User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Climate Change Guide

I've unblocked him. Thanks for the heads-up. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

MediaCityUK

Can you have a look at MediaCityUK, it may need protection and maybe some blocks as both Malleus Fatuorum and Rangoon11 have breached WP:3RR on this page today and both know the rule. Mtking ^(edits) 06:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You can open a complaint at WP:AN3 if you wish. I have not counted the reverts, but it seems that the WP:MOS favors Malleus' side of the argument, preferring 'England' to 'UK'. It's the question of what is the most specific geographical unit that gives the actual location of this project. It doesn't seem to be a question of which sovereign state the project is located in. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have filed two reports at WP:AN3 Mtking ^(edits) 02:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My fault for not explaining that the reports would be stale, since it is more than 24 hours since the last revert by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you close them then. Mtking ^(edits) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done so. Remember that the usual 3RR report expects a 3RR warning. For an experienced contributor, it might be enough if you notify them you are making the report. This gives them a chance to respond. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to explain what is going on. The MediaCityUK page is being edited by imposters who claim they are improving it. To me it appears they have nothing else better to do than to irritate other editors in a rude and uncivil manner that goes against Wikipedia:Civility. If you want to block Rangoon, then it would symbolise what is wrong with Wikipedia at the moment and why the site is losing contributors. I feel alienated and disillusioned. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Two of the editors working there are well-known for their writing skills and their ability to improve articles. (I assume these are the people you call 'impostors'). If you don't like the result of their work, you should negotiate the matter at Talk:MediaCityUK. If you can't reach agreement there, consider opening up a WP:Request for comment. I am mystified by what the dispute is about, but perhaps you can put it into words on the talk page. One idea is to put two versions side by side on the talk page and ask for opinions as to which is better. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Need your opinion here as an uninvolved member

Hi Ed, Can you look into point 7 here as an uinvolved party [1]Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi EdJohnston, I hope you don't mind if I ask a question. I have been told long ago by an editor that if one editor makes an edit on an article with notable sources and another editor disagrees with that editor and the notable source cited and consider it npov, the other editor should not delete the edit and sources of the first editor but instead should make their case underneath with another notable source backing up their case. Apparently this is the protocol on Wiki. Is this correct? I have always kept to this policy and it is quite strange when I don't see others doing it as well. Have I been poorly advised or something? Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't mentioned the name of any article for me to review. I do notice one diplomatic comment that you made recently. Thank you for that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Halaqah again. See here [2]. This is just one of many. They have also resulted to placing tags without discussing see [3] and [4] and here [5] see bottom in particular as they seem to be confusing themselves about the notability on an author. Instead of justifying why they have placed the tag in the article in the first place when questioned and asked to provide sources, they speedily removed the tag they have placed without even commenting as in here [6]. It begs the question why put the tag in the first place then? They have also resulted in placing numerous tags at the end or middle of numerous sentences such as "dubious"; "or"; "who" etc on the Medieval history of the Serer people as you can see for yourself here [7]. The "who" tag in particular was the biggest shocker because it was very apparent that section was talking about Abu Bakr the 11th century Almoravid. This person is not going to stop what they are doing to Serer related articles in fact, in their own words they "will be back". They even said in the Senegal talk page - the Almoravids didn't bring Islam in the Senegambia without any source when in fact, all notable sources proved otherwise, and in the Serer people article, they provide a source (Asante) which actually proved that it was in fact the Almoravids who brought Islam through wars. If this wasn't serious it would be funny. Lest not beat about the bush, lest call call a spade a spade. The edit evidence is to paint a postive light about Islam and the Serer people's history of strong resistance against Islamisation for nearly a thousand years as backed up by the notable authors in the relevant articles and sections. Sources demonstrating that including the long and bitter wars between Serer religion and Islam religion have been deleted and a more pro Islam edit added. Serer related articles are now a joke and I haven't got the energy nor the time to resolve this person's edits. I have learned my lesson from the last time and will never again make a complaint against this editor. As you can see there is a greater issue going on but I just needed to know specifically whether the advise I was previously given was correct and what are my options (excluding making a complaint).

ThanksTamsier (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The location of this dispute seems to be Serer people. You are participating at Talk:Serer people which is good. Extremely long posts make it hard to see what people are disagreeing about. Consider going one step at a time and see if you can get agreement on one small section. For instance, offer two alternatives on the talk page for a particular section and see how many people support each version. See WP:Dispute resolution for other ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tamsier (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Atabey again

Hi Ed, Please note the following comment by Atabey [8]. It is directly inflammatory against Kurdo777 where he is generalizing about a country. The comment is actually meant to be inflammatory in a discrete way. He has been warned numerous times and I believe it is time for him to be banned fully from all AA (widely construed to include Iran, Turkey , Caucasus). I am not sure how long Wikipedia is going to tolerate such behaviour. I believe since you have had experience with this, you can take care of this without me reporting him to the current Arbcomm. Recall here: [9]. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I made the comment in a good faith. Some people reading Shahnameh can find it anti-Turkish. Does not mean it's bad, it's just the way it is interpreted, it is a view on the talk page. I am contributing to all articles with tons of references, and sadly it seems that User:Khodabandeh14 is trying to report anything I say, as a way to restrict me from editing topical articles, such as Flag of South Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, etc. Just look at his tone of subject Atabey, again.... Please, check his edits at Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan and especially here, for what looks like he is warning to create flag pages for Lezgistan and Talyshistan, in response to edits on Flag of South Azerbaijan. Isn't that an engagement in WP:BATTLE? Not to mention, his recent declined attempt to open another ArbCom, further draining administrative resources. All the concerns that Khodabandeh14 claims are already discussed on talk pages. Atabəy (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is bad accusation. I just said that WP:RS sources exist mentioning those flags (in response to Atabe's comment to Kurdo777). Howevr, Atabek's comment to Kurdo777 above was inflammatory. As per Arbcomm, it has not been declined or accepted yet. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

errant charges

[10] and [11] appear to me to be rather improper edits by "Count Iblis" and "Russavia." The latter seems oblivious to any thought of acknowledging any misdeeds, and the former seems quite encouraged by such acts <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely that anything we say will influence their thinking one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[[The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song)

Hello, Can you please unprotect The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song) because it officially charted at number 87 in Australia Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This was not protected because users seem not to agree it was released as a single, it was protected because it didn't chart yet, and thus didn't meet WP:SONGS, but now it has officially charted in Australia. Nobody ever said that it's not a single, it is a single, go see the revision history on the page, the only reason it kept getting redirected to it's parent album, is because it didn't chart at the time, but now it has officially charted in Australia and in New Zealand, and has been announced via numerous sources that it's the sixth single from Teenage Dream and it deserves its own page. Here are some sources: Katy Perry's official website announces it as a single Billboard.com announces it as a single.

The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song)

Please unprotect the page. It has now entered the New Zealand official singles chart, so it's automatically encyclopedic; it's been released on 28th September btw source ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Make this proposal at a suitable talk page. For instance at Talk:Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album)#Anyone working on page for The One That Got Away? See if the others agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Katy Perry song protection

The release as a single (as you said at my talkpage) is not a justification for creation, but the charts are, and now it charted. The problem now is that Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk · contribs) made a copy-pasted move to The One That Got Away (song). The One That Got Away (song) has to be redirected to The One That Got Away because there are two other songs called "The One That Got Away", if you could do a history merge that would be great. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It will be at least six hours until I can look into this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your redirect takes care of it no merge appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Enforcement=

Ed, You have been involved with this case before: [12] and put the last enforcement. Please see the request for enforcement [13]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Indefinite" Topic Ban Regarding Longevity

EdJohnston,

I have put out an unofficial request for comment here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryoung122#Longevity-Related_Issues

regarding when/if I my topic-ban regarding the subject of longevity should be lifted. I do think the punishment was a bit harsh (in particular, the "broadly interpreted" comment). I think, for example, one should at least be allowed to make talk-page comments, if not edit the main article, when appropriate.

I also think that "indefinitely" could be better or worse than "one year." David in DC had indicated to me privately that "one year and one day" was too harsh. So, I'd like to hear your opinion. If the responses are positive, then we can discuss the next step.Ryoung122 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Essay on AE

I just wrote a very rough draft of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

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

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gondomar S.C.

Hi there ED, VASCO here, longtime no "see" (unfortunately, i come due to disruption stuff once again :(),

User:Ruizinho18 took it upon himself to insert the history of this Portuguese football club in PORTUGUESE (!), ripe in POV/WEASEL (i can translate parts for you if you request it). Upon a polite message from me suggesting that he took his "game" to PT.WIKI (don't know their views on POV there, but that's for the guys there to watch out), also asking for him not to engage in OR or (the twice-mentioned) POV, his reply was the following: change (on purpose or not) IP address, insert the same junk in article.

Of course i am not going to talk with this chap anymore, given the feedback i am getting (the dynamic IPs would not help my case also), your suggestion man? Attentively, thank you very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Gondomar S.C.. I don't know what you mean about the Portuguese Wikipedia, since the history of their Gondomar article does not show him making similar edits there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Misunderstood again, sigh...What i meant about the PT.WIKI was simple: since he writes in Portuguese - to irritate people or because he does not know English, i choose the second out of good faith - i suggested he did there what he did here, at least the language would be the correct, i did not imply he had already written there. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Enforcement

I would also like the sanctions to apply to User:Sayig1 here: [14] . --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This might be of intrest?

I noted the question asked here, and thought this might be of interest to you. It lists the editing restrictions which may be applied under the Heading of Remedies in the WP:TROUBLES Arbcom. Under the Heading of Probation for disruptive editors it clearly links to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which clearly states that:

Probation (supervised editing): The user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way (usually disruptively) by an uninvolved administrator. Probation is usually used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior.

Revert restriction: Usually, the user is limited to a certain number of reverts (usually 1) per page/topic per period of time (usually: 24 hours or 1 week) – exceptions, such as obvious vandalism, may apply. The user is additionally required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Users who exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion are usually blocked. See also WP:1RR or WP:0RR.

Topic ban: The user is prohibited from editing either (1) making any edits in relation to a particular topic, (2) particular pages that are specified in the ban; and/or, (3) any page relating to a particular topic. Such a ban may include or exclude corresponding talk pages. Users who violate such bans may be blocked.

It is therefore possible to not only place a user on probation but to have them banned from pages. I hope this is useful? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About the photos

I perfectly know what Wikipedia is all about, but when something is wrong you need to fix it. I am not going to an edid war here, but when someone reverts over and over again and putting something clearly wrong, what should someone do? I have tried to communicate, but without luck...Nochoje (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Jonchapple's talk page.
Message added 22:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JonC^Talk 22:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Older sanction update

Hey there. You might like to take a look at a preliminary assessment of what needs to be updated and offer comments on the talk page there? Feel free to point out if I've forgotten anything. — Coren ^(talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

edit war

dear edjohnston,

i would like to address a concern i have.

user User:Swift&silent reverted my edit here [15] under a cover of an incomprehensible and ludicrous charge [16]. the content was clearly wp:or, an assessment reinforced by the fact that he removed two sources that are easily verifiable i.e. that prove that i'm right. it also turns out that this was his fifth consecutive revert. the animosity he has towards User:Hassanhn5 is getting out of hand, affecting other uninvolved editors and pages. i am addressing the issue here as i don't want to get involved on the noticeboard. regards.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see only four edits by Swift&silent altogether and one of them is not a revert. The diff #1 you provide above does not show any removal of references. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

this is his initial edit [17]. he backed up his claims with 2 internet articles and 2 books, stanley wolpert's "india" being one of them. i know wolpert's book and i read the internet articles, and none of them supports his claims, hence wp:or. i reverted and told him that his edit constituted wp:or [18]. he then proceeded with reverting me *and* removing the two internet articles [19], as they are easily verifiable. however, he didn't remove the stanley wolpert's book, hoping that no-one had read it...however, i know this book [20]. i suspect that the other books he provided is just another cover for his wp:or. this is clearly disruptive editing and he is disingenuous beyond belief..-- mustihussain (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If either side of this dispute continues to revert without getting a talk page consensus, the article may be placed under full protection. Please try more discussion on the talk page. I note that Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is the logical place for alternative views of the outcome of this war to be presented. That article is very nuanced and already cites many of the conflicting assessments. It would be surprising if the summary article on Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts were to give a different outcome for the 1965 war than the article which is already dedicated to that war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

agree with your points. the alternative views are already well-represented on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965-page, and a summery article on the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts-page is not the right place for such elaboration. however, i don't think s&s will ever understand this. hence, i suggest full protection.-- mustihussain (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston I agree with your point. I added that 'war ended with UN madated ceasefire though neutral sources opined' (later changed to 'sources disputed') that it was an Indian victory, backed by various sources. When mustihussain reverted the edit I took heed of his edit and added more sources and removed some old ones but one source remained that wasn't re-inforcing the content in question. mustihussain reverted [21] on the basis that one source was not reinforcing content and removed all five sources and the material. Anyway let me assure you I will discuss this matter thoroughly before making any changes to the said article. Thank You. Swift&silent (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

you also deliberately misattributed 2 other articles. nice try though.-- mustihussain (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Those I had removed myself. Nothing explains why you did this [22]. If one of the five ref wasnt matching then you should have removed that particular ref instead of deleting 4 refs and content. Swift&silent (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

your behaviour clearly demonstrates that you misattribute sources. of course you had to remove the articles *after* i found out that they didn't support your claims. the question is: why did you use them *and* wolpert's book in the first place when it's clear that they don't support your claims? could you answer that?-- mustihussain (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Shall we all start removing content if Previous edits had refs that werent exact (they said India got better of the war rather than saying victory) or if one (of five) ref dont match? Does that justify removing right Refs who said it was an 'clear Indian victory'? Anyway, lets discuss the matter on Article's talk page instead of crowding User talk:EdJohnston. See ya at article's talk page. Swift&silent (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

wikistalking/wikihounding Issue

Please see [23]].

I've placed a notice on the incident board but didn't get a proper response (one of the editors said he'd like a response by the user being reported first and has not replied after the response since two days and the other one hasn't fully read the complaint). The activities of the editor in question are escalating, so I thought it was necessary to report it here.

Interestingly, one of the editors the reported editor has 'recruited' by canvassing is the already warned edit-warring editor User:Swift&silent (refer to the section on edit warring on your talk page and the reported canvassing links on the incident board). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you at WP:AN3

Hi, Ed. Thought it would be polite to let you know that I wrote this at AN3 in which I mention my understanding of your understanding of what constitutes a revert. Here's a live link to the thread, and here's a permalink in case it rolls to archives before you take a look. Thanks again, very much, for your great work here: feel free to correct or amend what I wrote if I misrepresented you in any way. There's also a "pointer" to that AN3 discussion at AN/I currently, although I didn't comment there at all. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

House of Kotromanić

Dont worry, Ed, that was my second and last revert. I can understand replacement of sources, with better ones, but complete removal of sources, and even {{reflist}} template? I am open for discussion, so please help in this. Counter source would be good, and not just blind revert. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I left you a message on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you respond. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the three people who are reverting should open a WP:Request for comment at Talk:House of Kotromanić, to decide what (if any) nationality should be listed for this family. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you, i or we remove this edit , as it is unsourced and questionable, and add reflist template, and other things article need? Also, Ed, 3RR goes for 3 edits in a day, and as i edited this article only two times in article history, while first time in introduction of sources, and other one revert of removed sources, i feel that your 3RR warning is very misplaced, specially when several obvious wikipedia guidelines are violated. And, even more, Surtsicna do want to cooperate very well and polite, and we are already talking, so... Rokonja's edits are not comparable. Anyway, i dont want to be in the middle of questionable ARBMAC interpretation. So, can i continue to edit article in order to fix it, or we need a mediator who will be only one to edit it. (in that situation, that would be you, i guess)? Current version, that points us on false info, and which is without even one source, cannot and should not stay there for long... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, we are no longer counting edits, but we are asking:

1. Who is willing to participate in the discussion?
2. Who has any actual ideas on how to identify nationality of a ruling family in the Balkans?

Anyone who continues to revert without participating on the talk page risks being sanctioned. It seems to me that you and Surtsicna might be willing to discuss, but nothing has been heard yet from Rokonja. Surtsicna's suggestion (on the talk page) that Queen Victoria was of German descent seems to be the most astute observation so far. Should we put 'German' in the box for her nationality? EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rokonja does not appear to have any intention to discuss anything whatsoever.[24] Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And he is also edit warring cross wiki over the same subject. I propose block, as user was already blocked before for the similar thing. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rokonja is on thin ice. His last revert didn't make a big difference, though. In his edit (October 18) he added 'nationality=Croatian' to an infobox where nationality is not displayed per Surtsicna's recent change. I do have a concern that Surtsicna might need consensus to remove the nationality attribute. It is used in some other instances of that template. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you possibly have a word?

