User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

3RR on Helen Thomas

A few comments on this. Needless to say, I am not pleased with your declination to sanction Gamaliel and I find serious inconsistencies between your explanation and policy.

1. She only raised the BLP issue after I asked him to justify his edits, he raised no BLP concerns when he was making the edits,
2. as the policy on Vandalism states, NPOV violations are not vandalism.
3. rewriting me last edit with new sources still has the effect of undoing my work
4. Whether or not the 4th edit was a “pure” revert or not is not relevant. “An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

I know this will do little to change your decision, but how can you expect others to follow the rules and guidelines when Admins don’t? CENSEI (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "illiterate parents" remark was the type of material that anyone would be allowed to remove from an article without penalty under WP:BLP, even if it put them over WP:3RR. Do you think it would be reasonable to accept that phrase as a permanent part of the article? EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends, is it true, can it be cited?Raw story thinks so, and these guys, So does UPI. Was this vandalism as well, it was all alter sourced by myself. The first edit may have looked like vandalism, but it wasnt, and none of the other points were addressed. CENSEI (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AfreeUsername's G11 tags

I saw your comment on DMacks' talk page. I've reviewed the tags. While a few may have been good faith, there were some clearly bad faith taggings in there. As a result, I've rolled back or undone all of the db-spam tags that User:AfreeUsername left. —C.Fred (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice he has not placed any new tags since I left a warning on his Talk page, so we may be OK now. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

question

hello. would it be appropriate for me to add the IP editor's comment [[1]] back to the Tucker Max talk page? McJeff was blocked for removing it by you on the 3RR board, and you also unblocked him, so I figured that you would be the person to ask. McJeff's behavior since returning doesn't really display that he understands what he did was wrong. He has called the removed edits "addressed" and "no longer needing discussion" [[2]] even though the edits still remain censored. i asked him to add them back, but he ignored the request and has been editing other articles since.

furthermore, since his unblock yesterday, his first comment back included a personal attack against me, and he has engaged in further personal attacks against me since [[3]] [[4]]. i don't think any action is necessary, and i am not requesting any, but i just wanted to bring this to your attention. i am getting tired of his allegations and personal attacks against me, such as [[5]]. reporting someone for a legitimate violation shouldn't open me up to personal attacks. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the missing Talk comments at Talk:Tucker Max. Let's hope we will now have good cooperation on that Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Apr1fool

The edits that I have made to the WWoS article, and those made to other WDW articles, are based on lengthy discussion that took place on Talk:Walt Disney World Resort regarding the location of the resort and its various properties, some of which I participated in. The final concensus was that Walt Disney World Resort would be used as the location for all of the WDW properties. I explained this to Simon Bar Sinister, but he feels that his opinion is the correct opinion since he lives in Kissimmee. WWoS is not in Kissimmee, even though the mailing address is Kissimmee. A history of the WWoS article will show that previous edits to the location have been changed back to Walt Disney World Resort by numerous users. Simon Bar Sinister has only been making edits to this article for a few days, so I feel he has no reason to accuse me of vandalism. I believe that research will show that I have been making proper edits, that I have been polite towards Simon Bar Sinister, and that maybe Simon is the one who deserves a warning. Please let me know if there is going to be any further action in this matter, and what the final outcome is. I will not make any further edits to this article until I hear back from you. Thank you. Apr1fool (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied over at User talk:Apr1fool#3RR noticeboard discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed at WP:COIN

Hello Damiens.rf. Though I'm still unclear on why you could be thought to have a COI on this article, take a look at WP:COIN#Russ Nelson. You are welcome to add your own opinion there.

Maybe we should treat online bios of the subject (hosted at an organization he's part of) as being similar to his own blog, i.e. a self-published testimony? This may be accepted as an external link on the person's own article, though it could not be used as a reference for matters of fact, per WP:SPS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that what I believe too. I hope someone will be able to convince that editor about that. Would you volunteer? --Damiens.rf 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Benevolent Funipendulous Society of Nova Scotia Logotechnicians

Thank you for reviewing my proposed speedy delete. Since you think it is not obvious, I will leave it alone. No need to start an AfD before giving it a chance to grow if it can. I did tag it orphan. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the underdressed lady

Re WP:COIN: "no comment in the text about why this is appropriate or at all relevant to the art work"

