose to Pelagius1 that, since they are editing through the topic-banned IP, they are an alternate account of that editor and should also observe the topic ban? (Otherwise, their edits might be considered ban evasion). If they won't agree voluntarily someone could propose it on a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we have the technology to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pelagius1 is IP 160? If so, I would recommend taking that last final step before doing anything else. So far, we have Pelagius1 confirming that he is deeply associated with James Valliant (that's a conflict). Whether or not he is James Valliant, I do not know. Then, we have another editor claiming that his personal correspondence with James Valliant matches topic-banned editor IP 160. If a checkuser matches them, it makes sense to then approach Pelagius1 to politely point out that he's been editing in breach of his topic ban. What do you think? J Readings (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a checkuser is needed. (It is not easy to get checkusers to run an IP check these days). The person lives with Valliant, the latter has a static IP, so we should assume they use the same IP address. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but is it IP 160? That's the issue. This outside WIki comment posts information alleging that it is.[81]. I don't recall Pelagius1 actually stating that he's IP 160, hence the problem. He *has* categorically stated that he lives with James Valliant, uses the same internet account, and he is Valliant's book agent for the shameless promotion of Valliant's work (which apparently includes Wikipedia). J Readings (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Pelagius makes a number of statements, e.g. "You will notice that I have added many, many other sources, as well. The citations for Rand-related articles have been radically improved with numerous sources, thanks to me" and "He is one my expert advisers and sometimes uses this account too. But never about himself. Wikipedia -- if you check the changes -- is the much better for it" which clearly imply a quantity of edits from either the same account or two computers in the same house which must pre-date Pelagius's account. Pelagius has only been around as Pelagius since May 19, and doesn't have that kind of edit history. Either Pelagius is referring to a pre-Pelagius account other than IP 160, or is acknowledging that he/she and/or Valliant was editing as IP 160. Only the latter makes sense to me. For what it's worth, one of the participants also disclosed what he claims to be an e-mail from Valliant with that IP number at another site KD Tries Again (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Since the Ayn Rand articles have caused plenty of trouble, if Pelagius1 resumes editing the articles directly there is a very strong possibility of admin intervention. What happens after that is probably up to the wisdom of WP:AN, but I think Pelagius1 can avoid trouble (that may include blocks) if they will stay on the Talk pages. I do not see a sockpuppet filing as necessary. Pelagius1 would probably be judged to be a meatpuppet of Valliant if the case were studied over at WP:SPI. If we filed a case at SPI, the clerks there would probably give us all a lecture about admins being able to use the WP:DUCK test to figure things out without any checkusering being needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the 'one of the participants' who corresponded with James Valliant as noted above. I had been in discussion with James, bringing him up to date on the talk pages and Wikipedia review Valliant/book controversy, letting him know some scuttlebutt that he himself was posting as IP 160.

I did not assume that Valliant was posting using the IP 160 account at the time. I considered it somewhat unlikely, and wrote to James to that effect, also directing him to a link to a 'What's my IP' site, so he could see if the IPs matched. To check my own doubts, I consulted earlier emails from his address, and carefully checked the IP addresses in the headers. They matched exactly to the IP 160 address.

I wrote back to James again, letting him know that he as IP 160 was now subject to a six month topic ban. He wrote back that a topic ban was news to him, since he had just added a reference to David Kelley's 'Evidence of the Senses' to the Objectivism article. I checked the article, and a fresh reference had been made as he had stated. . . by Pelagius 1.

I then posted to Wikipedia and contacted the editor of the off-Wikipedia site noted above. It was clear to me that IP 160 and Pelagius were one and the same.

I followed the links provided to me that suggested a sockpuppet investigation and a checkuser request. At the same time, I figured that the evidence I had provided James privately would encourage him to own up to posting as both IP 160 and Pelagius.

Then came the claims that Pelagius is a Valliant 'book agent' -- along with some rather unclear "my roommate did it" half-explanations. Obviously no one can prove one way or another that two or several people used the IP 160 account since last October, and similarly -- no one can prove that two or several people have been using the Pelagius account.