Could you have a word here, and save me the hassell of filing a report. One editor at least is aware of the sanctions. Thanks in advance...--Domer48_'fenian' 00:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on AE

EdJohnston, back in May 2011, when you instituted a topic ban on me in regards to Safavid dynasty, we have followed up with discussion here, where you set forth 3 conditions for considering to lift the ban. All three conditions were fully met by myself, i.e., I opened an RfC, did not make any reverts at Safavid dynasty and, most importantly, despite obvious violations WP:HARASSMENT policy by Khodabandeh14, I did not continue with comments on the topic of violating my privacy at that time. Despite all three conditions fulfilled, you have not lifted the ban.

And now you are commenting on AE, that I am on the path of losing editing ability indefinitely. May I know for which violation? When did I revert any article or start any dispute, besides being a victim of Khodabandeh14 repeated reporting of me, again trying to violate privacy? I understand that AE admins have a discretion over the fate of anybody involved in WP:AA2, but there is a certain logic with which this should be done. For example, what if an editor involved WP:AA2 is being targeted with an attempt to rid him off Wikipedia? What if imposition of topic bans did not result in better quality of articles or reduction of nationalist edit warring? Reviewing edits by some users, in the aftermath of my topic ban, such as this form of mass removal of info, or this, this, this, this sort of edit warring on nationalist grounds, I don't see how my topic ban (or your comments for that matter) helped to resolve the issues. They only established a precedent that any long-time editor can be targeted by any group of users and forced into restrictions, using administrative resources. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked the archives of my talk page to see when you and I last had a discussion here. Your last comment seems to be at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21#Ban from Iranian articles. If you had come back after that and asked for your ban to be lifted, I might have considered it. The discussion in Archive 21 did not give me much confidence that you would be able to edit neutrally at Safavid dynasty. Khodabandeh14's use of references was better, and you didn't seem to have a good response to his points. For instance, you didn't want us to use the phrase 'Safavid dynasty of Iran' (you argued it was like 'Roman Empire of Italy') but he was able to show that the phrase is very widely used in reliable sources. It was not clear that you had any source-based reply to Khodabandeh's points. The topic ban which I imposed on May 6 was for three months, and it expired on August 6. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, when you impose a restriction and set forth conditions for its removal, you are the one to consider lifting the ban, when those are satisfied. And they were satisfied, i.e. RfC was opened, consensus was achieved, and I reversed my right to complain about WP:HARASSMENT by Khodabandeh14. So you have no argument in favor of keeping your topic ban, other than satisfying Khodabandeh14's demands to topic ban me.

What neutrality are we talking about, when you state right above: "you didn't want us to use the phrase 'Safavid dynasty of Iran'". How can I even argue my case, when you, by default, take position in an editing dispute? The fact that I supported using "Safavid dynasty" (term used on that page for years) instead of nationalist POV "Safavid dynasty of Iran" is not a ground for topic bans, and I provided sufficient amount of evidence to show that no state called "Iran" existed when Safavid dynasty established a state in 1501 in Azerbaijan. Safavid dynasty was not established over geographic region called Iran either, it was established over Azerbaijan initially, involving tribes that migrated from Anatolia. So pushing "Safavid dynasty of Iran" was clearly a POV aimed at disassociating historical dynasty from anybody else.

Ironically, in absence of User:Khodabandeh14, User:Xashaiar has taken over a task of removing any association of Azerbaijan with Safavids or other historical states, here, if I did the same thing, you would topic ban me and Khodabandeh14 would be enumerating dozens of Wikipedia regulations, ranging WP:RS to WP:UNDUE. Or how about massive removal of referenced information, huh, Ed? What happened to neutrality now? Atabəy (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I was supposed to magically know that you had become eligible for unban, without any request by you? Your lack of neutrality could hardly be more obvious. You are acting like a warrior for one side of the debate. It would be hard to supply more evidence that lifting your ban would have been unreasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed, since you are claiming that I was eligible for unban, then I kindly request you to make a proper comment in this regard at WP:AA2. I realize that the ban has been served already, but the fact that I have fulfilled all conditions for lifting of the ban shall be reflected on WP:AA2, so that other users cannot use it as justification in editing disputes or filing cases. Again, I did not initiate this discussion until reading your AE comment, calling for my indefinite ban. And I just wanted to clarify that I have fulfilled all terms of unban, and the comments by yourself were not made in good faith. And if there neutrality observed, it should be applicable to everyone alike. The editing activity of User:Xashaiar is clearly disruptive in AA2 context. Atabəy (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is now moot, since the May 6 ban has expired. I do not expect to make any further comment at AE about it. My prediction that you are headed for an indefinite ban is only a prediction. You may yet demonstrate that you can make valuable edits elsewhere, and you can place the values of Wikipedia above your personal loyalties. In that case your return to AA may be possible. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I don't mean to be facetious, would you explain what you meant by "personal loyalties"? The issue is not moot, because you made a promise (a commitment) as an admin and did not deliver on it, and then go on making further bad faith comments on AE against myself, trying to justify your action. Atabəy (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dwijavanti Athreya

I failed to check history, restored, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hounding and stalking

In relation to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia, I would appreciate that issues of hounding and stalking also be dealt with at this request. I haven't started another request in the past in relation to it, as I have been doing more important things, such as uploading to Commons and working on articles in userspace. But now that the issue has been raised, I would appreciate that it be dealt with in the current request, so I ask that instead of a hasty and quick close to the request that admins take the time investigate this as part of the current request. I can be contacted on my talk page for further information. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with T. Canens' statement at AE. It is tiresome to see the same names showing up repeatedly at AE. In the next round of enforcement it may be necessary to impose topic bans or widen existing ones so that the people who can't get along with each other no longer have to edit the same articles. In my opinion you are appropriately in line for sanctions since your violation of the interaction ban was so blatant and easy to see. Your violation was presumably deliberate and was intended as a salvo in the ongoing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And what about Vecrumba's revert of my edit? And what about talk page discussion on the ESSR article? Isn't that also so blatant, that it too requires sanctions? Why don't you ask Vecrumba and Nug about those edits, and whether they too believe they should be sanctioned. Unfortunately Ed, you are totally wrong in your assessment. There are some editors who are trying to get on with editing and collaborating, and past disputes are just that...in the past. I am in this boat. So is Tammsalu/Martintg/Nug as far as I can see. Vecrumba is also partly, except he has skirted this issue in the AE request. Perhaps the only ones in ongoing dispute are the ones who file such AE requests on things they are not party to---read Biophys. His harassment is egregious, and he has a long history of it in relation to myself. And everytime he gets away with it. Unfortunately Ed, WP:EEML proves that I am not paranoid; I know when I am being harrassed, stalked and hounded. No more Ed, the buck stops here, and it is going to be dealt with at this request. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Note, that I am not suggesting that other editors be sanctioned, I am merely using it as an evidence of there not being a battleground as you are suggesting. The battleground is in the minds of certain editors, and unfortunately admins such as yourself are believing it. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

«Sigh». Unfortunately no one felt it was necessary to note that the vast bulk of EEML had nothing to do with Wikipedia, let alone Russavia (I can find and provide the diff if required). Unfortunately, it is the initial gross misrepresention and blatantly prejudicial announcement of EEML as thousands of Emails "half being out to get Russavia" (I can find and provide the diff if required) which permits the meme of "hounding" to continue. Let's please keep allegations where they belong, in formal dispute resolution. As for "hounding," I can also provide Russavia's contending/reporting my edit of Aspic as violating my topic ban at the time, so let's not go there, either. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination, it states:

Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.

Who were the specific editors? Well Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted is pretty much an indication. The harrassment on myself is not a meme, it is evidential fact.

But I fail to see what EEML has to do with this Vecrumba. I am not saying that there is co-ordination. In fact, I haven't even accused you of harrassment. In fact, we have discussed things on numerous talk pages in recent times in a civil way. As well as with Martintg/Tammsalu/Nug. Do you really consider that our interactions of late have been disruptive? Please think about this Vecrumba. Other than that, I don't have anything else to say here. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish to discuss anything. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You say EEML proves you are not paranoid. It proves nothing. "Material to the case" was a very minor part of overall mail. As for allegations of plans of, for example, planning real-life harassment versus kvetching and what-ifs, clearly all of EEML was interpreted in the maximum bad faith mode, as I was convicted of responding to alleged canvassing requests when I hadn't even read my personal Emails because I spent all my time at home caring for my mother--doing Wikipedia on breaks at work. I'd love to discuss your seeming protection of "official Russia" et al. regarding the Soviet legacy calmly and rationally at your talk page, but that would (surely) violate our interaction ban. Quite frankly, I'd support lifting the ban so we don't waste further time on its having created de facto article ownership, which helps no one and solves nothing. As for "disruption," we clearly have different perspectives on whether or not people who check Wikipedia to find out more about RT, the second-most-watched cable news network in the U.S., should be informed "up front" (i.e., in the lead) that it is the press organ of the Russian Federation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ilya Grad

Hi Ed. Sorry to bother you. I created my first article here. Being that it is my first and concerns a BLP, I was wondering if you would kindly have a look just to make sure that it is okay in terms of format and is in compliance with BLP. I have already read the rules concerning BLP but I'd rather have a more experienced admin review it just to play it safe. Thank you,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article looks OK to me. I don't see any problems. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. Much appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AE case and Adam Carroll

Hi Ed. I hope you don't mind my posting on your TP, but just wanted to ask a quick question relating to the AE case with which I'm currently involved. I've accepted that I'm probably going to get a topic block for the Ulster Banner-related edit warring, but wanted to enquire as to how you're treating the Adam Carroll example that Domer48 also cited as evidence of my breaking the Troubles probation.

In your opinion, do my two reverts on said article to restore his (racing) nationality to the sourced, stable and correct "British" count as a violation too? Just want to make sure I avoid this sort of thing in future in case it is also covered by WP:TROUBLES. Unfortunately, if you agree it is, that incorrect and unsourced "Irish" nationality in his infobox – which depicts his racing nationality, irregardless of personal preference – would had to have stood for a week until I could revert again. Many thanks, JonC^Talk 08:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything to do with the nationality of someone born in Northern Ireland who is sometimes referred to as British risks getting into discretionary sanctions under WP:TROUBLES. By its very nature, this is nationalist warring. If you stare at the evidence long enough you may eventually conclude that any nationality is possible in these cases. This makes me wonder whether 'sourced, stable and correct "British"' could possibly be the case. If you read Talk:Adam Carroll you'll see there is disagreement even about his racing nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct nationality in your opinion disputed by 3 editors. And with 4 sources on the talk page to back up Irish. Mo ainm~Talk 18:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Jon to comment at User talk:Jonchapple#Changing the nationality of people born in Northern Ireland. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for bringing this to your talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent warning

Hi there, you gave me a warning over edit warring here. I was a bit surprised by your comment about consensus, as I've been on the project for a few years already and thought I have a pretty good handle on that. Could you expand a bit on how you feel my reasoning was wrong? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is where consensus lies now. A discussion is needed with at least three participants, since the first two disagree. If you can point to a past thread at Talk:East Germany where this exact point was discussed by multiple people then you might have a point about 'existing consensus.' The mere fact that the article was one way or the other way for a period of time proves little. (Maybe no one cared enough to change it, or even think about it). You may be able to leave neutral messages for other past editors of East Germany and ask them to give their opinion. For this a WP:Request for comment is best. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Jonchapple's talk page.
Message added 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JonC^Talk 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have to keep bumping you like this, but there's one more, I'm afraid. Cheers, JonC^Talk 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Factiod

I assumed good faith for quite a while. Thank you for shutting down that big waste of time. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes means no?

Just wondering how this could have possible been interpreted as not accepting the deal. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The complete talk entry makes clear that your acceptance was *conditional* on us allowing you to finish some negotiation you were in the midst of on an article talk page. At this point an unconditional acceptance was what I was looking for. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ariel University Center of Samaria

Do you think that this is a revert that should be undone? I honestly think so, but I have reached the 1RR limit by reverting him once. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not post a request on the talk page (including your rationale) and maybe someone else will undo it. Either that, or wait 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, may I point you to the history of Israeli-occupied territories, where he has reverted once? He has only reverted once, but still. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That revert was the icing on the cake. If he had not done that, you might figure that it was worth trying to negotiate with him instead of blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Not only that, his reverts to Ariel University Center of Samaria earlier today look like they cite reasons that aren't very good to revert on.

Also, mmmm cake. the cake is a lie! :P LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ed, need some assistance please

Hey Ed, how are you doing? I don't know if you remember me from the snake articles, if you do then you know I have been working on snake articles and I've especially put in a lot of hard work and research into the Black mamba article. I am now trying to move or change the name of the article to Dendroaspis polylepis, which is the scientific name of the black mamba. If you go and look around, you'll find most snake articles are have their scientific name as the title to the article (ie. puff adder, lancehead, saw-scaled viper, Death adder, sea snakes, kraits, and countless others). I want the same thing for the Black mamba article. So I requested a move at WP:REQMOVE - I'd really appreciate it if you'd just click the link and "support" my request to move. It'll take you a few seconds to do. Please and thanks, I'd really appreciate it. Bastian (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is likely that your move request will get consensus, but you should wait the full seven days. It's not quite kosher to ask people to vote in a certain direction. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's not cool to ask people for votes, but it's so frustrating when you put so much work into articles, only to have 1 user stand in the way of you finishing the article off (and I have improved many snake articles that were just a complete mess). It's just that I had this one user (Dodger67) badger me about moving it because I did change it and then he changed it right back shouting all these "policies and rules" at me. Almost every other snake article is formatted exactly the way I want to format the black mamba article (with the scientific name as the title of the article). Yet, he kept badgering me about a subject he clearly knows very little about. I'm going to wait the seven days, but what if nobody really joins the discussion? As an Admin, do I have your permission to change the name of the article to Dendroaspis polylepis? Bastian (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You really need to get consensus first. If the move discussion gets closed one way or the other after seven days, all parties should accept that. If you think there is a general problem about snake names, you could ask for advice at WT:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. There is already a discussion in progress there about Latin versus common names that may be relevant. Some time ago I asked some experts for advice about the article name for a pine species, and they told me the Latin name was better. It appears that WT:AAR may be heading in a different direction. Some people there prefer to use a common name whenever there is a well-established and widely-recognized common name. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of User Talk page comments

WP:UP#CMT states: A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes. Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested, declined unblock requests, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices" Octanis (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The AE block notice is in a gray area, but nothing justifies your restoring your own comment. I recommend that you undo that edit. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

NIU

I must say, while I suppose from a procedural standpoint you had to say what you said, I am disappointed. To in any way equate what I was doing with what Tigerwiki was doing is simply unfair. I was bending over backward to talk to him. Perhaps, you believe, I should have simply not reverted him. Well, there's a reason I took this approach.

The last time I encountered a fanatical booster who wanted to puff up the article, (User:Huskiesfan), last spring, I tried that approach. That is, I posted over and over why he needed to work cooperatively with other editors (he was literally cutting and pasting puffery from NIU's website), yet I held off on reverting for an extended period, hoping to engender discussion. You know what happened? As long as the article remained in the format he wanted, he completely ignored my pleas for discussion. You know what he said? "What exactly are you waiting for me to respond to? I'm happy with the current state of the article."[25] That's what I got for leaving the article in the state he wanted. Only when I threatened to bring in others to the scene[26] did he decide to play nice.