It's apparently a trademark; see The New York Observer. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Having been the person who blocked and then unblocked me for the 3RR incident a couple days ago, would you be willing to hear me out and possibly give me some advice? I'm feeling really frustrated with wikipedia these days and all the standard avenues haven't been working for me. McJeff (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Send me an email. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

protection of Habbush letter

Hi - I hate to complain about the "wrong version" being protected, but the main reason there was edit warring was an anonymous IP reverted a remarkable 8 times in less than 24 hours. He was eventually blocked, but he was the last person to edit the article before you protected it, and his reversions included several violations of policy, such as the statement in article space that "Since Wiki rules allow no original research, readers must check Suskind's website [6]for themselves to see if they can find anything beyond the single, partial,transcript (disputed by Richer) noted above." Such meta-commentary has no place in Wikipedia. Is there any way you could change back to the previous version while the article is protected? Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. There is nothing to prevent logged-in editors from continuing to work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Swamilive

I wasn't sure if ANI or SSP was the right venue for this, since it appears to involve sockpuppetry, harassment, and bad faith 3RR accusations, but I've filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive. Just letting you know. Advice welcomed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Image you tagged as 'missing' does not seem to be missing

Hi Ed,

That image Image:German instrument of surrender1a.jpg was nominated at FPC and was tagged with the FPC tag. It wasn't promoted (a different version was promoted).

As it failed the nomination the FPC tag is then removed, and since it was a file from Commons it is tagged with the missing image tag since the Wikipedia description page of that image no longer has any contents. The deletion (which has occured) then removes that description page, not the image itself. The image itself still clearly exists, as you said, but in fact it resides on Commons.

It's a bit confusing, in fact I think it's probably all pretty poorly labeled, but that's how it works. To be honest it annoys me as well whenever I get one of those (usually bot generated) messages on my talkpage - see User_talk:Jjron#Speedy_deletion_of_Image:Brolga-1-Healesville.2C-Vic.2C-3.1.2008.jpg for example.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not being an admin I don't really know, but if you have delete powers I'd assume that you can go ahead and delete that image description page immediately. If it was me, I'd check the page history just to confirm prior to deleting, and ensure that it is indeed a Commons image that's been correctly tagged. --jjron (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury

Hello Stifle. I completely support your handling of this case, but the technical aspect of counting the reverts interests me. Last night I was trying to count the reverts on the AzureFury case myself, and got totally baffled. But listen to this language from WP:3RR:

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content..

AzureFury's reverts were sometimes not pure reverts but were also making reference improvements. But the policy language seems to state that he gets no credit for his reference improvements, so long as any part of his revert was undoing the work of another editor. This sounds more strict than what I thought it was. Do you have an opinion? (This is only for future reference, of course). EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would always take into account if a revert also improved the article somewhere else. But you're right — under the policy as written, that's not required. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dropping by, I agree with Stifle--the inherent stupidity of literal application of 3RR is only tolerable because of its undoubtedly practical usefulness. DGG (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. Cries of incivility get thrown around a lot and I know that users can be banned for it. I was worried that I might have crossed the line, despite no blatant personal attacks. Admittedly, by the end of the night I wasn't trying so much to convince my opponents as prove them wrong. Though that's probably true of the other side, too. We find ourselves on opposing sides on basically every (and there are many) dispute on the John McCain article, not surprisingly. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Otto Zehm and Dan Torok

I do not know where to start on Otto Zehm article. I know there is information to help but I am overwhelmed and don't know where to start.

Also with regard to "Dan Torok" article which I believe you nominated for deletion, can you help me understand what I need to do. I did post an extensive Talk attempting to explain why I find it important.

I am relatively new to this and trying to understand. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayacan (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. If this material belongs in Wikipedia, it needs to be carefully written and it should observe our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. It may be possible to keep an article on Otto Zehm if it is written properly, and if any negative information is neutrally presented and supported by reliable sources. I'm somewhat concerned about the current tone of the article, but I'll try to look at it tomorrow. The references in Otto Zehm need to be correctly formatted. If there are any blog references, they may have to be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Ed, I hope I am learning. Wikification ofOtto Zehm has begun. Added headings (not sure if correctly and I know there is re-writing needed but I have begun). Not sure how to correctly format the references but will try to figure it out. I am looking at the Rodney King article becuase it has the same cultural significance for LA as Otto Zehm has for us in Spokane. Thanks again and I'll keep those cards and letters coming. --Tayacan (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Put the little colon at the beginning becuase you did and I see that is what causes the indent. Oh, well, Wiki and learn, I guess. --Tayacan (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when I re-created the original deletion of Dan Torok, that was an error on my part. I thought I had not posted it, but when I looked an it was gone, I used the back button (it is amazing that FireFox saves text the way it does) and posted it, unaware that I was "re-posting it". Thanks for the patience. Okay, I'm done for now. --Tayacan ([[User --Tayacan (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)talk:Tayacan|talk]]) 06:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As you know EdJohnston, I appreciate your feedback. Now the Otto Zehm article is proposed for deletion. I have defended its continued existence based on the analogy that it is to Spokane what Rodney King was to Los Angeles. It is a key, if not the key, civic event of recent times for those concerned about citizen rights in Spokane. Any thoughts on how that process of debating deletion should work? --Tayacan (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AN Notice