I am not convinced that any real sockpuppetry has been attempted: with the exception of the Kelley reference, Pelagius has made no edits, and has broken no Wikipedia policy that I can tell. I would suggest to Pelagius and IP 160 and to the various householders that someone make a clear report of the shared account, or at least acknowledge clearly what has been demonstrated privately.

To my last suggestion to James that he clear the air about shared accounts, I received an expletive-laced reply and a request to never write him again. Wsscherk (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Valliant and his book agent are two different people, and approach WP editing differently. It seems that we could work with Pelagius1 in the future. I hope they will continue to participate. WP:NOSHARE is a concern, but need not be the highest priority. So long as Pelagius1 will continue to negotiate, I would hold off on a sockpuppet filing. If, after things are well sorted out, we learn that both accounts are still being used in a shared manner, I'd suggest a block. It does not seem that we need to request any checkuser data for the moment: I'd give 80% probability that the underlying IP of Pelagius1 is what you would expect. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
An email has surfaced in which someone purports to be the Ayn Rand Institute's Leonard Peikoff. If the email is not a spoof, Peikoff has complained to Wikipedia's head about the James Valliant book edits, naming Barbara Branden as possibly "one of the instigators of your new policy." Wsscherk (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've not received any email on this subject. The editors working locally on the Ayn Rand articles seem to be the ones who don't think Valliant's book should be cited. The IP 160 was topic-banned for refusal to talk or negotiate, a fact which is easily verified from its contribution records. Pelagius1 is not blocked or banned, and could participate further if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
ODD SPOT -- Leonard Peikoff's former wife Amy has just announced that the complaining email is indeed from Peikoff -- Note announcing email's authenticity. Full text of the email available her. Wsscherk (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Your news about these discussions on external sites should probably go to one of the Ayn Rand talk pages, if you think that our editors should be taking notice of them. I've not done anything on the Rand matters since May 21. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Good suggestion. It was just an FYI. Wsscherk (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


A "competitors" section that lists other companies which have no connection to the article topic other than happening to provide the same service is never appropriate content in any Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You would be OK with it if sources were found to show that those companies provide a similar service? Competitive information is often found in articles about companies. What do you think about Verizon#Competitors? EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

2 questions: 1. Controvercy page is created by upset my opinion it must be forums are not credible sources in my opinion. The fact that bloomex company is Canadian partner for all Canadian orders for two largest floral companies Proflowers and 1800flowers is way stronger indication on company credentials. 2. Why I could not edit the article?Floralexpert (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please make your arguments at Talk:Bloomex. If the company is the Canadian partner for other companies, that might be mentioned if a third-party source can be found to prove the fact. You may not be able to edit the article due to the semiprotection. Please read WP:Conflict of interest before trying to edit the article directly, and wait and see if you can persuade the other editors on the Talk page. If others are convinced, they will change the article themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I try to express my opinion as a person who knows the industry and have worked in in for decades. It would be more prudent to block Dougweller who does not respond to discussion page and does not follow the logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floralexpert (talkcontribs) 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnson, I was all my adult life in floral business, owing number of retail outlets in Canada.I live in Ottawa and I involved in wholesale and bouquet distribution business now. From my professional activities I know Bloomex operations, but I do not have direct association with Bloomex. I consider myself an expert in floral industry and I did edit in the past articles related to floral industry in USA, though I did not bother to create login until recently until I came across article about Bloomex, the Canadian company. In my opinion, the problem arise when one of the unhappy customer ( or an unhappy local florist) edited article to include words like" scam" and included posts online forums. That post triggered further editing with COI from folks from the company, unhappy customers and editors. Before that article was published for 6 month without any major editing. I am ok to include BBB mentioning, though from expert point of few it is not 100% correct: 1. All florist by default receive rating C if they are not " accreddited by BBB ( read: pay money to BBB). The process of accreditation in Ottawa BBB is faulty and it has great coverage with fraud Ottawa BBB was involved by accrediting several companies involved in fraud ( national govermant new agency CBC had coverage on that with numerous coverage in local press:

2.THERE IS NONE OF HIGH VOLUME retail florists in Canada, who has good rating with BBB.- you could check it yourself, type " florist or flowers" in BBB search and select Canadian provinces or cities. there is no canadian florist with 100 or more complaints with rating higher than F. I do not agree about quoting Ellen Roseman as an expert, because

otherwise we have to quote her in all Wikipedia articles about 

large Canadian business. See her articles about: a) Sears: - 35 articles

b) Canadian Tire- 42 articles c) Future shop - 50 articles d) even grocery chain Loblaws has 18 articles

Please reply to my argument in logical way Floralexpert (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Repeated edit warring between two users

Hey. Since you initially responded to the thread on ANI, the two editors in question have posted a number of comments, but no one outside of the conflict has said anything. Should I take it to WP:ANEW as Jayron said? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I hoped that getting both editors to comment at ANI might help to settle down the conflict. If any admin action is done, it should probably be a mutual restriction, like a 1RR. However, just looking at Sofia Rotaru, I don't see more than one revert per day in recent times from either editor. Do you know of any articles where the warring was more serious? EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess things have calmed down now that I've mentioned this battle in official channels; most of the big revert battles I can find are from five days ago. But really, it's more just a lot of bad blood between them. On Talk:Dusha#Soul (film) and Talk:List of highest paid musicians in 2008, for example, it's finger-pointing. Is it best to just wait until a big revert war happens again and then report it? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
These two people seem to be content editors who are quite devoted to creating proper writeups on Sofia Rotaru. Such editors are sometimes perfectionists about their own vision and tend to butt heads. So long as we can get them to discuss properly, it may be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

New Creation Church (Singapore)

Hi Ed, Could you please move this page to New Creation Church in line with the consensus on the talk page - I tried but an admin needs to do it apparently. I'd be greatful if you could take a look at some of the recent edits too - the article was discussed at WP:COIN and it seems as though editors with a COI may still be editing it. I'm not quite sure how to maintain a NPOV. Thanks Smartse (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can do the move, but the discussion listed at WP:RM has only been running for four days, and one person has already opposed it. Better to let it run a bit longer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of ?

I see that you banned the IP number from certain topics and cited "a discussion at ANI", the phrase in quotes here appearing as a blue link. When I clicked on it, I didn't find that particular discussion, but only the ANI page. Can you give a URL for the discussion? Thanks. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael, here are the links:
EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


No problem with your edit, but as far as I know it was a standard 4 tilde timestamp, so if the bot has a problem with that maybe the bot needs to be fixed? – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


I have not violated the 3RR My first revert was at 05:59, 7 June 2009, my fourth revert was at 18:31, 8 June 2009. I had well over 24 hours between my first revert and my fourth revert. After my first revert, I accidentally reverted my own edit, and promptly undid this accident. Unless, I am mistaken (please correct me if I am), this accident does not count in the 3RR Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No header

Hi! Unfortunately a recently blocked user [[82]] continues the same activity [[83]]. I tried too initiate a discussion on a new basis, but there is not much to try. He also finds support to another user [[84]] (he is also a newcommer in wiki ), in order not to break the 3rr (he continuously insists that he will not break that again and will organize combined actions). Is it something we can do? Thank you for your time.Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


Why are you accusing me? I have opened topics in talkpages, and have done nothing to break any rule. You are accusing me for things you and Athenian are doing on a daily basis. EdJohnston just see for yourself that I have opened topics on talkpages. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I sent you an email with details of all the actions of Alexikoua and Athenian--Sarandioti (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru again