So this time I decided to go ahead and revert the boosterism, all the while maintaining civility and providing multiple avenues for discussion. And the final word? "Both warned." Again, I don't blame you, because you have to do what you have to do. But I still think it stinks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tigerwiki2 was on the edge of a block, and I have a suspicion that he does not have a long future on Wikipedia. He was technically not over WP:3RR for 24 hours, otherwise the outcome might have been different. And inquiring minds want to know why a brand new editor would refer to the Manual of Style in his fourth edit, and know how to use the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry to be so crabby, I guess I was just frustrated and needed to vent. Don't know what made me think that listening to such whining was part of your job. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please continue any content discussions at Talk:Northern Illinois University. There are no grounds for admin action at this point. You are expected to persuade the other editors, not appeal to admins. See WP:DR for the possible steps you could take. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The ISU fanatical booster user (HuskyHuskie) has done it again and put back his biased language. Formula = neutral statement (comma) biased editorial. Per WP:BOOSTER (an essay), the rankings should be presented neutrally and without undue weight. Undue Weight - i.e. "NIU is ranked as a National University by the U.S. News & World Report, where it typically places in the fourth quartile". This entire sentence should be deleted and the section should begin at the next sentence with "In the most recent..." The Forbes "rankings" are not academic rankings (as I've stated in previous entries regarding this case, they are "value rankings" that take into account cost of total attendance at the schools and have no direct correlation to the value of education provided by the school) and should be stricken, but if they are allowed the biased editorializing needs to go. Per WP:BOOSTER (an essay), the rankings should be presented neutrally and without undue weight. Undue Weight - i.e. "Forbes magazine, which does not separate small liberal arts colleges from large universities in its rankings, places NIU as #610 of 650 colleges and universities on its list, the lowest ranking assigned by Forbes to any public college in Illinois". - "which does not separate small liberal arts colleges from large universities in its rankings" this is interjected editorial meant to give legitimacy to these non-rankings. - "of 650 colleges and universities on its list, the lowest ranking assigned by Forbes to any public college in Illinois." Again this is ALL undue weight trying to frame the numerical ranking towards the User's biased slant. This type of editorial is missing from the other rankings, why is this the only "ranking" that is presented with undue weight, which tries to facilitate the potential for it to be interpreted as negative. If the user feels so strongly about the Forbes listings that he feels the need to include them here and even punch them up with his undue editorial, then why has he not included these Forbes listing in the other University pages that he contributes to, namely ISU and U of I? Also, if he is so inclined to keep the IL Academic world so current, than why have the ISU rankings not been updated to reflect the new USNWR rankings that shows ISU dropping 6 slots? Could it be that this doesn't weigh towards his bias and therefore gets conveniently overlooked? As I've expressed previously, this user has an agenda that is opposite of what he is portraying in order to better disguise his obvious bias. To equate what I did (edit a biased article to a neutral tone) with what the other user is doing (deliberately and repeatedly editing with a biased agenda) is ridiculous. Keep an eye on future edits to this article, I am sure you will see users who have never even heard of the University chime in (it probably has already started). I assure you that these "random" editors are the other user's acquaintances. Please UNDO his undue weight and BLOCK him from further edits to the "Northern Illinois University" page. Thank you. Tigerwiki2 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerwiki2 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC) "And inquiring minds want to know why a brand new editor would refer to the Manual of Style in his fourth edit, and know how to use the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)" -"And inquiring minds want to know why a brand new editor would refer to the Manual of Style in his fourth edit" - what is befuddling about this? -"and know how to use the 3RR noticeboard" - I was made aware of it by the other user or subsequent interactions that came when I tried to initially report him. Evidently, I posted in the wrong area, because I didn't know (still don't) about the wikipedia's procedures. If you cannot be impartial, how do I go about getting an administrator who can be to look at this case? Tigerwiki2 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerwiki2 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC) User HuskyHuskie has user Moxy to edit war with him. I am sure this is against the rules. PLEASE BLOCK both of them and address my earlier comments regarding the undue weighted language used by the first user AND/OR refer me to an impartial administrator who can handle this situation in a more appropriate manner. Tigerwiki2 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC) TigerWiki2, I'm leaving you a message here since you don't seem to be responding to the ones on your talk page. Stop asking for other editors to be blocked and start discussing your edits on the article's talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Bottom Line: Neutrality. I am neutral in my edits the user: HuskyHuskie is not. Please review the history. All ”rankings” are BS. If it were up to me, I’d jettison the whole section. But at the very least the Forbes listings should be done away with. I cannot state this any more clearly: these are NOT ACADEMIC RANKINGS. From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings#Forbes_College_rankings) "Forbes College rankings In 2008, Forbes.com began publishing an annual list, prepared by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity[96] of "America's Best Colleges".[97] The Forbes rankings use the list of alumni published in Who's Who in America, student evaluations from RateMyProfessors.com, self-reported salaries of alumni from PayScale, four-year graduation rates, numbers of students and faculty receiving "nationally competitive awards," and four-year accumulated student debt to calculate the rankings.[98] The list emphasizes tuition costs, which boosts the ratings of the zero-cost United States Service academies. It disregards subjective measures such as public reputation, which causes some Ivy League colleges to score lower than in other lists." How is this an Academic measure? Answer: It is NOT. From the NIU Discussion page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Illinois_University#Which_rankings.3F) "As an unbiased editor with no connection to NIU, might I suggest a compromise? Most schools include some type of ranking/recognition in the lead. But it's important to just keep it to one or two of the recognitions you think are the most prestigious. In my opinion, I really like the Carnegie Foundation and the Universities Research Association/Fermi info as they show NIU's relevance in academia while adding great forks to other articles. The other rankings such as being a "National University" and misc rankings, I think, belong in the ranking section below. Hope this helps. -- Iksnyrk (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)" Here the other user agrees with this statement recommending one or two listed rankings: “Thank you, Iksnyrk, for your neutral suggestion. I must first of all say that I agree that such listings of rankings be kept to a minimum.” From this same section: It seems that the other user and I agree on the point that the USNWR should not be included but since they are the “granddaddy of all rankings” we acquiesce to them being included. Also from this same section: “Hey, I'll take that "research" ranking and include it in the article, because it's both prestigious and significant.” The user acknowledges the significance of research rankings. Those would be the WM rankings. This brings the total of listed rankings to the earlier agreed upon two. Going from the discussion page, consensus seems to have been reached with a rankings list that includes the USNWR and WM rankings; however, the other user insists on continuously injecting the non-academic Forbes rankings in the “Academic Rankings” section for no comprehensible reason other than he is just being extremely obstinate and parochial. Again, PLEASE UNDO the biased and superfluous Forbes "rankings" from the "Academic Rankings" section and PLEASE BLOCK user: HuskyHuskie from the Northern Illinois University page. Tigerwiki2 (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dohezarsersdah

I was the one who created the AN/I thread about this user. I see that the thread has been archived and you remarked that we should proceed with the indef block, but the user is not blocked as of yet. Is a block going to take effect? Calabe1992 (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The guy has not edited since 28 October. If he returns and starts editing aggressively once again, it might be time to consider a long block. If he does so and I'm not available, consider filing at WP:AN3. Be sure to mark it as a case of long-term edit warring and link to the ANI and the previous AN3 case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Ed, thanks for the help I really do appreciate it. My request to move/change the name of the article has so far been opposed by everybody that responded (3 people, I think). They are saying that all the other snake articles should also be changed from carrying their scientific name as the title to the common names. Who is going to go through all that work of changing literally over 50 snake articles names? It certainly ain't going to be me. I am for keeping the scientific name as the title of the pages. Many of those replying and opposing probably don't know a thing about snakes or reptiles in general and that irks me. There should be a system where editors with expertise in a particular subject (ie. herpetology, snakes, etc) should be making these decisions regarding articles related to that subject. Instead, you have people with degree's in totally unscientific subject or some that don't even hold a degree or anything making decisions and "opposing" things they know little about. It's not a good system, IMO. Bastian (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're under no obligation to fix the names of other articles. If the people at WP:AAR decide the matter needs some attention, they have enough members to take on a task like that. My suspicion is that AAR has no consensus on the matter, so not much change should be expected. It is not actually a huge deal as to which name is chosen, because you can always make a redirect from one name to the other. Wikipedia tends to have endless disputes about naming and some of it is a waste of time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to get editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles to give the matter some attention. I appreciate what you did. I'm a member, I should've thought of that myself. Many of the editors there were the ones that used the scientific names as the title for most of the snake articles, anyways. You know, if this was about an animal like the Tiger or Lion then using the scientific names panthera tigris and panthera leo, respectively, would've been a big no because the entire world know Tigers and Lions as such. But in this case it is a snake. Yes, the black mamba has a reputation, but it is not as well known as some of these editors believe. Hit the streets and start asking random people if they know what a black mamba is and you'll find that at least half of the people won't know what it is. It's well known in Africa, but outside of there it is not as well known as some people think. I'd estimate 50% of the American or Canadian populations wouldn't know what a black mamba is and I am being conservative in my estimate. Now cobra's are well known and perhaps for some of the cobra species using their scientific name wouldn't be a good idea. Bastian (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm really, really sorry for throwing your name in the discussion when you have nothing to do with it. I was a bit frustrated, so I thought throwing in an Admins name will give me some much needed support from others. But I will take out the part that says "I have the support of an admin..". Again, I really am sorry and still very thankful for your attempt to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. Bastian (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Sandstein

Actually suggested I file AE on Paul <g>. I do not like drama, so demurred. Meanwhile, I would like to assure you that all acts I made were properly communicated to Sandstein, who, presumably, knows the topic as the admin who issued the restrictions. By the way, I have absolutely zero connection with EEML and can not figure out why Paul keeps bringing them up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance, please

Hi, Ed. Regarding User:Josephkugelmass, some administrator guidance and advice regarding something else with this user that has cropped up here over the issue of WP:FORUMSHOPPING (in the section "Request for commentary: Formatting and content of "Critical Reception") would be greatly appreciated. And - I just want to say: sorry to bother you with this petty kind of crap. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN would not be my first choice of a place to start a discussion, but it ought to be sufficient. Perhaps you could leave a talk message for User talk:MilkStraw532 to get him to say more on the article talk page. Kugelmass's harsh attitude doesn't say much for his interest in a negotiated solution. If you become stalemated and if nobody else comments, you could request a WP:Third opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would it be too much to ask for you to kind of keep an eye on things? I really don't think this thing is going to go smoothly; I'm relatively certain it will become more drama-laden with more uncivil behavior ensuing before it's all over. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. Honestly, if I've created a problem by "forum shopping" or by posting complaints in too many different places, apologies. Please delete the forum shopping or do whatever else seems meet. My only defense is that I don't think Wikipedia makes it all that clear how to proceed in these situations. Remember, this all started this morning when I woke up to find that my original additions to the article page were simply gone. In any case, I'm really not invested enough to pursue this issue any further. While I would ask that Lhb1239's last revert be undone, I'm content to let the matter rest, as the subject is (obviously) exhausted. Josephkugelmass (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass

Since you're familiar with this situation, could you please take a look at the latest edit at the Hart of Dixie page by User:OrangeMike as well as my queries and the following comments by that editor/administrator in relation to all of what's now become an even bigger mess (in my opinion)? You will find my follow-up comments to OrangeMike (as well as his responses) on his talk page. Your thoughts and comments on the latest development would be appreciated. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike is correct that there is no formal WP:Request for comment in progress. You should give some thought to creating one. If an RfC is held and it reaches a definite answer, then anyone who reverts away from that might be sanctioned. I see that Josephkugelmass is not making much progress on his diplomatic skills. If you have questions on how to open an RfC, ask Orangemike or myself for assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is correct that there was no formal RfC occurring. He is incorrect, however, that mine was the only other (aside from Josephkugelmass') opinion regarding how the section should look and be ordered. While a formal consensus was not being sought, the informal consensus was to keep the page as it was. Coming in out of nowhere to disrupt what was happening was, in my opinion, very bad form and extremely pointy - and that, based on that particular WP article on making a point, essentially equates disruptive behavior. I don't appreciate how he approached and executed the whole thing at all. That being said, I don't expect WP admins to be perfect, but I sure don't expect them to be intentionally disruptive and heavy-handed, either. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are jumping to conclusions about the consensus in your favor at Talk:Hart of Dixie. There has been little discussion so far, and two of the participants (yourself and Kugelmass) are strongly attached to their viewpoints. This suggests you have not much interest in bargaining or reasoning with the other party. Your disapproval of what Orangemike did could make admins less likely to take you seriously. If the consensus finally swings in your favor sometime in the future, it will be easy enough to change the article to match it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How am I jumping to conclusions? MilkStraw stated he felt the section was balanced, just as I stated before MilkStraw commented. Two editors feel the section is balanced, one (Josephkugelmass) says it isn't. Not an overwhelming consensus, but for all reasonable purposes, a consensus, nonetheless. OrangeMike didn't even weigh in he just reverted my revert without any consideration for what had already occurred AND while there was an agreement in place that neither Josephkugelmass nor myself would be reverting until a consensus was reached. In light of that agreement and all the contention and discussion surrounding the situation, I can't see OrangeMike's action as being anything BUT disruptive, inconsiderate, and heavy-handed. I was waiting for MilkStraw to weigh in once again (I requested such from him last night based on your recommendation), had hoped that others would as well - but an administrator appears out of nowhere and circumvents all of that just because he can? I don't see any merit in what he did. And I certainly don't see how whether or not I am jumping to conclusions (as you state above) has any bearing on whether or not what OrangeMike did was appropriate or inappropriate. I was doing my part as agreed, how is it that you (seem to be/)are trying to turn things around back to me as if I have some culpability here? Lhb1239 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the other editor in this dispute over Hart of Dixie was doing so as a lark. On his Facebook page via Twitter he posted something about it as being part of his "Sunday Funday" activity. I guess this explains why after being so vehement he then retreated so abruptly. Is it possible, in light of this and the fact that he hasn't been back for nearly 48 hours to the article talk page, that I can now be free to edit the article again? Lhb1239 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be pushy, but if you could provide an answer to the above question asked last night, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you don't change the article over the matter disputed at WP:AN3 until you demonstrate a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. In the last 30 days plenty of people have commented there. Surely you can at least make your proposal on Talk and see what people have to say. If Kugelmass has left the field, then open a new thread and very clearly state what your proposal is. Wait a bit to see if anyone responds. If you get no answer in a reasonable time (three days) then make your change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that. What I'm asking, however, is if I can edit the page at this point (sans reverting the change that was made by OrangeMike). Lhb1239 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not propose your change on the talk page, and wait a bit to see if anyone comments. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

65.88.88.202 3RRNB close

No sooner had you closed the 3RRNB thread on the nationalist POV warrior from NY than one of their collegial IPs referred to in the report - 24.146.243.96 - made a third revert in well under 24 hours at Lawrence School, Sanawar - I had issued a warning and stuck a comment on the article talk page prior to the third revert. What's to do? Do I report this one separately? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they would need to make a fourth revert - but that would involve me changing things yet again. There is some sort of meatpuppetry going on, and possibly socking (Massachusetts vs NY? Is that possible? I am shamefully ignorant but they're not too far apart!) - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am blocking 24.146.243.96 (talk · contribs) for one month for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, thanks. I'll revert their last edit to the article at some point - it completely messes things up. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And now another NY (Brooklyn) IP is jumping in at Lawrence School. They, too, have in the past made edits to Doon School and some Kashmiri stuff. See [27]. Bearing in mind your comment below about the difficulties in blocking ranges at NY Public Library then semi-PP seems likely to be the only way forward. Is it? Is that what the CIDR thing would tell me (or does WHOIS do that trick?) - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think semiprotection is needed, please make a list of the affected articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

RFPP script

Hi there, I was just wondering how this script works. I can't seem to get it to work. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

When you have the script installed in your monobook.js, and you open WP:RFPP for editing, you will see a new item appear under 'Toolbox' in the menu on the left side of the page. (I don't know how it works with Vector, if at all). The new item is 'RFPP clerk'. Click on that and it will make a new version of RFPP ready to be saved. Usually not worth running the script more than once every six hours, because it only removes items that are 'timed out.'

• Open requests that have received an admin response time out after 6 hours, at which point they move to Fulfilled.
• Fulfilled requests time out after 12 hours and are removed from the board.
• Unanswered requests never time out, they stay until they are handled.

See User:Rami R/rfppClerk for the documentation. If you click on 'RFPP clerk' and all the totals in the draft edit summary except the number of pending reports are zero, then it's not worth running. Hope that helps. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite think that worked. Or am I just looking at it wrong? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It worked fine:

Version before you ran the script:

PR: 25, UP: 1, ER: 0, FR: 4

(In PR, 11 requests are answered, 14 need Responses)

Version after the script:

PR: 13, UP: 1, ER: 0, FR: 13

(In PR, 5 requests are answered, 8 need Responses)

The result of the running the script (the line it generates for the edit summary):

Semi-auto-clerking: [PR: 12 | UR: 0 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 3] (9 reports pending))

The entries in the summary line are the 'deltas'. The Pending Requests went down from 25 to 13, so it displays 'PR: 12' to show the difference. The Fulfillled requests started out at 4. Three of them were removed (timed out), and 12 new ones were moved over from PR, since they were answered and were at least 6 hours old. 4 minus 3 plus 12 gives 13, which explains why the FR queue holds 13 items after the script. The script displays 'FR: 3' since that is the number that timed out from FR and got removed. The '9 reports pending' is correct, because there are 8 unanswered protection requests, and one unanswered unprotection request. Let me know if you disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That does make more sense, thanks for explaining that, much appreciated. I figured it looked odd because some of the fulfilled requests were still sitting in pending requests for protection, but I see there is a time period it sits there even after it has been protected. Thanks heaps, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Halaqah at it again.

Hi there. With respect, is any administrator willing to take action against this disruptive editor (Halaqah) or is this editor free to run wild and do as they please on Wiki? May be I am waiting my time as before but I just thought I bring it to your attention for the last time. This editor has made their way to several Serer related article but more so on the Serer people article and is placing tags without justifying them [28]; deleting sources and content and leaving incomplete sentences [29] and here [30]; deleted an entire bibliographic reference section which was adopted from an A-Class article [31]; filed and RFC against my edits and refused to abide by editors' comments, even the commentators realise the behaviour of this editor commented on their regular deletion of sources [32]. In good faith, I tried to re-edit parts of the article they took issue with inspite of the fact that, their RFC was unfounded but they have now added back an NPOV tag [33] as well as deleted the entire "Notable Serer people" section [34]. There actions are so many for me to go through and it is just not in the Serer people article but all Serer related articles e.g. Serer religion, Maat Sine Kumba Ndoffene Famak Joof, The Gambia, Senegal etc. I know that some of the articles need some work and I have been trying to make some re-edits as you can see for yourself on my contributions but the behaviour of this editor is unacceptable. They are the one who asked for an RFC regarding my edits and when commentators commented, this editor practically disregarded everything they said and things are getting worst. Just take a look at the "See also" in Serer people, the bullet points where the notable Serer people used to be are now sticking out like a sore thumb on the images [35] because they couldn't be bothered to even clean it up as one can see in the above link regarding their deletion of content & sources leaving incomplete sentences. There is no point in me reporting this editor because they will find in their favour just as the last time. In fact it was I who was blocked for two weeks inspite of their disruptions. I just thought I tell you since I have brought it to your attention before and you are familiar with the issue. This editor knows their hatred of me is merely words as far as I am concerned so instead, they decided to take it out on all Serer related articles. They have even removed content with their usual sniping comments on the edit summary directed at me thinking that was my edit when in fact, I've never edited that section.