I started a thread to ask for a review of my decline of an unblock request after Thunderbird dropped by my talk page. The thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting a review of my decline of an unblock request. Since you were involved, I am letting you know. –xeno (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For Life (Isis Gee song): discussion moved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• A discussion that began here has been moved to Talk:For Life (Isis Gee song). If you have further comments, please make them there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, but that was actually for you to comment on, they just keep bickering and hey I read your user page, I'm in Melrose! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, a fellow East Coast person!.. Admins have no special authority in content matters so it's better to continue on the article Talk. Neither party has collected the appropriate diffs to justify any admin action, and no article RFC has ever occurred. The 3RR report was not properly formatted.. should I go on? A serious discussion with each other is needed first. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think either broke 3RRs, but I don't like that Onceloose keeps bringing up Pink Evoloution's past block to prove that she is wrong. Its funny because they both randomly found me to complain to about this. Being the middle man isn't fun. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also protect Isis Gee to the present consensus version. Onceloose (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's really the consensus version, shouldn't I be able to figure that out from reading Talk:Isis Gee? Though I see your name on the Talk page, I don't notice you explaining the situation so that newcomers to the page could understand it. If there used to be an edit war, what was it about, and where is the evidence we should look at? EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He has no evidence, I presented my case at the noticeboard incidents if you would like to review the facts and comment. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The song came last in Eurovision. The user Pink Evolution seems to have been involved in an edit war to change this placing. The page was protected by an admin to stop the edit war as far as I can see. Now she is saying that there was a 'tie-break' for last place - she has been unable to provide proof of a 'tie-break'. Three songs had the same points and came joint-last and were added in alphabetical order at the end. This was sourced by eurovision, the popular press etc. I have reverted to the consensus earlier this year until there is proof there was a 'tie-break'. Pink is not a newcomer but from her history was blocked for being a trouble maker. Onceloose (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

xD^^ At his statement you can see he didn't read the source. The songs are not listed in order of alphabet, they are ordered by their number of entrance. Pink Evolution (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan to do my own research project on this. I won't respond further unless the respective editors make their case clearly on one of the article talk pages (including pointers to all the past admin discussions, and proper references for their side of their argument) and then tell me the info has been collected. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

you've a reply here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Wikitestor_.26_User:62.57.212.101_reported_by_User:Tennis_expert_.28Result:_Wikitestor_12_hours.3B_his_two_IPs_one_month.29

81.184.71.22 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

MVDDS dispute

Dear, Myself jean-claude Ducasse and my Wife Corinne Sanchez we are again suffering personal attacks and lies by fabrice 10 and Bijmai the emplpoyees of MDSAMERICA in the MVDDS Dispute all about MDS international are lies, Hypercable international is not my company but a franchised company SAS hold by ismael n'Diaye my company name is MMDS hypercable launched i 1986, i am never in bankruptcy and I have some worls patents and Hypercable MVDDS franchised integrators . Please can you reove this false informations and lies ? Thank You Jean-Claude DUCASSE CEO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.190.10 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I removed a section of the article that spoke about bankruptcy that had no appropriate sources, under the WP:BLP policy. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Koov

Dkis (talk · contribs), but I don't know how to report this properly. Colchicum (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I have blocked Dkis indef as a sock of Koov. For the complete block notice and rationale, see User talk:Dkis#August 2008. If anyone feels like going around adding sock templates to his various user pages, that would be great! (With a prolific customer like Koov, patience runs out). EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Portfolio

There is not a consensus about the presence of the links. In fact, there is good reason to put the links in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.125.8 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Test making a section header in the body of the report

Contents of new section. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You ED .

jean-Claude Ducasse info@hypercable.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.190.10 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Koov came back!

Hi! User:Koov, who you blocked indef, came back again under the name User:Jikn. He is vandalising Kosovo-related articles with the same reasons: [7] and [8]. Please do something about this issue. Thanks! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 15:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Handled. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Bambina (Idoli song)

I request the Bambina (Idoli song) page to be recovered as it was deleted due to a misunderstanding. The first deletion made by Wizardman was made because the deletion tag, put there before the page was expanded with additional information. The deletion tag was not put by Wizardman but another admin which I contacted and when he was about to delete the tag, Wizardman deleted the page. Please recover the missing page as it is an important release by Serbian rock band Idoli.