Disruption in Albania articles

Hi EdJohnston,

The level of disruption in the articles on cities in Southern Albania is becoming intolerable. First let me begin with Sarandioti. He hasn't stopped revert-warring since his block expired and is clearly gaming the system, as these comments show [85] [86]. Although he hasn't broken 3RR, he has 3R in Delvine and Paramythia, 2R in Berat, Saranda, Himara, and Gjirokaster in the last 24 hours. He edits in bad faith, falsely claiming here that I wrote "Greek majority" [87], when in fact I wrote "minority" [88], he pretends I gave no source [89] when in fact I did [90], and he dismisses out of hand any source I bring as "unreliable" without providing a reason [91]. He has a combative attitude and battleground mentality as evidenced by these comments [92], [93], [94], [95], and these are but a small sample. But perhaps most disturbing of all is that right when he is about to break 3RR, his allies User:I Pakapshem and now this guy who just popped up [96] are there to revert in his stead. These are both brand new accounts, yet they seem intimately familiar with Wikipedia policy. The newest guy, User:XXxLRKistxXx leaves comments like these [97], to which Sarandioti replies as follows [98]. If not socks, these definitely seem like meatpuppets or a revert tag-team. Best regards. --Athenean (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In Sarande I have done 2 reverts like you and Alexikoua so hwy do you accuse me? Also the sockpuppet accusations are empty, and I cannot talk however I want with people I share same views regarding certain issues(LRK). Who are you to judge others? And I still have not forgotten your explanation for removing the proper picture of fustanella :rv because this is one ugly ass picture. Yes EdJohnston thats what Athenian said, chek it if you want. So stop personally attacking me Athenian for irrelevant matters(osckpuppetry, break of rules). Always you speak without ANY piece of proof for ANYTHING. And it seems to me that you and Alexikoua are the ones tag-teaming, because you always make 4 reverts per day, 2 each. Coincidence? DOnt think so. As for the articles it has been explained MANY times by MANY editors why they are reverted, so stop your nationalist lies. EdJohnston for his comment what do you have to say? Is that an approriate answer? And Athenian you added that there is a large minority in Sarande while your source just states that it is large enough to maintain a small school which has never been asked.--Sarandioti (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, There's now an ANI thread about the new "LRK" account. Fut.Perf. 08:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sara. mainting alternative names doesn't mean that a country's borders have to change (why u feel that this is related?). Why r u talking about Greek flags and stuff like you will take revenge, in the Saranda article? I'm sorry Sara. this is not a nice approach.Alexikoua (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is my only account! What revenge are you talking about alex? --Sarandioti (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith I have stopped editing several articles. --Sarandioti (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


The vandal is back Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Semied both articles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hes blocked for vandalism himself i suggest you dont taint your image by communicating with this grey editor (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


the vandal is back

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

lol and this indian american vandal is blocked please do not feed trolls (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat is trying to fuel the edit war at Burma. I have reported the page to Nishkid64 for semiprotection. I have not touched the page since my ban ended Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi there ED, VASCO here,

I need your help, and no, not with PARARUBBAS this time (although he could be mentioned somewhere in the next lines):

Upon making some edits, while anon - my IP is standard - in Bruno Saltor Grau (seen here, i received a "tip" in an edit summary by User:Scjessey. I immediately sent him a message, logging in, debating "the goods and bads". Minutes after logging off again, i received a message in my anon account, where the said user tagged me as a sockpuppet of myself (here

I always thought those tags were "handed" to vandals (like the case we all know), so logged in again, and tried to argue about what was happening and defend myself. No apologies, nothing from him, just a "as long as your intentions are good, you'll be fine". After a couple more hours editing IN and OFF, he reinstated the tag on the anon account, and i have already tried to talk with him again - his response, here(

I have been at WP, since i have the account, over an year now, and NOTHING like this has ever happened. Turns out Jessey has already been blocked three times (, whilst i, always editing IN and OFF (i also told him, and now tell you, i will continue to do so in the future), haven't been once (just a couple of warnings for harsh edit summaries, that's all).

After my essay, i hand you the verbal duties. My question is: is this guy's attitude legitimate? If not, could you intervene? Is that tag appropriate? Really confused...

Ty very much in advance, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


I have removed the template per your request; however, I have a legitimate concern that this user is editing articles and engaging in talk page discussion with both the username and the IP address, flicking back and forth between one and the other. Other editors may not be aware that they may be dealing with the same individual - an individual who performs what some may regard as rather contentious edits. Perhaps you could urge this editor to self-identify in a satisfactory manner? I suggested this on the user's talk page. This would avoid confusion in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a related suggestion for NothingButAGoodNothing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Will do yes sir, immediately. How do i get about inserting such template?

--NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine. I added 'cat=no' to the template because there is no need to have a category for your alternate accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

László Tőkés

Hello! Thank you for your involvement at László Tőkés. I would like to pont out that the usage of city names which are related to Romania, Slovakia, Serbia is disputed between Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak and Serb users. Cities, like Oradea/Nagyvárad, Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár and the others were Hungarian cities from 1000 until 1918 with Hungarian/German/Romanian population. Those cities still have significant Hungarian population with Hungarian identity. Even so, there are Romanian users who keep removing Hungarian names because they say that using Hungarian names is nothing else, just hungarian irredentism and revisionism, and Romanian names are official (although these names are mentioned in the lead in encyclopedias [99] and can be used, according to wiki rules "Multiple local names"[100]). I thought you should know this. CheersB@xter 9 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates Gigs (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The problems arising from the dyslexia project dispute

Dear Ed the problems arose out of what would appear to be missunderstandings and a lack of user communication. From my side of the problem is the way in which the WIKI structure discriminates against those who sahre my type of communication disability. I have been diagnosed as having Auditory Processing Disorder, which causes me to be dyslexic. WIKI does not provide the required alternatives for those who share my type of communication disabilities, and because of this can prevent us from contributing to WIKI successfully. Everything is just a mass of text, very few diagrams or visual examples. The support artilce and the indexs are unnavigable all text and difficult to process and understnad. I have spent day hust trying to find out how to create a new category in wiki and still have not found a really suitable and logicla explaination. It appears to be too many cooks spoil the broth,you needa proper well organised and regularly reviewed users manual which everyday foile can understand. The presenjt system is only intellegable to the very few who appear to make up the rules as the go along.

dolfrog (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you'll ask at WP:Help desk if you need assistance. From a quick look at your contributions, I believe that you must have checked a box that says 'Mark all edits minor by default,' which is found in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences. It is better to leave that box unchecked. Your complaints about User:RHaworth are hard to understand, and I hope you'll consider the possibility that he is actually trying to help. For a better-organized help document, take a look at Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. It at least has a few visual examples. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As a comment there seems to be a general lack of understanding by those who oversee the WIKI ystem of the specialsied communication needs of those who may have, through no fault of thier own, a communication disability. This in tuen means that there is some unintentional WIKI institutional disabiliyt discrimination against tjhose who have communication disabilities such as Dyslexia , Auditory Processing Disorder , Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome , Alexia , Aphasia , stroke , etcf this list just goes on.

If wiki only wants to allow those who do not have these disabilities to access and be active WIKI users then that is pure Disability Discrimination, or WIKI needs to adapt and adopt more understanding of the communication needs of those who have commun ication disabilities, especially those WIKI users who wish to become administrators.

dolfrog (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

'Discrimination' is a strong word, and I suggest that you frame your requests for assistance more carefully. If you think WP discriminates since it is most conveniently used by people who don't have dyslexia, your position is unlikely to win much support. If you want to be an administrator some day, getting into a quarrel with User:RHaworth so early in your career is not a good omen. From his talk page, it seems that you and he may be getting along better now. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If Wiki were to take Dyslexia seriously then WIKI would provide the multipl colour background oiption in the user preferences that other information web sites provide for dyslexics who have problems with black font ona whilr background. may be you should have a look at the IRLEN web sites to find out more regarding Scoptopic Sensitivity syndrome or Mears Irlen Syndrome

dolfrog (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows its appearance to be customized. The most common setup is called 'Monobook', but if you ask at WP:VPT people can probably advise you on how you can obtain a different-colored background on your own system. To get started, go to your user preference page and click on the 'Skin' tab to see some options. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you have miss understood the needs of those who have Scotopic Sensitivity syndrome (SSS), they are sensitive to cerain light frequwncies and each person who has SSS will be sensitive to different light frquencies os they require the whole background of a web page to be a single bavkground colour to enable them to acces the web page, and the MONObook has at least 3 background colours. Most SSS freindly web sited have at leat six single web page background options to suite the need of most of those who have SSS, So you would need to have at least six more preference options and these options mnetioned or offered on every WIKI page. Again have a look at the IRlen web site

dolfrog (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here. If you express interest in tailoring your own setup to meet your needs, you may be able to get some advice at WP:VPT. You could also try leaving messages for one or more of the people listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia#Participants to see if they have any suggestions. That project does not seem very active, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I would love the other people listed on the project page to become more involved, but just recently It would be easier to get blood out of a stone, I have tried. And this is part of the problem I am facing, due to my own communication disabiliyt I am not getting ther support I need when trying to edit the Dyslexia project articles and malking contact with other Wiki categoroes and related WIKI articles, my communication deficts become a great handicap in trying to erxpress waht i am trying to achieve out side the areras of my own specilaised knowledge. So any suggestions to find more support would be greatfully recieved.