Tamsier (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You just made a very large edit to Serer people here. Can you explain where on the talk page you obtained consensus for your change? EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• So I'll take it the answers are "no" and "yes" then. No surprises there. Thanks anyway for your time. Those edits were there until Halaqah removed them all from the main article and pasted them to the talk page [36]. I edited them and put them back. Where did this editor get the concensus from to remove huge chunks from the article? I raised very important issues regarding the disruptive nature of this editor and you have addressed none of them. Brilliant! Thanks anyway for your reply. It has clearified a lot and helps to make a decision about my time here on Wiki.

Thank you Tamsier (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess removing the tags was part of being constructive as well? And then going and doing this edit to prove a point.WP:POINT [37] and [38] and [39] --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Socks at New York Library

I appreciate your efforts to deal with 65.88.88.XXX edit warring. As I feared, there is new action by that range of IPs today. I've added an addendum to my original report at WP:AN3. I would also suggest locking the article on Materialscientist's version. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked User:Zzuuzz for suggestions here. He says, turn on the CIDR gadget in Special:Preferences, select the Gadgets tab, look in the 'Advanced' section and check the box. Then open up Special:Contributions for 65.88.88.* and hit 'Toggle All'. Then search for a date in October or November. I also got an answer from Elockid, and this is the display of the last 50 edits from 65.88.88.*. It seems there are too many good-faith contributions from 65.88.88.* to justify a range block. However, we could block the individual IPs that are causing trouble. Perhaps as many as ten IPs might be blocked for a month if they are primarily used by this vandal.

Have you ever used the CIDR gadget? Perhaps you could help by searching the recent contributions to see which IPs are used by this guy. Another option is semiprotection. If fewer than ten articles are involved, that might be considered. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

US healthcare templates

If you would similarly protect Template:Health care reform in the United States on which there have been multiple un-discussed reverts (I do not like the term "edit warring") then I would open an RFC for the both of them, which seems very preferable to trying to do them one at a time. Please let me know on my talk page. Dualus (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that one too. Anyone who reverts there is building up a record that may be reviewed later. You yourself are invited to put off further reverts until a consensus is reached. I'm now notifying User talk:Jesanj so he is aware. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to figure out how to do an RfC. Dualus (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Schema Therapy

Hey Ed, I'm not so sure how all this works, so I'm not sure if you get notification of changes to the Schema Therapy talk page, but I put some comments there. Thanks again and take care, Curt k (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Ed. Thanks for your further comments. You commented on the Publication List split off into a separate article, thus making my new main Schema Therapy far shorter, per your previous criticism, but you didn't comment on my main new Schema Therapy article itself -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Schema_Therapy

I'd appreciate feedback on that article, if you're game. Take care, Curt Curt k (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Can this edit be seen as part of the scope of ARPBIA? Neither Nuclear program of Iran and Iran and weapons of mass destruction are tagged, but my edit indirectly relates to a wide conflict in the Middle East (Iran of course isn't Arab). When you have the time just let me know specifically if there is a remote issue that could travel to AE. I'm mostly involved in ITN now. I messaged AGK but he has declined my request (which is understandable). Thanks. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That edit looks OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

why the protection on Jiddu Krishnamurti??

i need to work on the page, pls unprotect it. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You are still free to access the talk page at Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti and try to make your case there. The constant warring at the Krishnamurti article by IPs with varying addresses in the range 65.88.88.* is a violation of WP:SOCK. Go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive171 and search for 65.88 to see all the edit warring complaints about this group of IP editors. When there is a dispute about the article, you are expected to work patiently on the talk page to persuade others to support your version. You should accept the consensus, whatever it turns out to be. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

there has been no constant warring. this incident of multiple reverts, followed the disruption of the WP:BRD cycle between two editors by a third party.

User:Materialscientist made two edits to the page, at [04:39, 31 October 2011] and [05:14, 31 October 2011]. in the next edit by 65.88.88.126. these were reverted (per WP:BRD and WP:OAS) with an explanation at the talk page (the new thread Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti#Article structure & load times). after 1 more rv (by Materialscientist) and 1 by 65.88.88.46 User:Materialscientist started a new thread (Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti#Length) where a discussion took place. User:Sunray who has been on a campaign regarding the Jiddu Krishnamurti page then intervened.

User:Sunray's comments have been responded to numerous times. he keeps returning to the same issues. when we would not agree to his position he resorted to Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti manipulation and vandalism (see thread Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti#User improperly editing the layout of this talk page) obviously with the objective of manufacturing a consensus since he could not get a genuine one. note also the appearance in Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti of obvious sock puppets: User:GongEsiw and User:CoveBoy in Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti#Interminably long and pointless biography of no relevance to K's impact, teaching nor legacy, pls check User contributions. (a further mysterious IP User:74.198.151.37 (Ontario, CA) left a warning on the 65.88.88.126 talk page, see User talk:65.88.88.126#November 2011).

User:Sunray proceeded to restore the reverted edits by User:Materialscientist reigniting the dispute as it was being discussed and again made inappropriate comments without any reasoning.

given User:Sunray's history on the talk page; his constant evasions after his positions had been countered; the trolling exhibited by commenting out of turn in discussions between us and others; and the unfounded allegations of WP:OWN; the presentation of opposing opinions as attacks, the opinion formed by the 3 editors who use the 65.88.88.x addresses to edit only Krishnamurti-related articles, was that this was common vandalism and disruption. this was the reason for the subsequent reverts and those by two other users in apparent collusion with User:Sunray (User:Sitush and User:Johnfos). the bottom line: they did not follow the WP:BRD cycle, they evaded real discussion at the talk page, and they cast aspersions on the motives of others. we felt that our reverts were justified and not warring.

we ask therefore that the balance be restored by unprotecting the page. we also ask that you unblock the 65.88.88.46 and .126 ip addresses. realize we have no problem with you. however we will appeal the protection and the blocks if you do not agree. we simply cannot let a project we've worked on for years, trying to methodically better it and applying as many wikipedia guidelines as possible, be abused. in any case, and independently of this discussion, we are preparing a more comprehensive ANI report on this, and you are invited to comment on it upon submission.

the 65.88.88.x range (NYPL) is allocated to literally thousands of computers, used daily by thousands of users. we, and the rest of the people using them in good faith will not be held responsible, or censored, because of the actions of some. i understand the admin problems this creates but unfortunately that's what it is. our use of multiple ip addresses does not really violate WP:SOCK. we don't use multiple ips to disrupt, deceive, vandalize, or otherwise impede the functioning of wikipedia. we use them because, and as, they become available. it's not always feasible to find a machine in NYPL's dhcp pool that has the exact same address. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Please use them. You are welcome to create a WP:Request for comment to bring in more opinions. The article is semi-protected because of the belief that you will not follow consensus, which we have some evidence for from the 3RR reports. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

thanx for the rsponse, sorry you see this literally, and not the big picture, (no genuine consensus). we will exhaust all avenues on this, no matter how long it takes, and will keep you posted as the first admin to deal with this. we are going to do it in orderly fashion per guidelines, so first we appeal directly to you. the next step would be a formal appeal of the block and the page protection. however in the meantime things happened, and we have to make a detour.

pls see Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti#Starting point about major rewrite of an article in dispute (Revision history of Jiddu Krishnamurti Johnfos edit of 21:33, 4 November 2011). pls also see additional vandalism of Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti page by User:Sunray (Revision history of Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti Sunray's edit of 13:56, 5 November 2011. i just reversed it). unfortunately i personally believe that this latest repeat vandalism occured because User:Sunray felt emboldened by your response above (there's apattern to her/his actions).

as the admin who's taken action on this page we now request of you to:

1. revert of article Jiddu Krishnamurti to before Johnfos disputed edit of 21:33, 4 November 2011
2. full protection of the page until the dispute is resolved
3. any action you deem appropriate regarding User:Sunray's continued vandalism of Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti
4. any action you deem appropriate regarding User:Johnfos's continued disregard of wikipedia policies on conduct, civility and discussion as evidenced in the Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti page and his edit to Jiddu Krishnamurti discussed above

thank you. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You continue to misuse the term 'vandalism' and you've no good answer to the complaints that you were edit warring. I'll begin to take you seriously if you will negotiate in good faith with the other contributors. An IP-hopper does not start out from a position of high credibility on Wikipedia. It takes only five minutes to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a window open on WP:VANDTYPES where "Talk page vandalism" that covers User:Sunray's actions is noted. In the same section, "Blanking, illegitimate" could be argued to apply to User:Johnfos' actions. Secondly (from memory) Wikipedia rules of conduct and dispute-resolution guidelines warn against major editorial changes to pages under dispute. The Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti page is full of our attempts to coax any meaningful specific replies and to conduct discussion. What do you do when you respond to someone's position point by point and they either ignore you, or keep altering their position? The reasons for the IP-hopping were explained above: we do not choose the WAN IP available to any given machine, it is whatever the machine is assigned. We will not register accounts. Our complaint will have to be examined on its merits and not with a bias towards account holders. Do Wikipedia policies on conduct apply differently if somebody is registered? This is not apparent. We asked you to take action out of courtesy and also because you were familiar with the case on some level. If you are unwilling, fine, we'll make a more formal report. Thanks. 65.88.88.214 (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Sunray removed material from the talk page here but his edit summary indicates that he thought his change was not controversial. (In your own comment in that section, you said something about striking through. Were you asking him to remove this section?) If you disagree with his action, why not leave him a message and ask him to undo it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your responses. i feel that informal discussions will not move this further as evidenced by the further revert by Sunray in the Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti after your last response (there's a pattern, as noted). not coincidentally, this vandalism (let's call a spade a spade), removes sections of the talk page integral to our position. we're trying to agree on the proper procedure to formally pursue all issues regarding both the Jiddu Krishnamurti article page and its talk page. we'll also notify you (as the original responding admin) when we start, probably tomorrow, although i'm pressing for today. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Sunray#Your revert at Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti asking him to explain on the article talk page why he removed your lengthy comment. (Since you have no permanent talk page it's impossible for him to reply to you directly). EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou editing in Eastern Orthodoxy section again

Esoglou made this edit [40] after I removed the parts of it that have nothing to do with general the Orthodox position on the issue. Esoglou re-added the parts even though they are not of any official Orthodox opinion. At least they should have Orthodox sources. The section could have been moved, but Esoglou can pretty much do what he wants and the people that complain are always at fault. All Esoglou has to do is feign incompetence and he gets away with it again. Over [41], over[42] and over[43] and over again [44]. Let alone what his pals get away with also. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first diff it seems that both of you agree that this is a simple factual matter about the New Testament (the text never says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son). If this is a matter of what's in the text, why should it require a citation to an Orthodox theologian? Currently you and Esoglou are allowed to discuss this on talk pages. Why couldn't this be negotiated? You did not say what the matter is with the other diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see now that the information about the New Testament has again been removed, this time by an IP editor in the city that LoveMonkey has edited from in the past when not logged in. I make no accusations. Perhaps it will be enough for me to move the (well-sourced) New Testament information elsewhere in the article, so that it does not immediately follow a section on Eastern Orthodox views. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A significant contributor to this problem is the use of the New Testament (a primary source) as a source. It would be better to cite this to a secondary source, thus providing a better insight into whether the assertion is a Roman Catholic POV or not. As it is currently written, it could be interpreted as being original research. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistaken statement that I have now struck out: it was not the same city from which LoveMonkey edited in the past.

Richard's remark holds against the text as reduced by LoveMonkey and by whoever in Memphis, Tennessee has twice repeated LoveMonkey's deletion of sourced information, but not against the text before it was thus truncated. I suppose all I can do just now is to reinsert the sourced material even further away from where LoveMonkey has put his account of Eastern Orthodox views, while this time leaving the truncated material where it is. It should be easy to find reliable sources that state, as the truncated material does, that "while the phrase "who proceeds from the Father" is found in John 15:26, no direct statement about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is found in the New Testament", but as I am leaving that at present unsourced statement where it is, I will omit it from my reinsertion of the rest of the material. Esoglou (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see LoveMonkey has retouched the truncated section about the New Testament (at present section 3.5 of the article), claiming that it is a matter of Eastern Orthodox teaching. Would someone please add "=" twice to its heading so as to change its hierarchy from that of an independent section to that of a subsection of the "Eastern Orthodoxy" section. Then it will be outside my field of responsibility and it can continue, as far as I am concerned, to remain unsourced and incomplete. Esoglou (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is LoveMonkey's most recent change. If you think that 'perhaps indirectly discernible' should be restored to the article, why not propose that on the talk page? The 'indirectly discernible' seems like a matter that ought to be attributed to the author who does the discerning, so a citation may be needed. Depending on who you pick for the citation, that might decide whether this belongs in an Orthodox or Catholic section. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no objection whatever to LoveMonkey's most recent change. What is mistaken is his edit-summary claim that Section 3.5 comes under Eastern Orthodox teaching. So please turn Section 3.5 into Section 3.4.2.

Unsourced Section 3.5 is a useless duplication of well-sourced Section 2. I am confident that I could find a reliable source to support its statement that "no direct statement about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is found in the New Testament", which I would gladly include in the fuller information on the New Testament that is now Section 2. But when I did so, someone deleted the whole of the fuller section for the sake of restoring Section 3.5. So this time I left Section 3.5 as both LoveMonkey and the Memphis, Tennessee IP editor had insisted on having it, including both this still unsourced statement and the phrase that LoveMonkey has now deleted. If you will move Section 3.5 under "Eastern Orthodoxy" (where LoveMonkey and the Memphis, Tennessee editor claim that it already is), it will be no responsibility of mine if it remains unsourced and if it continues to hide the fact that reliable sources say that some parts of the New Testament have been and are interpreted as indirect statements on the question (see Section 2). Esoglou (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to avoid editing behaviour which creates conflict or leads to edit warring. Thus far you are making no effort to do so. If you are so concerned about the content of his edit, have someone else address it. If no one else addresses it, perhaps your concerns are unwarranted.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou agreed to not edit on Eastern Orthodox positions. Why is his recent edit and violation of this [45] not being addressed? Let me guess, it only matters if other editors violated their restrictions. Here Esoglou just added more of his WP:OR again to the Eastern Orthodox New Testament section of the article today. [46] And let me guess feigning incompetence gets Esoglou out of being punished for once again violating his editing restrictions. How is the article talkpage the appropriate place to discuss Esoglou committing violations? But wait another editor is indeed trying to address that very thing there anyway. [47] Let me guess it's just me right Ed. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but every time I make a comment on the Talk page of 'Papal Infallibility', it mysteriously disappears without a trace and without notice. Someone is abusing Wikipedia privileges.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, if you believe your talk comments are being edited or removed please supply a diff. I could not see any problems in a quick glance at Talk:Papal infallibility. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to supply a diff when there is no record of my comments in the Talk page history. The best I can do is supply a screenshot next time. I had one entire exchange with Pseudo-Richard which is no longer there.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Try asking Pseudo-Richard for assistance. One of the links from your talk page doesn't work because the target talk page was renamed. Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences got moved to Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences. Maybe it's something of that kind. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:Papal infallibility and failed to find any exchange between me and Taiwan boi. There was an exchange at Talk:Primacy of the Roman Pontiff here. I think this is the exchange Taiwan boi was thinking of. I admit it's really confusing that Montalban and Esoglou are interacting on both Papal infallibility AND Primacy of the Roman Pontiff concurrently. I have a hard time keeping the discussion and editing of the two articles separated in my mind. Taiwan boi may have had a similar experience. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has gone off in many directions, even blaming agents unknown for a supposed disappearance of edits to a talk page even from that page's history records. The accusation made here was that I violated an editing restriction. The only basis advanced for the accusation was that I edited an article section on the New Testament that was in fact not under the heading "Eastern Orthodoxy". In other words, the accusation has a basis only in the minds of two whose efforts to slant articles in a particular direction I resisted by citing sources that upheld other views. Esoglou (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

AN/I problem

I see you're active here at the moment. Could you take a look at the matter raised on my user talk just now [48] and do what you think appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You've raised an interesting question, and I'm trying to restrain myself from giving a longer answer. A glance at the events which have occurred at ANI since your post suggest that my response is no longer needed. (Master of Puppets undid one of his edits to the ANI thread). Post again if you think the matter needs further discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Talleys issue