Thank you in advance

Milosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosppf (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambina (Idoli song), please make your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sleep account check

Would you mind checking to see if User:Pyrofork is basically acting as a sleeper for the IP that is vandalizing the UC Davis article? The last two edits from the IP on the talk page has accorded at the same time frame as Pyrofork made edits to the article. Thanks. Mikemill (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Left a 3RR warning for this editor. The article was already semi-protected by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Isis Gee - Revisited

Good day! I believe the editors over on Talk:For_Life_(Isis_Gee_song) have arrived at a consensus for the disputed text which resulted in your protecting the page last week. The proposed text (see the last section break on the Talk page) properly cites the claims made in it, and has been up for 3+ days with no objections. If you wouldn't mind, can you peruse the discussion at your leisure and unprotect the page if you agree that consensus has been reached? My "quick summary" just above the Proposed Text section break contains the diffs that I feel validate the citation made in the proposed text, as well as invalidate the argument made earlier which set this whole thing off. (I have no stake in this - I picked it up from AN/I as an action item). Regards, Arakunem^Talk 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you notify User:Onceloose that you are planning to make this change? Another editor at Talk:For Life (Isis Gee song) claims that Onceloose is the sock of a banned editor. Do you have any idea what that is about? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page. It's only fair to give him some time to respond (or not to respond). As for the sock allegations: I was reviewing Onceloose's claim that the version of the page that he supports was placed there by an admin and was based on consensus. Reviewing the article's history, the first edit that contained his preferred version was this diff [9] placed by a now-banned sockmaster. I noted this in the original AN/I which brought me in to this. The user on the Talk page noted very similar POV and usage of unusual phraseology ("came equal last", "joint equal last") between Onceloose and the banned sock, and filed an SSP report here. I do notice marked similarities in these areas myself, but I don't know if that's enough to base a RFCU upon yet. Opinions welcome of course :) Arakunem^Talk 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.... the experiment didn't work too well. He does appear to be editing against consensus now, and has removed the cited text again without citing any source. And they ask me why I drink.... :) Arakunem^Talk 18:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I give up.

You make it just too complex and time consuming for me to contribute... All I do is adding info about all coachbuilders I know and all you do is questioning and deleting it. I am not violating any copyrights from www.coachbuild.com, because I have their permission. I have quite a lot to add about all coachbuilders (first hand, second and third hand) out of my own knowledge and from notable people and friends in the business and I've only just started. There's a lot of crap and false details in many articles about coachbuilders and car manufacturers, but it seems it is not always appreciated if I correct these articles. Much information cannot be found on the internet so it's almost impossible to refer to other online sources and besides, many other online sources are false as well...--Coachbuild (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel discouraged. Please read the comments people have left for you at User talk:Coachbuild. If nobody has ever written about Karrosserie Pennock in published sources it's unlikely we can keep an article on it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sullivan Productions-related articles

You suggested here that I report the multiple issues with Sullivan Productions-related articles to WP:COIN. I was disappointed at the lack of admin response to some overt bad behaviour, so I left it alone for a bit, but the COI editing has continued and the related articles don't seem to be being watched. I hope WP:COIN proves more effective than WP:ANI did. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Executive Education and Professional Development at University of St. Thomas

Hello. Could you please elaborate on why my page was deleted and what parts made it seem like blantant advertising? Thank you. Jmeilleur (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the sort of page the school might host on its own web site to advertise its programs. Wikipedia does not often provide articles on sub-units of a university. They need to have their own specific notability, earned through coverage in reliable sources, independent of the school, before stand-alone articles should be considered. The university's main article at University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) seems OK, while the existing article on Opus College of Business is a bit marginal, lacking any outside commentary. In my opinion, the Executive Program is not a realistic contender for an article at this point. (If the program had received a lot of press coverage, and this was noted in the article, things might be different). EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

another Koov

Sikn (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

From Wikitestor

Hello, I just had a few hours between the warning and the "punish", and even when since im blocked with wikitestor im not logging in (and so checking talk page) that much.

So this give me an idea of how this works here. There's no need to take out that block, just block me permanently. I will start editing all I want since now on (before, I just talked on MY discussion (I started it) and updated us open 2008 article), because I see there's no point on not having me talk on my own discussion.

I am not registering again on wikipedia. Ask the user Basement12 if he thinks im a vandal on the hard work I did on the article "Spain at the 2008 Summer Olympics", doing like the 80% of all of it. If this is how work gets paid, im not working here again. I just made the edits because the user tennisexpert keeps changing the articles how he wants, and I will defend my position as necessary. 62.57.239.213 (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)/Wikitestor

If you want to be an outlaw, that's your choice. I'm not talking to you any more. Only good-faith editors deserve the understanding and patience of their fellow Wikipedians. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ACC

Requested a login for account creation at ACC. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Your request for an account on the tool has been approved. Please ensure you read the site notices when you log in (in the green box below the blue headers). Also, it would be a good idea to read Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide as well. Remember that you are responsible for all of your actions on this tool and when creating accounts on Wikipedia - use of an automated tool is not an excuse. If you have any questions, feel free to ask myself, or one of the other tool administrators (list). :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said!