I know waht it is like to be a volunteer, I have been running a not for profit orgnaisation to provide help and support for those who share my disability in my own free time for the last 7 years now. But so far with regard to that particular project i have not been working on my own.

dolfrog (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance on SocialSense AfD

The activity around an article I nominated for deletion a few days ago bears some similarity and connections to that of an AfD you participated in on Jacob Apelbaum that was deleted a while back. Since I'm being identified as the problem in this AfD, would you take a look at the situation and provide input or assistance? I don't care about the AfD decision, but I would like to avoid having to renominate the AfD if the article was blanked and speedied. Other related links: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 05:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've warned User talk:PiRSqr about personal attacks and cautioned him about charges of stalking. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarandioti and I Pakapshem

Thoughts on 1RR vs. topic ban? Athenean is right about 1RR, so I think a topic ban might be more effective. See User talk:Nishkid64#Question for you for more. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a topic ban makes more sense. Though I don't have time at the moment, it would be helpful if somebody (Athenean?) could make a list of the Albanian articles where name-warring per WP:NCGN has been happening over the past three months. We would concentrate on those where non-Albanian names had been removed. Here are some more links for reference.
It's worth noting that anyone like Sarandioti who knows how to file a 3RR report and an Arbcom case and can upload images is probably not a brand-new editor. His account was created on 26 May 2009. Since his interests and edit-warring tendencies have so much overlap with User:Balkanian`s word it is tempting to request a checkuser. The latter identifies his home town as Saranda on his user page, and 'Sarandioti' sounds like the word for a resident of Saranda. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Withdraw my idea that a check should be run, after comparing their contributions further. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ping, you have e-mail. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

An AfD that could be getting overheated

Greeting EdJohnson. Please forgive any perceived transgression and attribute it entirely to ignorance and not malice. The only reason I used the title “Stalking” was because I perceived that Flowanda was very aggressive and confrontational with me. To get a better advice on how to deal with this, I decided to communicate with few other editors that had similar experience with Flowanda and get their opinion. The title of the comment “Stalking” (I’m still not sure what that means in the context of Wikipedia) came from a posting that Ratel left on Flowanda talk page. Most editors suggested that I take the high road and not respond beyond supporting the article with further references. Which is exactly what I’m planning to do going forward. Also, while I have your attention just few questions...

  • 1. Where do I go for second opinion (I’ve been using names of editors from Flowand talk page, is that legit or is there an official place I should go to get these opinions?
  • 2. When an editor uses a confrontational language like in the case of the SocialSense article debate when I was told that I provided no references or evidence when in fact id did. Do I not reply to it? and by not doing so, will I lose credibility in the discussion.
  • 3. When I'm asked to provide additional references and I do, can another editor simply remove them because even though they were valid they weren’t formatted properly? How do I add these references back without starting an editing war?
  • 4. Does Wikipedia have a live chat feature that you can use to get advice or editing help? If not, I would like to propose this feature and would be happy to help build it (I did similar open source implementation in our corporate Wiki).

Best--PiRSqr (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Data collection

Hi Ed,

I have collected the data you suggested. The city articles that have most heavily been affected are Himare, Saranda, Delvine, Gjirokaster and Berat (in roughly that order). The disturbance is also afflicting article of towns in Greece that may or may not have been inhabited by Cham Albanians in the past, such as Konitsa, Paramythia, Arta and Preveza. It is also worth noting that User:Balkanian`s word and I had pretty much reached a stable, unwriteen gentlemen's agreement regarding these articles, and all the recent disturbance has been occuring since Sarandioti burst on the scene.