Hi. I thought I'd give you a little background on the situation. This person (IP 74.233.198.52 also 74.233.219.163 & 184.32.1.169) is the same one that I've been having a lot of trouble with the past few days at the Gaither Vocal Band article. I also requested protection for that page, but that admin instead blocked the user. You can go to the talk page there if you want. You can also go to the history of my talk page to see even more inflammatory comments by this user. Come to find out that this person just hates Christians. Anyway, the reason I didn't reply to the Talleys talk page is because I knew that it would do no good. Now, I have a question: the ClueBot reverted the last time, calling it "possible vandalism;" so if a large deletion happens once it's considered vandalism, but if it happens over and over it's just a dispute or conflict? I have certainly learned how to better handle this type of thing better. I hope it won't happen again, but there's a good chance it will. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Gaither Vocal Band. The article on The Talleys still needs a better talk page discussion, and I hope you have the time to explain the issues there. Do you have any idea what the motivation is for these IPs? Are they supporters or opponents of some types of music? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am the editor without a logon name to WIkipedia. I post using my IP address and inly my IP address. I have addressed the current issue on the tally talk page and almsot always post to a talk page when the article has been edited by me, especially whenit has been reverted. I do so, in order to open the line of communication, avoid edit warring, build consensus and understanding, for my edit and change to an article. I do not wish to agitate or anger anyone. Musdan77, when he does use a talk page always replies with an all knowing attitude and judgement. This is how I first met this "person". Musdan77 has no regard for any consensus, discussion or correction to any article he watches over, ever! I have tried to post to his own talk page and his own talk page has been cleaned of many posts by me many times to openly discuss and disclose the reasoning for my corrections and my many suggestions that the article be corrected by himself, myself or someone else, in order to effect accuracy. I have no qualms as to who actually corrects the article. However, almost always musdan77 will revert the article, not post to talk page, read the talk page and make the change himself, along with a subsequent minor change and continue his watch over. The last edit will always say "reverting such and such edit, call it vandalism and allow the correction to stand with the accusation of vandalism. Musdan77 stating that I hate christians is a further attempt to discredit, harass, and instigate more ill-feelings in this forum. It is to me the proverbial "race card" and is insulting, disparaging and aggressive in nature. The fact remains, I am a christian and any claim otherwise is a lie and not in good faith or even relevent to this discussion, editing of an article, or fair dealing with anyone whatsoever! Furhtermore, the inclusion and accusation of me being a preverbial christian hater (possible jew, muslum or atheist) claim is insulting, critical, and downright disgusting in a forum that the claimant refuses to openly discuss in a open and academic forum is inflammatory. I am not an expert in music, although I am a researching reader and persuer of many cited references in Wiki articles. I do so for the express reason of checking the accuracies of facts, claims and issues contained within. Thank you for your attention, intervention and help on resolving this issue. 65.8.141.242 (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Killings consensus reached and should be used

FWIW, there was a consensus on "lede 3" at the Mass killings under Communist regimes article - the one lede which absolutely did not have consensus is the one you seem to wish to establish as the status quo <g>. I fear you are actually rewarding Paul Siebert's tendentiousness (thousands of words) and not weighing the actual policies involved - that the lede should accurately represent and summarize the content of the article, and should not represent the "lowest estimates found anywhere in sources" where those are not the commonly accepted figures (i.e. the "tens of millions" is, indeed, the "fringe view" here.). Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page

Hey Ed.

First, I do not think I have to tolerate such terrible slanders against me.

The IP is indeed a clear sock of User:Shez 15, if you look at the long history of SPI reports, you will see the IPs essentially start with either "142...", "65..." or "119.82..." I don't think there's any sense in filing another SPI, unless there was a user account - their IP range is dynamic.

Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you reverted an edit at Talk:Preity Zinta that was quite unhelpful and probably wrong but surely not a 'terrible slander'. Getting admins to do these reverts is better. Since User:HelloAnnyong is the person who applied the indef block to User:Shez 15 perhaps you could ask him for advice on what to do about these talk page comments. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect Jiddu Krishnamurti related talk

Took your advice after quite a bit of arguing and created account. Please redirect all Jiddu Krishnamurti related comments to User talk:Ip658888x. The next step will be the notification of users involved in the dispute. Thank you. ip658888x (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New York Public Library again

See this. I've left a note on both user talk pages because I think that using the named account would be both block evasion and a breach of the one user/one account policy. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to have a discussion with him. The block was for both edit warring and socking. If he will agree to follow policy, the registered account might be allowed to edit. The IPs would be expected to stop. If he claims that the IPs are other people, then one or more should be willing to self-identify to a checkuser, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk)

It is not a "he" but rather a "they" - and I do not mean that in the gender-neutral sense. They are proposing to use the named account jointly & seem to be under the impression that this is within the scope of WP policy. It opens a rather large can of worms, as I have mentioned at User_talk:Ip658888x. Although, in fairness, they are open about their past teamwork and the intended purpose of the named account, most recently and extensively at User:Ip658888x - perhaps some sort of AGF formula can be applied. It is possible that you may be in email communication with them, which is of course fine by me. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Proxies

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

Hey Ed, all due respect, just hope that you are not using websites as such to verify if proxies exist or not. These are not reliable sources for open proxy checking. With this IP specifically, luckily 208.110.220.133 (talk · contribs) is IP is an open proxy in this case. Let me know if you have questions. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I originally felt that a one-month block anon-only block would be justified based on the previous record, without verifying proxiness myself. I escalated to two month based on the slightly vague results of the proxy-checking web site. Though I'm aware that such websites have their limits, I felt that was enough info to justify two months anon-only. It seems that we do block IPs as proxies without actually activating them based on circumstantial evidence. The uncertainty is reflected in the relatively short block time. Let me know if I'm off-base on that. I don't actually know what ProcseeBot considers evidence, and it did decide to issue the previous hard block for two months. Did you use nmap for your confirmation? EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that ProcseeBot blocks in sets of 2 weeks and 2 months, although i'm not 100% sure what it uses as sufficient evidence, I have always been able to access the proxies where ProcseeBot says they are (if it's checked at the time of the block, and not gone dead already by the time I get to it) so I would say that it confirms the ability to proxy before blocking. I actually did use nmap, but this time the software failed me (hence my warning), it said that the host was down which is a strong indicator that there is no proxy. But I plugged 8080 into my web browser and got the active web proxy. Web proxies can be blocked on circumstantial evidence, but i'm not 100% comfortable with blocking Comcast customers without being 99% sure there is a proxy or seeing it myself. If you didn't know that Comcast is the host, you might want to add a whois into your checks. Normal ISPs that are as stable as Comcast are very very unlikely to be carrying proxies normally. And WP:OP may look backlogged at times, but it's a good idea to use. I rarely block without stopping by there myself with the IP. Now that the IP is confirmed on 8080, I would increase your block to a hard block. (My lack of the tools right now doesn't allow me to do that) But thanks for hearing me out on this one. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your findings seem to justify a longer block. Posted here at OP for further discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide methods

If you are not too busy, Talk:Suicide methods vandalism on the go, see history Perhaps semi-protect?  Jabbsworth  12:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Beeblebrox has taken care of it after a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Protection for Kashmiri Pandit - New York, New York

One of those NY IPs is at it again on Kashmiri Pandit. In fairness, they are talking but the message is simply not getting through. See Special:Contributions/208.125.14.67, and note that they also contributed at Lawrence School, Sanawar which is another article subject to warring by NY IPs. It would not surprise me if this user is also User:Buddhafollower but there is at the moment insufficient evidence to take it to SPI - it is more of a timing thing than a great deal of cross-article edits.

Is semi-protection feasible? I could take it to RFPP but you'll hopefully recall that this is a pretty complex situation involving NY Public Library and IPs contributing from nearby locations. The complexity might not be easily conveyed at RFPP. I would appreciate your thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Kashmiri Pandit after reviewing the old 3RR case and the two other cases on that archive page which also mention the 65.88.* IPs (listed in the TOC as #50 and #56). EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I did a bit of overhauling of that article a while ago in an attempt to bring it into line with policy etc. I'll try to more work on it at some point soon. It is outside my normal sphere but I am sure that I can cobble something up that fits the schema. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Cloak

No, no further action needed. You were cloaked on October 29, so everything is fine. --Filip (§) 09:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You can identify to the services with the following command: /msg nickserv identify <password> and you can check your cloak by doing a whois on yourself, like this: /whois EdJohnston. --Filip (§) 23:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep you advice for you self do not step in midle of a arguments of others

You can leave your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies for yourself. Nobody blocking nobody becuse do not start discission on talk page. Who wants discusse souced editorial work should start discussion. Stop giving good advices to sombody else. You are new in this conflict but talking with 100% confidence on base of a fragment of my words. Honestly it is arogant and stupid. Best regard.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.37.58 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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

Lhb1239 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Complaint about editing by Arcillaroja at Central Europe and Eastern Europe

Hi there! I had seen the accusations and the reply of other admins and I thought that it was not necessary to say anything else. I will add some information on the topic and defend myself in that board, if you think that is the correct course of action, but maybe I will only increase the anger of this particular editor. Arcillaroja (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edits at Eastern Europe and Central Europe are being described as so illogical that they could only be explained by your ethnic motivation. I have to agree that your edits seem unusual, though I am not sure if they are ethnically motivated. Anything you could say that would indicate you have a rational thought process and are willing to cooperate with others would be a help. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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

Lhb1239 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Ed,

Were these proper changes editors made to remove my comments from talk pages? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=460484622&oldid=460483415 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowded&diff=460486555&oldid=460486003 The Editors who were working in concert to press a particular position in the article are working in concert outside of the article. It's clear they are sympathetic to one another. I know that I was following protocol in my message about COI on Snowded's talk page because I referenced every single sentence fragment to the Wikipedia rules and his actual written words. Were they following protocol in deleting these messages? Please help/advise so I can stay on the right side of protocol myself. Thanks. --Encyclotadd (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Your WP:AN3 report was not in the usual form for an AN3 complaint (see the noticeboard header for how to submit)
• Snowded is free to remove anything he wants to from his user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I will study the reference provided.--Encyclotadd (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about The Devil's Advocate

In my years in Wikipedia, I've never encountered anyone as intent on winning battles. He's typing more on his talk page now that he's blocked than he did before. He certainly isn't using his block as a time to reflect. What happens when there's a user who creates so much ongoing drama that it becomes an unsustainable burden on editors and admins? If this action continues after his unblock (assuming he is more careful about POV, but continues with the intense battleground editing), might it be appropriate to take this up on the incidents noticeboard? Thank you. -Jordgette [talk] 21:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A situation that has received so much attention usually resolves itself, one way or the other. Either he'll get with the program and edit quietly, or a new issue will occur where the necessary action is obvious.

In my years in Wikipedia, I've never encountered anyone as intent on winning battles.

You must be new around here. WP:ARB911 is applicable in case of need. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Since Drmies requested it at WP:AN, that all admins who cleared that massive backlog at RPP are owed a beer by me. Cheers! Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look and comment as necessary

In reference to the email sent to you earlier regarding harassment and hounding, please take a look at this. Any comments, suggestions, help, whatever...would be appreciated. Thank you, Lhb1239 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you comment at AN3 and offer to stop editing the article for a month. You seem to have broken WP:3RR at Pan Am (TV series). A promise to stop warring might be enough to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Baseball Watcher's talk page.
Message added 00:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Baseball Watcher 00:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre warrior

The editor that you declined to unblock, User:Ian Streeter, has since been editing music articles, making the same changes he was originally blocked for. Should this warrant automatic block? Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left him a warning, and pulled out all the stops. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Gold rush

No complaints: my comments in the decline were intended to say that it should be protected if another IP showed up. I would have done the same thing if I'd become aware of the situation first. By the way, see my comments on Gfoley's and Baseball Water's talk pages about {{rfpp}}. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

You know that message you posted on my talk page? Well all I was doing when I was editing DJ Felli Fel was following the rules of Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre. Part of it was to keep the genres general. And it also said to avoid cultural genres (like I removed 'Southern hip hop') Ian Streeter (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi.Here [49] I said it appears to be some edit warring here [50], but User talk:علی ویکی accused me to revenge.User:علی ویکی himself has disruptive activities(Please take a look at his talk page [51], here [52] he has deleted material with its source, and did vandalism,his activities must be under consideration.His statement "I'll keep this report in mind." shows he has vendetta against me and it is Wikipedia:Harassment.I think User:Leakingisgood is sockpuppet account of User:علی ویکی.With Respect--Orartu (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I see no evidence that Leakingisgood is a sock of User_talk:علی_ویکی.
• You've been making some statements which suggest you have strong national feelings about the topics in this part of the world. If you cannot edit neutrally on the subject of Iran and Azerbaijan, you may be asked to stop editing these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your deduction is not fair.I am interested in Azerbaijani-related articles, but I don't want to violate neutality of wikipedia.Now I finish my contributionS in wikipedia and you and User:علی ویکی can feel relax.--Orartu (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned your name here. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Range contributions

You asked about range contributions, and Soxred93's tool. Notice: User talk:Zzuuzz#Range contributions. Would have left this comment in the discussion, but I don't know how to post a link there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that is really, really helpful indeed, thanks! I knew of the javascript version, but the tool by helloannyong does precisely what i need - give me the recent X edits from a range so that i can see how busy a range is, and if there would be collateral damage to quality IP editors once a block a range. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nazism

I have provided the sources for my edit on the Nazism article. I know it gives you a rush and makes you feel important, but your bullying isn't necessary.--Cyrrk (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

AE

Ed. I am being truthful when I say That I did not know that that template language applied to the Golan. Yes, I was indeed negligent in not seeing it in his edit summary. I only became aware of it from his AE and after reading the link, I self-reverted, literally within seconds of his filing. I'm asking not to be thrown in the cooler again. I'm asking you to AGF and to take into consideration the self revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for taking care of this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Antique_Rose_reported_by_User:Gazifikator_.28Result:_Block.2C_semi.2C_Antique_Rose_warned.29. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

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

--Encyclotadd (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons

Just wondering, are you an admin on Commons too? Are you able to use revdel there? Can you also remove my ID from the revision history of this? It's just that I edit on Commons with an IP address and prefer not to show my Wikipedia account there. Drspaz (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Commons admin. My suggestion would be to check one of the logs of admin action at Commons such as this one to find an admin who is currently active, and ask that person to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

awb/email

My email is enabled.--INeverCry 07:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this so quickly.--INeverCry 17:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

MAngled unblock decline

Thanks for correcting my mistake at User talk:Ian Streeter. You were quite right: it was meant to be an unblock decline, not acceptance. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to accept the latest unblock request by this user - would you be ok with me overturning it? An optimist on the run! 08:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

OK with an unblock if the conditions are clear. See the comment I've just added at User talk:Ian Streeter. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Request at Unprotection

Hi Ed. As one of the regular page patrollers over at WP:RPP can you advise how I can get my request from Saturday evening examined [53]? cheers. Leaky Caldron 16:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone will probably deal with it soon now that the backlog has gone down. I would not be inclined to lift the semiprotection on English Defence League:

• The semi was only for three days
• It was placed by a checkuser who claimed that sockpuppetry was occurring.

Is there a strong reason for unprotection? IPs are rather inactive on the talk page (last IP edit one month ago), and you would expect that changes to a highly contentious article would benefit from lots of discussion on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim of sockpuppetry is entirely unfounded as admitted by the admin who protected the article[54]. So we appear to have (a) no valid reason (b) a false statement of reason, "Persistent sock puppetery" (c) absuse of tools because of (a) & (b). Where do I go now, AN/I? Leaky Caldron 16:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You can take this to ANI, but since your only complaint seems to be one of procedure, and since checkusers often need to speak vaguely as part of their job, it's unclear that the admins there will feel you have a strong case. (You have not claimed that Tiptoety is doing anything against you personally). Since I haven't studied the edit history perhaps there is some long-running concern about that article, but you haven't given me any hint of what it could be. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You might call it procedure, I call it incorrect use of tools based on a fishing expedition. If there were genuine concerns there would be an SPI, surely? Leaky Caldron 17:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For info. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Leaky Caldron 17:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now enables email

My request at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage was stalled because I didn't have an email address listed, now that I do may I be approved for the AWB? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

CCRays needs to follow the rules!