I liked your comment at 3RR about listening carefully to Fipplet's ideas on the article talk page. Thanks for the sock blocks, too. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Fipplet

Why have you blocked User:Habibimustafa for only 24 hours? Surely a sockpuppet created for the purpose of evading a block should be banned indefinitely; it serves no legitimate purpose. RolandR (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Csheppard1

Just wanted to let you know that there is communication at this user's talk page. :) I thought I'd give you a head's up in case you'd like to try to engage the user in conversation while you have his/her attention. Me, I'm off to do some of that strange nonsense called "work". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, any word from this user is better than no word at all! I'm still holding out for their commitment to follow our rules on proper article content. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note

Hi Ed.  :) Just wanted to point out one subtlety that was recently pointed out to me, about users blanking block notices. Evidently they are allowed to remove the block notice itself (and everything else). It's just the unblock note that should be left alone. See WP:BLANKING. --Elonka 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I have been reverting Talk page blankings by indef blocked users, since I figured the community was entitled to know that they were blocked. Though if they were to respond by restoring *only* the declined unblock notice (assuming they know how to do that) I guess I should leave it be. At least, I should now use different language when I revert their blankings, like 'Revert blanking which removes the declined unblock notice.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Evasion of your block by User:Wikitestor

Wikitestor's evasion of your block has been noted here. Cheers! Tennis expert (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the case. Was thinking of extending the block, but thought I should leave that decision to you. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikitestor is again evading the block through 81.184.38.52. Cheers! Tennis expert (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And 67.161.4.108. Tennis expert (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And 62.57.197.139. Tennis expert (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And 81.184.38.42. Tennis expert (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And 62.57.197.82. Tennis expert (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And 81.184.39.254. Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He also believes he is allowed to edit discussion pages during the period he is blocked. Tennis expert (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

He is evading your one month block. See this. Tennis expert (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you review the recent 3RR reports?

Hello, Ed, could you review recent three 3RR reports? Because disruptions between Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) and Manacpowers (talk · contribs)over multiple Japan-Korea related articles are still going on after you blocked Bentecbye (talk · contribs). The two editors take over the same position as Bentecbye and Kuebie (talk · contribs) did. I believe a cooling block to the both side would be necessary given the consecutive disruptions.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch.

[10] Right: notifying the parties. I had missed that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fipplet's user page

Hi Ed

I first checked Template talk:Sockpuppet, which implies that the tags shouuld be retained. By the way, you have still not replied to my question above re Habibimustafa. What should I do if this account is used again? RolandR (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll send you some email. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for writing to me. I didn't know you got blocked by reverting too much, but I won't do it again. Anyway I find the current solution to the Capital issue acceptable. Yeah I'm new to Wikipedia so I will definitely have a look at that, Thank you. Fipplet (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated edits to modify citation formatting

I've found a way to do semi-automated edits! And I've written a Perl script that adds citation links (i.e. links from the Notes section to the References section of the article). I'll have to tweak the script and add various options because different articles need slightly different things done. Let me know if you have any articles you'd like me to try it on. I also mention this on SandyGeorgia's talk page and Jayjg's talk page. Example edits: [11] and [12]. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a genuine advance! If you have the patience to make a special trial run on an article I'm familiar with, how about Georg Cantor. It's currently a Featured Article. If you try it, could you put the result in a sandbox, e.g. User:EdJohnston/Georg Cantor referencing? I would review the results, using an off-wiki diff engine, and take care of asking other editors on the Talk page before actually checking in the change. One catch is the the reference list uses the 'Harvrefcol' template, which you may not be set up to handle. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like SandyGeorgia has reservations about this idea. I don't fully understand the thing about loading times, though I can see how trying to move text containing citations between articles with different reference systems could be messy. Will need to look into that later, and try a detailed example. I suppose one option is just to give up on those Notes sections that seem to have fifty different citations to the same book with different page numbers. Such notes don't seem to be all that useful to the reader. (Even the ones in Samuel Johnson#Notes seem excessive). EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I tested loading times on the 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt and it seems to be about the same before and after my edit. I don't know what you mean about giving up on those Notes sections: you mean not telling the reader which page a fact is verified on? I think it's important to give the page number – otherwise the person has to read the whole book to find out, which isn't fair. Or you could give a range of page numbers, but I think exact page number is better. In short, I think it's good to have those long lists of notes with page numbers: what's wrong with them?