As far as I know, the only discussion is on Talk:Himarë#Demographics,greeks,albanians of Himare, but I would not call it sensible. It mostly consists of bad faith attempts by new users to undermine perfectly legitimate sources, and I consider it closed. This thread [User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Greece-Albania articles, some thoughts.] I initiated on Future Perfect's page, though, might be of interest to you.

I am also certain that Balkanian`s word and Sarandioti are different users, although I suspect that I Pakapshem, Sarnadioti, and XxxLRKistxxX may be the same user (particularly the last two). These articles are also plagued by IPs [106] [107], who may or may not be block evading users. --Athenean (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks! If any topic ban winds up being imposed, it would have to be based on good data. Though the rules for issuing topic bans under WP:ARBMAC are quite liberal, if the case for a ban is not solid as a rock such a ban might not win general support. I'll wait and see if the problem continues before proposing anything.
  • If we think there is good evidence that Sarandioti and I Pakapshem are close colleagues who intend to work together to insert POV into our articles, then sanctions under WP:MEAT are possible. That is, sockpuppet remedies as applied to meat puppets. This might be easier to justify than a topic ban (or at least, require less discussion). It would most likely need a filing at WP:SPI. Also, in response to your comment about articles 'plagued by IPs', I think the community is willing to accept semiprotection of articles where POV-pushing by IPs can be shown. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me that both Sarandioti and I Papakshem are here only for the purpose of aggressive POV-pushing and supporting each other in edit wars. I'd say these are classical cases for ARBMAC sanctions. Just go ahead and ban. The amount of edit-warring alone and the obvious meatpuppetish pattern where the one jumps into exactly the revert-wars of the other makes it a rock-solid case, in my view. Fut.Perf. 20:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable Gjirokastrits

The user Alexikoua keeps adding 2 unknown greeks in notable gjirokastrits sections, in the beginning of the section. I moved them below, but he reverted it back. 1)Just because they are "greek" doesnt mean they're known. The second one especially. And he has no right to put them before nobel-nominees like Ismail Kadare, or ethnologists. They are part of the greek nationalist attempt to hellenise the gjirokaster article. Check my talkpage for your question. --Sarandioti (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The list is in chronological order. They are sourced by english books, what;s the problem on that?Alexikoua (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another user added an alphabetical order, and your order was not chronological. And the 2 people you added were of Vlach origin and also completely UNKNOWN. --Sarandioti (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look. Personally I go for alphabetical rather than chronological, but whatever is the convention is fine. I agree with Sarandioti's doubts about the notability of Dimitrios Hatzipolyzoy. All that's currently sourced about him is that he was rich and gave an endowment to a high school. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because he was a resident that does not make him notable. He is unknown. --Sarandioti (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the guys that do not have a single source in the list, and have a 'citation needed' sign since 2008? Sara.'s pov approach didn't see that. Alexikoua (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

POV approach? Stop dodging the issue. The ones you have added are unknown. That is what we are discussing. And other editors who are totally NPOV agree with me. Dont try to change the subject just because you are proved totally erroneous. Unknown additions=at least one of them should be removed. I agree with your alphabetical order Gordonofcartoon. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I started adding references, so I will have that finished by tomorrow. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You r still continuing a pov approach. This is the english wikipedia and not the Albanian. In order to be someone notable you need something written in english. Try to use a book, a dissertation, an academic research etc, per wp:rs. Off course a potral is not an rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well done Saradiot, except Bashkim, the other sources are 'rs'. However, your arguement about Vlachs and unnotability seems unsourced.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

References were totally reliable, its not my problem if you disagree. Acording to the guidelines there's no problem. About your adds, how exactly are they notable? For Asim Zeneli for example there is a road in Gjirokaster named after him. However, your notable vlach hellenised adds are UNKNOWN!--Sarandioti (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It was named with the totalitarian regime's sanctions. So, give me a break. Totalitarian regimes have no place in here. Suppose, the way, the Lrk, (the extremist group you belong) belongs to something like that.Alexikoua (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again the totalitarian-regime-fairytale. Is it or is it not accepted by your country? It is, so there's no point in what you say. Official data accepted by all countries=official data should be used. --Sarandioti (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The section being disputed is Gjirokaster#Famous Inhabitants. How about a deal under which that list is stripped to contain only those famous residents who already have articles? Move the ones who could be famous, but have no articles, to the Talk page? (I indented the above comments to clarify who said what). EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem if most of those with no articles were unknown, but Cerciz Topulli, Cabej, Zeneli, Sako, Hoxhi, Ahmeti are indeed well-known in Gjirokaster. Although, we could remove Hatzipolyzoy, Kalemi, Lolis, Marka. --Sarandioti (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the one with articles stay the rest can go.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