CCRays is just as guilty for undoing my edits, especially when his don't conform to WP's general prohibition of blogs as sources. He uses his own interpretation of the policy to edit-war. Yet, the blog in question is not associated with Major League Baseball.JaMikePA (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring close

Regarding your closing of the Worstcook report, I consider myself substantially trouted. I'll be staying well away from that article, and doubling down on my observation of WP:3RR in future. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Bhutto

Thanks for the semi protect on Bhutto. The page is often vandalized by IP's changing Rajput to Arain. I'm not sure what the fundamental dispute is about , although when I first noticed the reverts over a year ago I checked the sources to see which was the accurate content and tribe.. Anyway thanks. I have the page watch listed so I do keep an eye on it. IP's can be persistent so there may be a new user suddenly on that page.(olive (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Large revert noted

I noticed you made a note of my "large revert while 3RR was open" in the outcome to the case against Worstcook. Should I not have done that? I felt the edits by Sparthorse, which also merited a block, were problematic and took the article back to where the war started and WP:BRD should have come into play. If that was inappropriate, it was an honest error. Drmargi (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If supporters of either side continue to revert while an AN3 report is open it suggests they did not get the message. The main purpose of an edit warring complaint is to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, although that wasn't my intention, as I explained in the discussion at the time, as well as on the article talk page. I think a little assumption of good faith might be in order, given I was attempting to act as a neutral party, and particularly given Sparthorse was given a pass for a 3RR violation. Drmargi (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You were acting as a neutral party by reverting the article in favor of one of the two sides? Anyone who reverts while an AN3 complaint is open is risking a block themselves. The best way to help with such a dispute is to try to persuade the parties to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But I didn't revert in favor of one of the two sides, as I explained. Perhaps if you'd looked at the talk page of the article, you'd have seen that the revert was back to where the article was before the whole bruhaha started, and was accompanied by a lengthy post suggesting that everyone cool off, stop the accelerating back-and-forth reverts, step back and talk. Which, I might add, none of the three parties did. And again, hands up; I honestly wasn't aware a revert during a 3RR complaint was not allowable. Heaven knows I've seen it done on other articles more times than I can count. Drmargi (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Diatribes

I noticed that you raised a civility issue with User:MangoWong a few days back. Is this uncivil? Or this and this? I am becoming tired of this type of comment from them but it seems that calling someone (not me) an Indophobe is ok, so I've pretty much lost all sense of where the line is drawn. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the first of those is in response to my reply to Jimbo, who is the "you" referred to in my message visible in the diff. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong's view of these matters speaks for itself, as they say. For you to try to keep to the higher ground is wise. Getting action on civility problems is not easy and even reasonable attempts to do so often backfire. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. At least now I know that I am not going mad. However, I only have so much patience and sooner or later I am likely to explode. Doubtless, when that happens I'll be the one who gets a block :( - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Spartacus

This looked like a content dispute between an IP and a registered editor, but by semi-protecting you are effectively ruling on the side of the registered editor. Any reason why it wasn't full protection? Polequant (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My rationale was given at RFPP. The IP had broken 3RR. Not aware that this had reached WP:ANI. I'm changing it to three days of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Polequant (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the plan's been modified yet again. When I checked the protection log I noticed that the same problem happened in early October and User:Fluffernutter imposed a week of semiprotection then. The usage of multiple IPs in an edit war is a violation of WP:SOCK:

• Special:Contributions/72.160.2.240
• Special:Contributions/109.150.249.135
• Special:Contributions/94.194.34.10

So I'm leaving the week of semiprotection in place. Editors are welcome to discuss the best plan (BC or BCE) on the talk page. If the IP is unhappy with the result reached and continues to revert when protection expires, a longer semi may be used. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

where did iGrafx go?

Hi Ed, I didn't see your response to my latest post on Nov 4. Did the time to discuss the issue run out? GretchenBurthey (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2011

Your old request for undeletion is now sitting in the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 54#iGrafx. Can you tell me if you have access to both studies, the Gartner and the one at http://www.barc.de? Can you quote a few sentences of what Gartner has to say about iGrafx? Do they include any criticism? Does Gartner evaluate iGrafx against competitors? If so, which competitors? Does iGrafx score well against the competition? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have access to the Gartner study; they do one every year that can be quoted or printed, but not republished in electronic format. The report evaluates 15 vendors including iGrafx and gives strenths and "cautions" for each. It then places all vendors in a quadrant made up of Challengers, Leaders, Niche Players and Visionaries. I can certainly provide pros and cons of the iGrafx solution if questioned. Example Strength: "iGrafx's Enterprise BPA tools hit the "sweet spot" of buyers as they focus on the business/BP architect and analyst buyer categories, with some additional capabilities for those in the enterprise business architect, business architect and BPMS modeler categories." Example Caution: "With no BPMS iGrafx run the risk of being frozen out of the market as BPA and BPM consolidate and user look to single vendor solutions, their BPMS integration strategy will go some way in alleviating this concern." Gretchenburthey (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2011

• If you request it, I can restore the article for you in your user space at User:Gretchenburthy/iGrafx. You could face a problem making it into an acceptable article without a lot of work. For example:

• The deleted article says "It is considered one of the global market leaders in its field." That kind of a statement will have to go unless we can find a third-party reliable source that is willing to say that.
• You would think that a million licenses would lead to some amount of coverage in the trade press.
• If there are other companies which have similar offerings they should be mentioned in the article as competitors.
• If you are connected with the company you might have some idea why iGrafx was spun out of Corel but the Micrografx products were kept. That information might be useful to our readers.
• You might be able to find something on the SAP web site that talks about iGrafx, if it is billed as a product that is compatible with SAP.
• The listing of Current Products in the deleted article probably needs to be cut down because it reads too much like a marketing brochure.

• If you look around Wikipedia you may come across articles that talk about business processes which are fairly well written. For example, Six Sigma. The risk with these process articles is that they tend to be abstract, boring and hard to understand. Six Sigma avoids that. If you can write something that our readers will find interesting and helpful, it will be a true contribution. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, it would be great if you could restore the article and then I will do what I can to make it a respectible article. Your Six Sigma reference was helpful.Gretchenburthey (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2011

Sorry I did not see your message until now, since it was far from the bottom of my talk page. I've restored the article at User:Gretchenburthey/IGrafx. You have a reasonable time to try to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. Let me know if you have any questions. If there is no progress in one month, the article might be deleted again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

Paul has taken to declaring that numbers in the lede of the article must be removed e.g. in bold it should be removed, and that is non-negotiable. [55] This is a repeat of his contention that !votes can't be considered in the matter [56]. And he repeats that he will remove the numbers with increasing aggression: "should and will be changed irrespective of any consensus" [57], repeats [58] I find it impossible now to have a civil discussion with Paul.

I'll be away from computers for much of the Thanksgiving holiday and don't have a lot of time for this. I just ask that you keep an eye on this, at least until Sunday. I'll inform Paul about this note. Smallbones (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed, Smallbones has informed me that he notified you, and I believe that, by contrast to my earlier promise I have to discuss something with you on your talk page. Our neutrality policy prohibits stating seriously contested assertions as facts. This requirement is non-negotiable, and cannot be overruled by consensus. In the MKuCR article we have a situation when several users defend some statements irrespective to the number of arguments and sources that directly contradict to them. Therefore, we have a typical situation when a group of users violates neutrality policy using a reference to consensus and to the Snadstein's rules as a pretext. This situation is unacceptable. Clearly, if we will just count agree or oppose, that will be exactly what the neutrality policy prohibits (its principles cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus).
That is why I made a step that would allow us to objectively resolve this issue. I collected several reliable sources that explicitly criticise the source we discuss (the Black Book) and the figures from this source in particular. Based on these sources I prepared a list of questions the proponents of the Black Book are supposed to answer (by providing appropriate sources). If these questions will be properly addressed in close future (on the talk page), then this disputable statement should not be considered as disputable any more and will stay. However, if Smallbones and others will be unable to provide reliable sources that directly refute the above mentioned criticism of the Black Book (and his appeal to you is an indication that such an outcome is more than probable), then the statement should be deemed seriously contested by reliable sources, and, as a result, it must be removed from the lede. I think it would be correct if you, as an admin who insisted on the preservation of this highly controversial statement in the lede took care about that. That is why I decided to address to you, not to Mkativerata, who initially proposed to remove it for purely procedural reasons.
I propose to set some deadline. Do you think two weeks will be sufficient?
Regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

PS BTW, this case gave a start to a discussion on the NPOV talk page. You may be interested to join it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a perfectly good RfC was opened on 21 November at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#RfC on death estimates in the article's opening sentences. After enough time has passed, consider asking at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. I don't see any issue in the lead which is of such an urgent nature that we should modify the fully-protected lead under admin authority before the RfC finishes. The reasoning by Paul about counting votes or not counting votes is unnecessary. If you get an uninvolved admin, they will close it using the prevailing community standards for how to read a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I again point your attention at the fact that the requirements of neutrality policy cannot be superseded by editorial consensus. I provided persuasive evidences that some assertion is presented as the fact, which is explicitly prohibited by our policy, so if these evidences will not be refuted there is no choice but to remove this statement.

By writing that, I do not question the validity of the RfC. These are two independent things. It may or may not lead to something useful, however, we speak about some new text (written based on some new sources), not about the statement taken from highly controversial source. Therefore, we should not mix these two things: the statement from the Black Book should be removed irrespective to the results of the RfC (although some other statement may be added when the RfC will come to some conclusion).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You are expressing alarm about some very cautious language in the current lead, which refers to 'estimates' and cites scholars. If you get an admin to close the RfC, I assume he will make proper allowance for our neutrality policy. The opening of the lead is Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes. Do you disbelieve that as a point of fact? Would you say that is not neutral? EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The language of the first sentence is by no means cautious. Firstly, the "Mass killings under Communist regimes" appears in bold, although this term has been used just 5 times in scholarly literature (and one of those sources is a WP mirror). Therefore the term fails notability criteria and should not be in bold. Secondly, the reference to a source that resulted in "a storm of copious, polemical articles" and still is a subject of significant controversy is by no means neutral. Thirdly, the statement that the estimates lie within "85 and 100 million" limits is simply false: the source we discuss (Courtois) provides no review of available literature (this source contains no references at all), therefore, there is no evidence that this source reflects anything but the opinion of his author (which has been heavily contested). Moreover, this statement completely disregards the fact that the article discusses the famine deaths (the major cause of excess mortality in Communist countries) in the "Controversy" section to reflect the fact that most scholars do not consider famine as mass killings.

With regard to the new wording, I hope that will be decided during RfC or subsequent discussion. However, irrespective to that, the reference to the Black Book, and the figures it advocates, should be removed as being heavily contested (even by the BB coauthors themselves), because by leaving them there we simply discredit Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "I assume he will make proper allowance for our neutrality policy." Let's hope he will. However, as we can see, my arguments and sources are still unaddressed. If the situation will not be changed in reasonable future, I don't see (even theoretically) how the opinia of the users may outweigh the sources provided by me. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia can survive until the RfC is over. Whether something appears in bold face or not doesn't seem to be an urgent issue needing admin action. A neutrally-written summary of the scholarly situation would be helpful, if anyone can write one. Your efforts would be better spent persuading the other editors than persuading the admins. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked me why I found the first sentence dramatically non-neutral, and I explained that. It was not my goal to conduct a content dispute with you. However, since you partially share a responsibility for this content (by opposing to its removal, as suggested by Mkativerata), I believe it would be useful for you to know how concretely this statement violates our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have listened to your argument but I disagree that this rises to the level of urgency needing admin action. Some participants in the EE disputes are very skilled at asking for admin help and this skill probably works against actual improvement of the articles. A lot of disruptive activity has occurred on the topic of this article and your appearance on my talk page suggests the 55th recurrence of the editors being unwilling to follow the normal steps of dispute resolution. If they had, there would not be any need for admin intervention. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I already apologized for breaking my self-imposed obligation not to address to you regarding the EE disputes. I hope that will be the last time I appear here. With regard to "Some participants in the EE disputes are very skilled at asking for admin help..." I believe, this criticism has been addressed not at me.

Regarding urgency, I am not talking about any urgent measures. My point is that the BB issue (the statement from the Black Book in the opening sentence of the lede) and the RfC are two independent things: if consensus will be to leave some figures, but the criticism of the BB will remain unaddressed, this source should be removed, and new figures/sources added instead. Therefore, I propose to treat these two issues separately, and if the proponents of the BB will not provide sourced refutation of the BB criticism, this source should be removed by admin's action, because I anticipate those users to continue to resist against its removal even in the absence of sourced arguments (which means blockage of the normal dispute resolution process). I agree that there is no rush with this step. However, we need to set some deadline (two weeks, a month, whatever) after which this source should be removed if no serious sources refuting the criticism will be provided. If the development of the RfC will make such a step redundant, that will be fine, however, we need to treat these two things separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are used to people appealing to admins when they cannot gather a consensus of editors on the talk page to support their views. The only answer is: be more persuasive, accept the verdict of the others, or find another encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree. Some basic elements of our policy cannot be superseded even by editorial consensus (and the policy says that clearly). In that situation, an advise to be more persuasive towards those who violate policy is somewhat illogical: do you persuade those who break a 3RR, or you simply block them?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

IP block

Whilst I fully accept your blocks on my ip address and actually encourage them for disruptive editors, as edit warring is no fun, I wish for you to understand what drove me to such lenghts. User:ian.thomson has rollback rights, and has shown a complete inability to engage amicablly in a discussion, making personal insults left right and centre. He has on his own page a praisal of the BCE system and by looking through his history this is by no means the first time he has defended BCE to the death. HE asked other users to make reverts as well, breaking a lot of wiki rules that he was citing at me in the process. I hope that you can persuade him to act more like Jesus in the future since that is the man he claims to be his inspiration. Thank you, my last words. 129.11.76.229 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It only takes five minutes to register an account. Then people would probably take you more seriously. The underlying issue of BC versus BCE is obviously open for good faith discussion, with emphasis on the good faith. Dare I point out that Ian.thomson, whatever his qualities, is a registered editor whose record is open for review? Wanting to hide your record suggests that you are not proud of what you've done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Plus, I didn't use rollback during the recent debacle, so I don't see what the point in bringing that up is other than trying to falsely imply that I'm abusing that feature. Funny how diffs aren't being provided for my claims of making personal insults aren't being provided either, like this. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rubén Rivera

You recently semi-protected the page, at the request of user Muboshgu, citing "no regard for consensus" on the part of an IP editor involved in an edit war with Muboshgu. But if you look through the page's history, you'll see that Muboshgu is the one causing all of the trouble. The "certain incident" in question had been in the article since its creation over 6 years ago. But last March, Muboshgu, without warning, came along and deleted it, claiming it wasn't "notable". Since then, about half a dozen different people have tried to put the incident back into the article, with the latest one including a reliable reference establishing the incident's "notability", yet every time, Muboshgu quickly undoes the changes, and deletes any mention of it from the article again.

Thus, it seems to me that Muboshgu is the one with "no regard for consensus", since the vast majority of Wikipedia users think that the incident should be in the article, but Muboshgu, despite being entirely alone in his/her opinion, sees fit to overrule everyone else, and effectively block changes to the article as if he/she were editor-in-chief of Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a community effort, and it is counterproductive to have one person claim an article as their own property by refusing to allow any changes that contradict their opinion. Hatster301 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Consider trying to find better sources for the 'baserunning incident'. I see that it was discussed at Talk:Rubén Rivera#Baserunning incident. The way it was phrased before looks questionable from the point of view of WP:BLP. If it was really something memorable, wouldn't it have been covered in a major newspaper? Why was the Daily Caller the only source provided, besides a Youtube video? If you can find some good sources to establish its importance, putting it back in the article might be reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ian Streeter

Hello, and I hope you are having a wonderful day. I am having some problems with a user here at Wikipedia, that you previously and recently blocked. His/her name is Ian Streeter. I looked though their contributions and saw your username appear, so I thought I would ask you to review this incident. He is making a lot of unconstructive edits to a specific number of articles—mostly in the Sandbox—such as all of the below "diffs":

• Attempt to delete the Sandbox - violation per WP:DP
• Attempt to block users viewing the Sandbox - violation per WP:WARNSAND
• Attempt to block users viewing the Sandbox - violation per WP:WARNSAND
• Random sequences of characters - violation per WP:ADS
• Attempt to redirect the Sandbox - violation per WP:REDIRSAND
• Attempt to redirect the Sandbox - violation per WP:REDIRSAND
• Attempt to attack Wikipedia - violation per WP:NPASAND
• Attempt to redirect the Sandbox - violation per WP:REDIRSAND
• Attempt to redirect the Sandbox - violation per WP:REDIRSAND
• Attempt to block user Example
• More unhelpful edits

I think it would be helpful to have a good talk with this user and a firm warning, and a possible block. I also think that a solid involuntary mentorship with a developed administrator would be applicable. Could a case be opened for the administrator's noticeboard for incidents?

I would like to apologize for any inconvenience this incident may have caused you, and if I have posted this at the wrong place, however, please realize that I am trying to help this incident in good faith. I would appreciate your help, and thank you in advance. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this. But is it okay if I do these things in my sandbox? Ian Streeter (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is okay if you do them in your own Sandbox, but after the above listed edits, I think your behavior constitutes a block. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you necessarily mean by "but after the above listed edits, I think your behavior constitutes a block"? Ian Streeter (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you have made the above unconstructive edits in the past, your behavior constitutes a block. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Genre warrior"

I'm not meaning to break any of the conditions that you agreed with An optimist on the run on, by the way.