Ah, a mathematician. And that's exactly the type of article I'm looking at doing this on. We can test loading times, too. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did the Georg Cantor article in the sandbox. To try to keep discussion including other people too in one place I suggest that further discussion take place on my talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick! For an amusing problem that is not your fault, look at the title of the MacTutor item in this section. I see that your system is fast and presumably it doesn't take a lot of work. I'll continue later on your Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Koov

Bnni (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And for sure tomorrow there will be another one. Probably it is better to announce on relevant talk pages that Koov is an active sockmaster and his socks can be safely reverted or blocked. Colchicum (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Do you want to open up a new WP:Suspected sock puppets report, just to organize the data? If we had a new report, it might be worth asking for a ban. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on Informatist

Thank you for your reply. I purposely patterned the Informatist article after several other game wikis that have been on for years, such as Miniconomy and if you check them side by side you will realize how the structure is virtually identical. As for notable content, I did not include a major article in the Los Angeles Business Journal as it is a paid article and thus only accessible by google caches. I appreciate your assistance and further collaboration. Chimichalupa (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check the Miniconomy article, it appears to be better referenced. The article about Informatist that you cite in LA Business Journal covers the announcement and description of the game for the iPhone, but nothing about actual use of the game or its impact. So while the creator of the game was interviewed, the information is not much more helpful than a press release. (A press release is not a third-party independent source, it's just the company telling its own story). EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: The Ten Lost Tribes vandal

Thanks for the heads-up on the situation with 24.39.124.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). In light of the additional information, your expanded block sounds like an excellent idea. While not required, I am especially appreciative of the fact that you let me know you changed the block duration. Thank you very much for your courtesy! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bart Tanski Article

I was wondering why the Bart Tanski article was made a speedy deletion. The wikipedia rule states "An article about a real person...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". I stated that the Ohio Mr. Football award was the reason for importance/significance (a major award in Ohio, won by a number of notable players, etc.). That should be enough to provide for "a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". I can understand that one might believe this article should be subjected to deletion, but it seems incorrect for the article to have a speedy deletion. Can you please provide further reason why this article needs a speedy deletion or resurrect the article and make it a candidate for deletion discussion? If you need sources for the award, they can be easily found (and the Mr. Ohio Football award has its own wikipedia page, which lists Tanski). This did not seem like an article that needed speedy deletion as opposed to an open discussion of deletion.RonSigPi (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you please re-activate the article I can add references and then if you want to move forward for a non-speedy delete, then we can move forward from there.RonSigPi (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I added references and re-activated the article. Feel free to review, provide suggestion if you still feel there are not enough references, and move forward as you see fit. Also, I added a note in the discussion section of the page regarding the deletion status. Thanks. RonSigPi (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK so far. Simply *being* a successful high-school athlete doesn't qualify for an article under WP:ATHLETE (since it doesn't count as being the 'highest level of amateur sports'), but if the person has been commented on by several reliable sources that may tip the balance. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Sock thing at ANI:

Thanks for the heads up. My watchlist suggests its heating up again--Tznkai (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for notifying me. With the checkuser case, the thread at AN/I plus this little gem [13] it looks like we're in for an entertaining evening. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for information--Rjecina (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I look like I've been a busy boy. I told Tznkai and commented at the checkuser about the excessive nature of it. There's quite a long history around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoi Ping Chamber of Commerce Secondary School‎

I believe there may be more suspected sockpuppetry at the above article. User:Aojyikgliekln made this seemingly innocent edit, but the edit summary in chinese was a blatant attack. You may recall that attacks were moved from the article to the talk page since the problem was detected. Next, since users started being blocked for posting attacks on the talk page also, this has become the latest tactic. In addition to possible account blocks, I suggest that you rolled back to this version to erase the history. Can you see what you can do, please? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! I fixed the history. Thanks for noticing this. Do you think we should ban Chinese characters in edit summaries? This might be technically feasible. Obviously they should still be allowed in articles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese edit summaries are not useful to the majority of users here on en.WP and may be questionable. I have seen very few indeed (if any), but suspect some native chinese editors might still occasionally use it in part in edit summaries for better self-expression. I think that any inconvenience caused by blocking chinese text entry there would be relatively minor. As we have seen this new "guerilla attack", I am pretty sure the person(s) involved will use english attacks in future if Chinese summaries is no longer accessible. The one big advantage I can see is that it can render any such hidden attacks transparent. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I just looked at the history page of the article, and see that two previous vandal edits have not been erased. As it is likely that you cannot see any meaningful edit summary, this diff shows both versions which contain offensive comments in the edit summary. You need to roll back this version last edited by you is the last "clean" version. Thanks! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting it all out. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kuppenheimer