problem arising once again

Iwanafish is having civility problems. See:,_town_clerk_of_London#VANDALISM.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F

He was warned lightly by one user and the end of:

And more strongly at:

This because what happened at:

I am afraid he will go back into his hostile revert mode. His talk is disturbing. Any suggestions? Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Please, could you block this anon IP by "our friend" PARARUBBAS? He "contributed" here (, gluing all sentences, empoverishing English (even though he knows the language) and removing REFS.

Ty very much in advance, "see you",

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be Pararubbas. This is an IP from Opal Telecom in the UK. Unfortunately, we can't do much. This IP has not edited since 12 June so is probably not even in use any more. No point in blocking it. We could consider semiprotection, but there are far too many articles on Portuguese football to make that worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

North America

Again... sorry to bother you. Anonymous IP user (we already know who that is) is attacking the article North America. It was semi-protected by another admin, but as soon as the protection expired, this guy came back just to vandalize and disrupt the page. Notice how HE IS THE ONLY person oposing the changes and thus, vandalizing the article just because he won't accept the changes even if there is sources. My request is, please protec the article. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Probably a new SPI case should be opened just to track the new identities of Corticopia and justify the continued admin involvement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sora Kake Girl vandal back

Hey EdJohnston, remember this person? The block expired, and they're right back at it - see [108], 2, 3. Care to reblock Special:Contributions/ ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 09:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and reblocked them for 1 month in light of two more vandalism edits in the past five minutes. I'd appreciate some feedback, as I don't normally do much with blocking on my own like this. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 12:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Rangeblock looks justified to me. If the problem recurs again, an even longer block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
All right, cool. I wonder how much good a report to the registrar (the WHOIS report stresses that KRNET is a "National Internet Registry", not an ISP) would do. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't hurt. Let me know if it does any good! EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Fascism/3RR

Hi -

That whole article and its history are nuts. I didn't think we had any 158kb articles, but we do, and there it is. There's talk about an RFC on the talk page, but I can't find any trace of it. And now the edit summaries of the reversions are talking about the expiration of an RFC. It's a hot mess.

Anyway, here's my thought process on it: I was going through RFPP the day that Vision Thing made a request for semi-protection. I did, but I probably shouldn't have because the IP's note on my talk page was correct - we shouldn't semiprotect in an edit war unless _all_ editors involved are anon/IPs. The IP in this discussion readily admitted his was a dynamic address and owned up to all of his edits, so I don't think he was hiding or attempting sockpuppetry.

Upon reading Talk:Fascism, I reached the conclusion that VT, instead of participating in the discussion there as vigorously as he should, was trying to get the IP editor out of the conversation. So, I unprotected and resolved to watch the article to see if the edit war resumed. Then my real life intervened, and VT went to 3RR, and you know the rest.

I don't have a problem with your block because I may have done the same if I had handled that report. I also think, though, that the edit warring will continue and that some interval of full protection to the article may be necessary to stop it. Taking a look at the history of the last couple of days, I'm about ready to pull the trigger. I'm open to suggestions. - 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrakatoaKatie (talkcontribs)

I'll follow up on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ed,

I've proposed again a lead paragraph for the Political Spectrum section: Talk:Fascism#Political Spectrum Proposal. It's either the third or forth time I've tried to do that, though, and it doesn't seem to have worked very well so far.

I was thinking of notifying people who have been invovled in discussions on the topic previously. It would be about 30 people. Would this be an acceptable thing to do? Obviously I will invite people regardless of what their position of the question is.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces informs me that he contacted quite a few people less than a week ago, so there is probably the issue of not hassling people too much. --FormerIP (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)