Since An optimist on the run wouldn't let me post this, I'll post this to you since An optimist on the run relates to you in a way. I wanted to say that the only reason why I kept on changing genres when I wasn't supposed to was because I really didn't look into the effort of finding a fast way of finding consensus on the talk page, which would be better if I did because now I can't do ANYTHING with genres. So at least can you instantly remove all conditions from An optimist on the run except for editing genres? Ian Streeter (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Swinton Circle

Thanks for your note. I've posted a new thread looking for suggestions at talk:Swinton Circle#Resolving the disputes. A possibility which I don't mention there is banning Harvey, though I'd guess that it would hard to enforce it as I believe he's used several accounts already. However most of the problems seem to come from his highly conflicted editing.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Katarighe's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Katarighe (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AE#JJG

Hello Ed. I saw your comment at Wgfinley's talk page. Before you close the request, can you please address the issue with the added 2 diffs. There are 3 diffs of serious misrepresentation of sources, with 2 of them including the insertion of not only "POV" material but objectively factually incorrect material into articles, including on one occasion where the cited source says exactly the opposite of what was placed in the article. Nobody has responded to these issues, despite my repeated requests that somebody at least address them. I apologize for raising this here, I dislike the idea of even the appearance of lobbying an admin, but the issue is being ignored. Thank you. nableezy - 03:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Ed, My issue around WP:WESTBANK was that there was a sudden outbreak of editors taking a Humpty-dumpty approach to the guideline and claiming that it meant what they wanted it to mean and not what everyone had taken it to mean since its introduction. I consider all those involved guilty of WP:TE. JJG is just one of them. I have not been following things closely but think that the Humpty-dumptyism has now reduced however the relevant thread has tl;dr issues and I think that there are still underlying issues of tendetiousness driven by a minority POV.

I assume your question to me was related to your desire to get the JJG AE out of the way. I think the problem there is that new issues have been added tothe case in a piecemeal manner and it is not obvious whether the admins have examined those new issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment

All due respect, but your assessment here is incorrect. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

AE

Ed, you weren't willing to AGF the last time you banned me but I'm asking you to AGF this time. I utilized three sources[59][60][61] to support the position that part of Mount Hermon lies within Israel. There seems to be some difference of opinion concerning the quality of the sources. But even if they were sub-optimal, the proper place to address concerns would be at the Talk page or RSN and I would abide by whatever consensus is established there. I believe that my edits at Mount Hermon were valid and stand by them. That is why I did not self-revert. At Katzrin, I did self-revert almost immediately once I realized that it was not compliant with the consensus template. I will not be editing over the weekend but again, I urge you to please AGF here and please at least consider my position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, just one more thing. I’ve maintained a very low profile on Mount Hermon making only a single edit to that article (restoring a neutrality tag) since the controversy. I’ve instead focused on article creation as evidenced by Operation Egged, Operation Volcano (Israeli raid), Operation Olive Leaves, Operation Elkayam and Operation Black Arrow among other articles. If you want, I will continue to maintain a low profile. I just don’t to be branded again.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert by Biosketch Before Consensus Reached

I would like to bring this revert to your attention. There is an ongoing discussion about that section here but Biosketch made that revert before consensus was reached. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Manstein

I do not find it amusing to be warned for having attempted to restore the neutrality of an article. A.S.Brown and BINKSTERNET transformed the Manstein article into a anti-Manstein pamphlet using one book which is massively biased against the german army. The result is a Manstein article which is in formal contradiction with other more neutral Manstein articles on wikipedia like the french and german one. It also contradicts wikipedia articles on Mansteins campaigns and his most wellknown book. Well supported arguments were offered to contradict inaccurate statements in the article on the content of 'lost victories' and the Stalingrad campaign. The answer I got was speeches which mainly explained why AS Brown hates Manstein. In addition I was supposed to simply accept as truth whatever was stated in the main source used by AS Brown and Binksternet. No attempt at a discussion on substance was made. So,after a week I have started deleting the inaccuracies in the article again. No consensus will ever be possible between two users with an avowed intention of making a biographical article into a pamphlet against the subject and another user who wants it to be neutral. It is all very well to invite discussion but when the other parties are not open for it,it is pretty useless. The article as it is,is not even based on one biographical work on Manstein,let alone several. It cannot stand and clearly no consensus is even remotely possible on even the most minute change.--Knispel (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a suspicion there was a certain amount of misrepresentation gonig on in the article. One editor has found one so that prharse is gone and replaced by something that is an accurate representation of historical documents. --Knispel (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A curious set of edits

Hi Ed

An anon has been slapping an interesting combination of pages with sock labels. See [62]. We've also had some recent vandalism at the JIDF page which may or may not be connected. I've always assumed that einsteindonut = "David Appletree" whose real identity I think I know. If Nobody of Consequence is the account I'm thinking of, then it was possible at the time things blew up to work out its real identity which is distinct from Appletree, but all this happened some time ago.

I've rollbacked one of the edits by the anon and blanked two of the pages as I can't delete them. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you re Golan "revert" discussion requirement

Hi Ed. I'm not sure where to take this, but would you please look at this? (permalink) I've asked W.G. Finley to do the same. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"The epicenter of recent I/P flare up"

Was it you who remarked somewhere recently that the Golan Heights article seems to be the epicenter of the recent flare up in I/P contention? I can't now find the passage I noticed previously, but if so, I'd like to express my view as to why that's occurring, and what needs to be done to stop it.

As I just observed at the current AE concerning Jiujitsuguy, many of our Zionist friends have been editing for a long time to champion their belief that the Golan and other occupied territories are "in Israel" or are "an integral part of Israel", as JJG puts it.

As I'm sure you know, the proposition is common among Israelis, but is universally rejected, or rejected by "almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel", as the BBC puts it. This easily-verified fact is demonstrated by its acknowledgment in WP:Legality of Israeli settlements.

This status of international opinion makes the claim an extreme WP:FRINGE POV, of course, for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that the fringe status of this proposition has not been explicitly acknowledged by our administrators, nor have the editors who've been using Wikipedia to push this extreme fringe POV been effectively prohibited from using Wikipedia's voice to do so. If WP:FRINGE were simply to be enforced to prohibit that, something like half the problems in the I/P area would disappear.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the "epicenter" remark is mine on the Golan Heights talk page. I hear what you're saying but territory disputes are a tricky thing even in cases where the rest of the world doesn't recognize one county's claim. Whether it's China and Taiwan (ROC), Tibet, Cashmir, or the Golan, "fringe" views can be the view of an entire country or, as in this case, a race or religion depending on one's point of view. One MedCom case was about some uninhibited islands claimed by China and Japan and was quite fierce. In these cases trying to make sure each side's view is represented and the overall tone is neutral can be tall orders but are important. --WGFinley (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, W.G., territory disputes are very complex and also depend greatly on context, so maybe it's better to be much more specific than to try to discuss theory: Are you saying you have no problem with, e.g. this edit which uses Wikipedia's voice to assert that the Golan is in Israel?

Sure, many Israelis believe that passionately, and each side's view does need to mentioned as their view. But my objection is rather to using Wikipedia's voice to present Israel's extreme minority view (relative to a super-majority of world opinion) as if it were a simple fact: That's what I see as the crux of the problem behind the recent I/P flare up. So again, are edits like the one I linked to okay with you, or not?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion

Regarding Wiqi55 unblock request, my preference is that he remain blocked, because from my previous interactions, i noted he tends to be a tedenious editor who does not properly follow wikipedia rules or sometimes ignores the rules; which can be frustrating. Pass a Method talk 23:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

76.113.1.202

IP editor 76.113.1.202, who you blocked on 14 November for edit-warring, and who was then blocked again for edit-warring on 17 November, has continued unabated. Today, in reverting to his unsourced and poorly-written version of the lede, removed the reference I added a few days ago. Assuming good faith has come to an end. Adding his unsourced information is bad enough, but removing sources in order to do so is too much. Will you please intervene? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are the links:

• Westies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 76.113.1.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've semiprotected Westies six months. The alternative would be to block the IP editor, but it would have to be for a very long time, since two past blocks have not influenced his behavior. It's hard to understand how removing references is supposed to improve the article. Rationale for the previous blocks can still be seen at User talk:76.113.1.202#Edit warring at Westies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My guess is that he will continue editing using his regular account, ForceRecon84, but we will deal with that. The article needs a great deal of improvement, and entirely too much time has been wasted dealing with this very trivial matter. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ForceRecon84 did not waste any time in making a personal attack. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Question from Mukharjeeauthor

• Hi there I am a new user, Thank you for editing! Just wanted to know that how good is it for a new user to look and create new articles on wiki i.e. red links or create deleted page. I know harvard referencing and well aware abot referencing articles. please help.

Few articles which i would like to re-create: United Western Bank Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals * deleted but very known Hinduja TMT Tata Investment Corporation Mukharjeeauthor~ 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukharjeeauthor (talk • contribs)

• The last person who tried to create Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals was User:Roman9930. He is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. For the story on this, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Organized promotional effort/Taj Pharmaceuticals. I think it would be safer to avoid the topic of that company until you have more experience as a Wikipedia editor.
• It appears that United Western Bank is now covered in IDBI Bank. Since UWB was acquired and presumably no longer exists as a separate entity, it is unclear why we need an article dedicated to it.
• Regarding Hinduja TMT: if you have WP:Reliable sources on which we could base a description, you might be able to add a paragraph about it to Hinduja Group.
• If you have any WP:Reliable sources for Tata Investment Corporation I could give an opinion on whether an article can be written. There is an existing article on Tata Group which could stand to be improved. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you indeed! for answering the qestions! I will try my best to avoid few, but difinitely try few with WP:Reliable sources.

Regarding the above link both Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals and Taj Pharmaceuticals look noteble in google. But the topics are too abused to be touched. only experiences users can do that. Please have a look if so, For Now I will carry on with Tata Investment Corporation. Thanks for your time! CheersMukharjeeauthor (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your response to user:JamesMLane on my talk page: I should give you a barnstar for being a time saver. Also, I'm glad to hear that I wasn't wrong, haha. All the best, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you holding the fort as the lone admin and figured you might need some backup. While personal attacks against Wikipedia editors are hard to get agreement on, there is a stronger feeling against abuse of article subjects. For background it seems one must also look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fox News Channel. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny--I still find it odd to think of myself as an administrator. I hope that sometimes I act like one. BTW, that Mindbunny thing led to the two opposes at my RfA, so I know that case pretty well. Thanks again, 20:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

reply

Thanks for response and advice! seems like other editors have done my job! So nice of them. This shows the interest of every editor in new topics! Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Regarding your recent post to 4, that IP (with varyin addresses) just readded some unnecessary double spacing with this edit, something I reverted the edit before. If I revert it, it won't look good. Dan56 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You should both stop reverting. If it continues, blocks may be issued for WP:EW. Start using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this IP can't be constructive when he places two spaces, like "__", with the edit summary "then someone else says: i think we have a conscious here". None of these IPs have been using the talk page before making their controversial changes, and the burden is on those proposing those changes, right? Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've warned the IP for 3RR. They have actually started discussing at Talk:Love on Top. Not sure if this is the same dispute, but if so, you should consider participating there too. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My sincere thanks...

...to you for protecting 4. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

YehudaTelAviv64

I think AE report on user:YehudaTelAviv64 is in order though I am not sure that I 100% right so I don't want it to be frivolous.As you know all the reverts in Golan Heights are subject to discussion.This user is removed some information from the article [[63]](as I understand that is considered a revert) also he did more minor edits in the article but like it was explained by User:Wgfinley even vandalism require using the talk page.Also apparently he broke 1RR after being warned on his talk page by two series of edits with one intermediate edit by other users between them [64] and [65] from technical point of view I think its revert but I not 100% sure.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• This editor was at AE recently. While he has strong opinions, he looks like someone who is trying to follow the precise letter of the rules. If you have the patience for it I would suggest opening up a discussion at Talk:Golan Heights or even at WT:IPCOLL to review recent editing of Golan Heights. It seems to me that POV-pushing from a certain wing of Israeli opinion has been going on there, but I'm not an expert. If admins are going to take any action, it would help if some people would explain the issues to us. It would try everyone's patience to have another exercise in minute revert-counting, unless YTA64's activity has become much more blatant since it was last reviewed by admins.
• Here's another way to look at it. This if the diff between the October 6 version of Golan Heights and the current one. Can you tell me which version you think is better? If it is worse, what do you think should be done to fix it? EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My inquiry was not about the content of the edits but really if he broke article restrictions:discussion before revert and 1RR.--Shrike (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, if that's your position, then I think YTA64 broke the 1RR with these two reverts:

• First revert at 08:45 on 7 December Removes a citation to an article in The Independent: "After 40 years, could the ice be melting on the Golan Heights?"

• Second revert at 14:57 on 7 December Removes "Syria reinforced its forces on the Golan while remaining in a defensive position."

Why not leave a message on his talk page and see what he is willing to do to fix the situation? If he deletes your question without responding, raise it again on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already did that before coming to you.But he refused to self revert.[66].He was already was warned [67]--Shrike (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont' think those were reverts Shrike, the one had a lack of citation tag on it for nearly 5 years, can't see how you can argue with its removal. Deleting information from an article is not a revert to me, deleting something someone recently put up would be. --WGFinley (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Obviously those edits were not reverts -- this user is hounding me. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Also the first link isn't a citation, it's an external link. Get your facts straight before you make accusations. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I believe Shrike is hounding me with false accusations as a personal attack to deter me from editing. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Shrike is hounding you. You have chosen to dive into the Palestine-Israel area of editing which is quite different than the rest of Wikipedia. Due to the inability of some editors to resist tendentious editing in this topic area they get blocked or banned. A lot of times they will bypass a block or ban by making a new account which is called sock puppeting. Right now, because of the level of understanding of WP guidelines and policies a lot of folks think you are a sock puppet and are watching your edits closely.

Personally, I assume good faith until I know otherwise but you can't edit in this topic space and not expect to have your edits heavily scrutinized. You are editing an article for probably the most disputed area on the planet, there will be scrutiny. If you can't handle people going through your edits with a fine tooth comb then I suggest changing topics.

You are also exhibiting behavior that runs right up to the line without crossing it, almost as if you are are feeling administrators out. I would suggest you get away from the criticisms of others , removal of lots of material and making a large number of substantive edits and instead work collaboratively and make suggestions on the talk page before you dive into a highly flammable topic area. --WGFinley (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hounding evidence: [68] [69] [70] [71]. Why does Shrike write those messages on various admin talk pages instead of the article talk page?

"Personally, I assume good faith..." does not correspond with "... as if you are are feeling administrators out".

Shrike is harassing me. From Wikipedia:Harassment: Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being an active contributor to the 3RR notice board. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mukharjee Talk

Just wanted to share a link of new article, the article is in user page, please have a look and advice because i have touched a deleted article but its noteable, so please advice User:Mukharjeeauthor/Dishman_Pharmaceuticals_GroupMukharjeeauthor (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that article won't meet our standards. Stock price listings are of little interest, and what the company says about itself is not a WP:Reliable source. A company of that size must have been written about in the business press. You should be able to find sources and use them. This version of the article is actually worse than the one that was deleted at Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fast reply! I am at very initial stage of research and do understand the WP:Reliable source, I am trying to include leading news paper artilces and noteable things, any help or additions by you will be very appreciated. Also I have no idea how to find the old versions of artilces for reference. Thank you, keep the good work up. Just added one more new chemical compound to wiki Coumachlor, I hope i am improved by your advice but still learning, thank you again!Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Use Google or Google Scholar to find press coverage of the company or to find books that have written about it. Ask a librarian for help if you live near a public library. The company's own web site might link to some press articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

Hello ED. Did you see latest comments by me and Malik on YTA64 case before making you last comment? Thank you--Shrike (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

So let me get this straight. I added several sources to claim, even read the source the opponent provided and noticed that it supported the statement made in the article before the changes from the opponent, tried to find more neutral wording, and yet i get blamed for edit warring? And for that matter last i checked i only saw a notice, not a formal warning. Furthermore since opponents later edits changed intentionally what several cited sources were stating won't those edits actually be vandalism (of reverting which does not, according to wikipedia rules, count towards any RR limits)? - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You made five edits on December 8 in which you changed the result of the battle from 'indecisive' to a Finnish victory. That makes a total of five reverts within 24 hours. Editors can be sanctioned for more than three. If you added more sources that is usually a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact that you were edit warring. It takes consensus to determine whether the battle is correctly described as a Finnish victory. In any event, both of you should be deferring to published sources regarding the outcome. See the infobox of Battle of Lundy's Lane for an example of quoting sources to state the outcome of an unclear battle. Since you've been previously blocked for edit warring you know the rules, and a formal notice is not required. Only reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt from 3RR. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You did notice that i mainly reverted the changes since also the cited strength numbers were also altered, repeatedly, which does count as vandalism according to wikipedia rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if he was inserting wrong facts, both of you would still be blockable for reverting the verdict of the battle back and forth. If you had only reverted numbers you might have an argument (provided your 3RR report had included citations to show he was abusing sources). EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And what kind of divine insight should i have used to include such an information to the 3RR report when there is nothing in the guidelines about it? - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to claim an exemption for reverting vandalism, you need to prove that it is vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be polite to note that such a thing is required then instead of assuming that users who most often haven't got a faintest clue of what exactly the reports are all about would know to include it. And not bury it so deep in legalese that only certified lawyers can figure it out. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect request - 'Jiddu Krishnamurti

It seems that the edit wars are over on this page. Can it be unprotected please? 79.79.251.27 (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that they are. I have, however, been a little remiss in fixing up the merge of old and new versions. Can I have a few more days to sort that out before we start bouncing other things around? - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For now, the IP can either create a user account etc or submit an edit request, surely? I realise that this is not ideal but nor is the possibility of trying to hit a moving target while doing a merge. Like I said, this is in part down to my laxity, for which I apologise: the thing is a nightmare of a job due to the footnoting. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment at Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti#Article protection. Please continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. This is partly a problem of my own making. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello. You have a new message at Longwayround's talk page. (and again. If you'd rather I not leave these messages, let me know and I'll stop!) Longwayround (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono case

I think you should look at my comment on the case, if you haven't already. Cptnono's explanation for his edits on those articles is not entirely clear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

John Tyndall

Would like to bring to your attention this edit [72] by the same user despite your warning on the article talk page. Sheodred (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the same editors have started a vendetta against me now look at this [73], note that Marcus has asked for the involvment of two admins that wrongly blocked me before and then had to revert their blocks, hence they have an axe to grind with me, one might worry that they might leap at an opportunity like this.Sheodred (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Sheodred's topic ban

Hello,

I've only just been made aware of this AN edit warring restriction, in which you were involved.