Would it be possible to resurrect the article I wrote on Kuppenheimer that was deleted on "blatant copyright"? TedPubdog (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello PubDog. Since the article contained a copyright violation I should not restore it. But if you go into your Preferences screen and enable an email address, I can mail it to you. Note that the article creator is not supposed to remove speedy deletion tags from his own work. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply --- I have enabled my email address. My apologies for removing the speedy deletion tag. I understood why an initial copyright issue problem may have existed, but I worked extensively on the article to add new references and information to make it my own. I am hoping that will enable it to be resubmitted and restored--Pubdog (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have mailed you the wiki text. For copyright purposes, if any single sentence of more than a few words finds a match on Google, we worry about that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234 asking for help

Hi,I am sorry,I am new and do not know much of the rules. I promise not to do it again.At the moment I am editing on my user page.Could you appoint some experienced editors to help me?Much appreciated.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider asking User:Coppertwig for assistance. I don't know if they have time or not. You may also consider making a request at Talk:Boxer Rebellion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,it is me again. I have done quite a bit of work on my user page, and wonder when would I be able to have a "normal page". Could you help me in this regard?Arilang1234 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arilang1234. I removed the old 3RR warning from your user page, because it's certainly not needed there. Consider moving your new draft material to User:Arilang1234/Sandbox. Your user page could be used to tell us a few things about yourself, like your background and interests. This is completely voluntary. You can have a blank user page if you wish.

Regarding what to work on next, you might consider helping out with useful tasks like those listed at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Community portal#Todo. This will help you get the mechanical skills needed to create new articles or to make large changes in existing articles. Let me know if I can help with anything. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal of the 3RR warning. I wonder if I am qualified for a proper page to put my article or not. If not, please point out my short coming so that I can improve. Even though I am not a Christian, I am very passionate about Christianity and China. The following quote is the summery is my feelings towards this solemn subject:" As Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889 – 1975)( a British historian) said: "at this point Christianity had a chance to become a true world religion and rejected it. Never again in history has that opportunity presented itself on such favorable terms. Had Ricci and his colleagues been permitted to continue on their way, there is certainly no question but that the history of the world would have been far different." Mr.Toynbee was too polite to stop short of speculating on " the history of the world would have been"Arilang1234 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Arnold J. Toynbee I believe is no longer considered to be an eminent historian, though conceivably he could have been right about this point. It is risky to write about a topic on Wikipedia where you have a strong point of view, since we emphasize neutrality here. However, if you look at Matteo Ricci there is a banner at the top of the article asking for more citations. Why don't you ask on the article's Talk page what kind of citations they are looking for? You might be able to supply some. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cui Yuan

Hi, EdJohnston. Thanks for your moving Cui Yuan (disambiguation) to Cui Yuan. I just updated the incoming links to Cui Yuan and added the birth and death years to this disambiguation page. I am wondering why its edit history before the moving disappears. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia servers timed out on several move requests, and the history may have got rearranged. Unfortunately there is nothing left for me to restore. If you think it's important I could try again tomorrow. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored the missing revisions. After a delay, I can now see them in the history of Cui Yuan. Must have been a temporary database lag. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008

I see. Many thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisting an Afd

Hi. I found this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fratire (2nd nomination) floating around in limbo. It seems the nominator didn't quite set it up right. I've tried to fix the template, but I think it needs to be relisted. Would you mind checking that out? Thanks — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning to Misessus

Thanks for your judgment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR about:

Misessus reported by Lawrencekhoo (Result: Warned)

where you said: " Warned The reverts listed above cover more than a 24-hour span, ..."

I just want to note that Misessus did break 3RR. He reverted 6 times within a 4 hour period. The 1st revert listed occurred at 01:02, 9 September 2008, the 6th revert at 04:35, 9 September 2008. He also reverted another 5 times on September 11th, but was more careful to avoid technically breaking 3RR, waiting to go over the 24 hour period by a few minutes. lk (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As for eddit war, maybe you people should check out what is actually taking place on the inflation article. LK and his sockpuppets are the ones doing the edit warring. All I've ever done, is to put back the text he and his minions have deleted. I'm getting sick of this pathetic slandering from people like LK, Gregalton and the like.

Their deletions have no grounds whatsoever, but are done only to promote their own political views and nothing more. But hey, as long as you're friends with the admins, who cares right? They've already acchieved legendary status for bullying out other editors, who clearly are much more knowledgeable than them, simply by deleting all new contributions without any real reasons. When the editors, such as myself, seek to restore the text we've painstakingly produced, we get blocked for edit war.