As a result of Sheodred's recent behaviour, I should like to bring the following ECCN report to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios and also raise concerns regarding the use of AN/I against two editors, one being myself, in bad faith over the "Anglo-Irish" situation: here and here. Despite his "agreement to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month", he seems to have instead taken the opportunity to wage disputes regarding the use or relevance of "British" on several articles, which suggests to me that imposing a one month block will not curb his behaviour. Like being told not to "play on the grass" in one place, he has simply found another field to wage his nationality disputes over.

I have proposed a topic ban at ECCN, without stating a period, as that is an admin decision. Though I expect nothing less than 6 months will put a stop to the multi-thread issues he is creating across wiki, as well as attempts to undermine the neutrality of MOS.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A loose end: oppose comments.

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at WP:AN3#User:JCAla_reported_by_User:TopGun_.28Result:_Declined.29.
Message added 06:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Flavio Briatore

Can you please have a look at the edits of Avaya1 at Flavio Briatore, he has re-written the lead section to highlight some 30 year old convictions. I think the changes are a clear attempt to portray the subject in a negative light, his notability is not in anyway related to this, they are mentioned in the body (as they should be). There has been some discussions between him and I on the talk, but no other editor. He is now warring over it. He also wishes to add the subject to Template:Con artists, which again is not appropriate as his notability is not related to the subject. Mtking ^(edits) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Also see the discussions. Here: Talk:Flavio_Briatore#Convictions_and_WP:LEAD.2C_WP:UNDUE_and_WP:BLP. The discussion on my own talkpage User_talk:Avaya1#Flavio_Briatore. And the (now deleted) discussion we had on the editor's talkpage [[74]]Avaya1 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that both of you qualify for a block under WP:3RR. I strongly advise both of you to stop reverting. With the permission of Avaya1, I would like to revert the article back to the version that does not mention the older crimes in the lead. (The 23:14 version of 8 December). Please find a proper forum where you can get some outside opinion on the article. WP:BLP/N would be a good choice. I advise you to declare a standstill between the two of you on editing this article (with regard to crimes) until a talk page consensus including other editors has been reached. If not, admin action is very likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, you will notice that I did stop editing the article and came here and have not edited it since awating your input. Mtking ^(edits) 02:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been adding contemporary sources as per talk. However, feel free to revert in the meantime. The discussion, which seems to be getting somewhere finally, can be continued from the talkpage, hopefully with some arbitration. Avaya1 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your responses. I've now restored the 23:14 version of 8 December. Rather than arbitration, I think you need some outside opinions. You could try going to WP:Dispute resolution, or to WP:BLP/N if you prefer. BLPN does not always produce a quick answer unless the problem submitted is a horrible issue, which this one seems not to be. It is a question of possible undue weight rather than defamation, if I'm understanding it correctly.

• Having looked at the article, I observe that it reads in a choppy fashion, like a collection of news bulletins stapled together. This man is a colorful character, and surely some papers must have written feature-type articles which summarize his life. He has been in and out of trouble numerous times. Can't you find summary-type quotes that give an overview of his career and legal difficulties? That way you might be able to improve the quality of whatever summary is written for the lead. You don't want the article just to read like a true-crime report or a police blotter. Surely not every one of his wrongdoings needs to be individually itemized. We are an encyclopedia, we are allowed to summarize, especially if we can reflect how some reliable source has summarized his life. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The page needs a lot of improvement (I'm not really interested enough to do it now). When I found the article, I saw it was muddled and unsourced, so I tried to read the sources, and then add the facts in a piece-meal way at the same time as I was reading them. In the middle of the process, all my edits started getting completely reverted. If edits are Undue in some way, then it is preferable to modify them - or to modify the phrasing etc, rather than to revert them. Even if the article gets undue during the unfinished process of editing, the edits are clearly contributing to it in a piece-meal way. I don't understand the motive behind the edit war. Mtking (who has never edited the article, but merely found my edits on huggle, because my computer was logged me out and I was an anonymous IP) seemed to be treating it as vandalism, rather than piece-meal editing. Avaya1 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you look at this again, Avaya1 has started reverting again with no attempt to continue the discussion Mtking ^(edits) 01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look at this ? Mtking ^(edits) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to continue the discussion on the page itself, but have been awaiting your reply. If I don't get informed, I won't necessarily find the notes you leave on this page. In the meantime, after waiting 48 hours, I attempted to make compromise edits. In lieu of other editors joining in the discussion, I assume the best way to resolve this is surely to modify the sentences between us. Avaya1 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Mtking, I did look at this again. While Avaya1 reverted my last change (which I had put in as a temporary version, pending discussion), he then modified the lead substantially. Take a look and see if you still have concerns about the lead. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I do, Flavio Briatore's notability is derived directly from managing the F1 team Benetton (later re-branded Renault F1) and the race fixing at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. To include details about 30 year old convictions and the word "fugitive" violates both WP:LEAD and WP:BLP, I believe restoring :

Flavio Briatore (born 12 April 1950) is an Italian businessman. He was manager or principal of Formula One racing team Benetton, later re-branded Renault F1 . He was also part-owner and chairman of London's Queens Park Rangers F.C. from 2007 to 2010. On 16 September 2009, Briatore was forced to resign from the ING Renault F1 team due to his involvement in race fixing at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. After the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) conducted its own investigation, Briatore was banned indefinitely from any events sanctioned by the FIA, although this ban was later overturned by the French Tribunal de Grande Instance.

Is the best option. I have no issue with the criminal convictions being refereed to the body of the article, providing they are not given undue weight. Mtking ^(edits) 21:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not make this point on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

, I have done. What to do about the changes made already ?Mtking ^(edits) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice User:Avaya1 followed your advice and has started an RfC, however he did not revert the changes as per the same request, this I feel is a attempt to game the system so that he can claim that his version is "current" and make it appear to be an established version, when it is clearly not. Mtking ^(edits) 23:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Any advice on this ? Can I make the revert ? Mtking ^(edits) 09:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki:Harassment?

I do not want to bring this to the noticeboard, I'm sick of the response there and I would appreciate it if you replied, can you please do something about User:MarcusBritish, he is now claiming that one of the articles I was really involved in, violates copyright, which it does not, you cannot copyright historical fact. I am suspecting that he is stalking me now here Corcoran, everything is doing is causing me great distress here, must I endure this, does wikipedia really allow an editor to be subjected to this?Sheodred (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the debate at Wikipedia:ECCN#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios. Widespread edits that change the nationality of a person should have a central discussion. By doing all of these changes without obvious consensus, you are placing yourself in an awkward position. Revert warring on Irish nationality may be considered to fall under the discretionary sanctions of the WP:TROUBLES Arbcom case. It would be better for you to wait to get agreement at a place like WT:IMOS before making any further changes of this kind. You personally can't make those changes until January 1 per our previous agreement, but I'm talking about what to do after that. It is possible that no consensus will be found at IMOS, in which case you should probably let the whole matter go, at least for a period of time. I left a note for Marcus regarding the supposed copyright violation at Corcoran. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Those changes took place before the self-restriction ban you told me to take in response to an admin who continued to edit-war against me, an admin who was not even penalised for his conduct, whilst I shouldered all the blame. It is difficult to get consensus when discussions are continually being derailed and literally transformed into a train wreck by the same editor User: MarcusBritish, I mean look at what how he made it crash and burn at WT:IMOS#Can we break it down and at Wikipedia:ECCN#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios when he turned the issue and hence the page about only me, he proposed an INDEFINITE block/ban for me on Wikipedia:ECCN#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios!, and for everyone to see and judge me, is that acceptable when a discussion gets devolved into that, how is this encyclopedia supposed to function when all this goes unanswered or ignored by admins.....He is claiming I violated my "topic ban" which was in reality a self-restriction on Irish nationalities you asked me to self-impose, which I have done and have not breached, it would be nice if you provided anykind of input in this vendetta against me on that page. Sheodred (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And for the record I see that you ignored the fact the Sean1111111 ignored you as well, [75] and that he has been free to force his POV on the article under the guise of consensus when there really wasn't any for those edits he made, I am growing weary of everything on wikipedia, this kind of stuff is endless, whats wrong with these people [76]....Sheodred (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Thanks for continuing to follow your restriction!
2. Sean is claiming consensus for his Tyndall change. It is at least arguable that he has more support.
3. I don't see a vendetta. Anyone who wants to edit in this topic area needs a very thick skin, and I don't envy you.
4. It is unlikely that an ECCN discussion will lead to a topic ban. That board is not the right place. If Marcus tries to take it to Arbcom, they are unlikely to accept a case, because community processes have not been exhausted.
5. If you think that User:Ruhrfisch has continued to edit war on this topic, you should let me know.
6. Discussions about Irish nationality tend to be awful. The threads at WT:IMOS do not look bad by comparing against some past debates. Admittedly the discussion at WT:IMOS is not favoring some of your positions. I personally don't like 'Anglo-Irish' being put down as a nationality, but as an admin I don't decide that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at MarcusBritish's talk page.
Message added 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Signing closure

I didn't close it as such, but amended the closure notice that another user had put on it, which seemed unnecessarily provocative, to simply state that there was no consensus. That one wasn't signed either, and I didn't realise they needed to be. What would you advise? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoever does a closure should be willing to take responsibility for it. If you don't want to have your name there, why not post at WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved admin to close it? They will probably come up with the same answer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem adding my name, where exactly should I put it? And should I mention that the actual closure was done by another user? Sorry for the questions, but this is the first time I have got involved in closing a debate. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not add your name right after your closing text. You could contact the previous closer and see if he wants to have his name included as well. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ed. I made a suggestion at the talk page of Katzrin concerning a sentence in the lede[77]. Nableezy’s response was try it on your blog. He then went on to attack me for opening up a discussion and referred to me as disruptive. Not being satisfied with that, on no less than three occasions he stated why are you deliberately wasting our time [78] [79] and finally, when I offered a compromise solution[80], based on some suggestions by uninvolved editors at RSN[81] he calls it pure horse shit. Throughout the discussion, I did not say one word that reflected on him personally but yet I find myself on the receiving end of his acerbic tongue. I was just wondering if this is acceptable behavior? Or perhaps I was out of line for discussing the matter at the talk page and RSN and trying to get opinions and thoughts on the matter from others. Best regards--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sweetness and light continue to prevail, I see. Good luck working it out on the talk page. There is an obvious compromise solution one could propose but I'm sure it would be rejected by both sides. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything would be an improvement over the current existing and misleading version Ed so I am open to any suggestion you may have.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone has proposed, ""MS is the largest Druze village, while Katzrin is the largest non-Druze city in the Golan." I must be missing why everyone thinks it is so important to know which place is the largest. If reliable sources disagree, the statement as to which town is the largest might be omitted with not much loss. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done[82]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And Undone I give up. White flag :(--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

TB

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

Please see my reply, and remove my name from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#List of editors placed on notice as soon as you have confirmed the truth of my reply. I will not have my name vilified or listed under false assumptions, not will I stand for you to "blacklist" me without supporting evidence that I am involved in articles related to "The Troubles". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're not being blacklisted; it's just a notice. It is likely that when Sheodred is reviewed on admin pages people will want your edits looked at as well, to ensure balance. Without the aggressive tone of your recent comments, more attention might be drawn to the impropriety of Sheodred's editing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I know it's just a notice, but it's misplaced under a false premis, and I don't want my username listed as being involved in a controversial topic. People seeing that list are going to assume I'm a nationalist or some shit now, it's false listing because I don't do Irish history. I don't do anything after WW2 in general. I rarely even touch British history cos it's bloody boring.. I do Napoleonic and American Civil War. Say much for nationalism when I like Bonaparte and Lincoln more than any British leaders? Please remove it. I have removed the listing of my name at ArbCom WP:TROUBLES as I considered it libellous to be called a "nationalist" in the same breath as being compared with Sheodred's form of nationalism. That is not a legal threat, however, just as identification of and right to invoke WP:Libel and remove "false or misleading information" per "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons", which I am and have done accordingly. As such, I will remove the full post that you left on my talk page and we can consider the matter resolved, unless you consider the matter a rotten stick worth playing with? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please briefly compare [83] to [84]. Just take 30 seconds to scroll down each page and consider articles/summaries listed. Then draw conclusions. Wish I'd though of this method earlier.. so much easier. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus has now deleted your notice on his talk page, and his name from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#List of editors placed on notice. Sheodred (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that's your first breach of the voluntary interaction ban. And you lasted 7 hours. Well done! Not. Get my talk pag off your stalk list and leave me the fuck alone, as we agreed on AN/I. Capiche? Let's try to could higher now... One... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You did not agree to anything you just threw it back in my face. As one will see below. Sheodred (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I thought they could tell the time in Ireland. In fact, I'm surprised you haven't taken credit for an Irishman inventing time and clocks and chronology. Let's see: I put support at 01:52, that's 16 hours ago. You put support at 06:24, 11 hours ago. Need help with your ABCs too or do you want to keep inventing more wheels to roll your nonsense out on? PS: Your talk page flagged {{db-attack}}. That text was a stupid move on your behalf. Big hand's on the 12, little hand on the 5... so, back to one... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Extract from Sheodred's dispute resolution proposal on ANI

Sheodred's Responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will turn the other cheek Marcus in this particular situation (despite everything), you have made no attempt to resolve the dispute between ourselves on each other's talk pages or privately and you skip to procedures where you hope I will be subjected to punitive measures, what begun as a disagreement about Wiki:IMOS you transformed into some sort of vendetta, however I will extend the hand of reconciliation and request that you self-impose an interaction ban, indefinite or non-indefinite I don't care, I will do the same...but that is only if you accept my proposal. Sheodred (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) You haven't made any proposal that hasn't already been made by me. You've simply attempted to foot the blame on me and slip silently away so that you don't get anymore undue attention. You have not accepted any responsibility for your own actions. You have accused me further of a vendetta, though you are simply using Errant's words there rather than voicing your own. As for the interaction ban, I already proposed it and support it. If you do the same, that's good, start now and leave me the fuck alone! But that doesn't mean a topic ban isn't worth considering based on your lack of competent edits, denial of having engaged in only one form of editing, and numerous assaults on other editors. Regardless of if they apologised or forgave you, that does not excuse your behaviour. And given the one-sided proposal here, i.e. interaction ban and you try to get away with blue murder by appearing civil, then I say no... let the community review your edits and make the decision. A couple of days ago you considered me unworthy of closing a heated debate on MOS and reverted the closure twice, plus numerous other reverts and cocky edit summaries today. No reason why you should expect me to assume good faith and want to close this one and trust you to go about your business with a mind to being more neutral. Thanks, but no thanks. You trusted in Errant to do the right thing. He opened this AN/I thread. Now I'll trust in the outcome of it. There is no "only if you accept" ultimatum crap when the community supports it. :) Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 05:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) So I try to resolve the issue between us and you throw it up back in my face, on top of that you make accusations of bad faith on the proposal I made? I should have expected that to happen, how naive of me to think otherwise, it is clear that I am talking to a wall here, keep on digging a hole for yourself, I have nothing more to say. Sheodred (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) 3 headings up... Vote "support" interaction ban. That is the same goal we have, is it not? I didn't throw anything in your face. I wouldn't know which face to choose. Your resolve is only out of self-interest. So glad you have nothing more to say. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 06:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

But since you have now confirmed you actually want to, very well, it starts now.Sheodred (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence decision

What is exactly the meaning of your decision here? To avoid further trouble, am I to refrain from editing some article(s), for how long, and does it apply to articles other than Race and intelligence?--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Like everyone else you are expected to work for consensus for your edits. Race and intelligence is protected for three days, so nothing can happen there for that period of time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So I'm not under any specific sanctions. Okay.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)