Seriously, Ed, are you and Satori Son really completely blind to what is going on here? Satori Son certainly is. Do whatever you want. I'm going to keep restoring at least some sort of logic and scientific level to the inflation article. Read the damn talk page and judge for yourself who should and shouldn't be editing economics articles.

This is getting rediculous.

As far as cencorship goes, what do you call this request made by John Quiggin to Satori Son:

Having seen this user at work, I'd endorse your call for a topic ban on anything related to the Mises Institute or Austrian economics. How best to proceed on this?JQ (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Misessus (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits since your warning do not reflect any change in approach. Now edit warring at inflation, and reverting messages removed from another user's talk page (in response to a request to not leave messages there). Some more examples at the 3rr page.--Gregalton (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton,

you're the one who began this so called "edit war", so you hardly the one to speak. I can only imagine how many other edit wars you've started. Maybe you take a long look at yourself and your own conduct. How do you yourself think you gained your legendary status as "owner of articles"?

Also, you've never been able to show, nor have you bothered to try to show, that any of my contributions to the inflation article has been false, ideologically angled or unsubstantiated. What you have done, however, is to consistently deleted and edited without grounds text contributed by me or others, and as soon as anyone actually shows persistance, you bring in your sockpuppets.

So who are you to even comment on "edit warring"?

Misessus (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

thesis Olinde Rodrigues

The thesis is in two parts "De l'Attraction des sphéroïdes" and "Mouvement de rotation d'un corps de révolution pesant", Paris, june,28 1815 (not 1816 !). published in "Correspondance sur l'école royale polytechnique, à l'usage des élèves de cette école", T3, Paris, 1816, pages 361-385. You can find this book on "google books".Claudeh5-fr (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, I would like to find the URL at Google Books. The date June 28, 1815 that you found is when he received the doctorate, according to page 12 of Altmann and Ortiz (2005). At least that's how I interpreted "thèse soutenue devant la Faculté de Science de Paris par M. Rodrigues,... le 28 juin, 1815." Altmann and Ortiz assert that the actual publication of the thesis was in January 1816. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

i have for you three links:

1. http://jubil.upmc.fr/sdx/pl/toc.xsp?id=TH_000165_001&fmt=upmc&idtoc=TH_000165_001-pleadetoc&base=fa the programm of the second thesis (only talk ?)
2. http://gallica2.bnf.fr/Search?ArianeWireIndex=index&q=olinde+rodrigues+spheroides&p=1&lang=fr the thesis
3. http://books.google.fr/books?id=m-cNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:00Wf_7TYEJH7YRV08oB Correspondance sur l'école royale polytechnique, à l'usage des élèves de cette école", T3, Paris, 1816, pages 361-385

(the library gallica.bnf.fr is closed until september,16 2008. it's possible that the link on gallica2 is out of order). i think: 1816 is the date of publication in "Correspondance sur l'école royale polytechnique" but the soutenance is june, 28 1815.Claudeh5-fr (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez

Thank you for dealing with the sockpuppet accounts. Though, while it helps to deal with the sockpuppets, Wtcsurvivor is still involved on the talk page with another IP address. The other party, User:Contrivance, in the dispute has also been problematic. I left him a note about BLP, but he has edited just 1-2 articles and probably isn't here to help Wikipedia either. I don't know how best to resolve this, and can't be a neutral, uninvolved admin in this situation. Take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Agenda_accounts where there is discussion. Regards. --Aude (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The William Rodriguez article has been full protected by User:Lifebaka since 28 August. Both Sharphdmi (talk · contribs) and 69.116.203.23 (talk · contribs) have been blocked long-term as socks of Wtcsurvivor. Contrivance (talk · contribs) was usually on the other side from those two. There are some IPs on Talk:William Rodriguez making fairly eccentric statements, with no adequate sources, but they have not yet edited the article itself. Is there any specific misbehavior by anyone you can point to? EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Koov talk page

Sure thing. He does seem to be a busy guy, I have no objection to restoring the page. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the CAT:TEMP tag from the indefblocked template on the talk page, so it won't be as likely to be deleted again. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the protection on Paul Krugman. I realized after a bit that maybe I should have just gone straight to asking for semi-protection. (Woohoo! Learning the bureaucratic details of WP!) CRETOG8(t/c) 04:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation & Google Translation Center

No need for freezing this website. Jim Henry asked me to write more about this issue in prose. Please re-check with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.124.162 (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are Eurominuteman, your unblock was declined by five admins. I'm not going to have a conversation about this. EdJohnston (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kumarrao

I am not a sockpuppet of any. You may investigate and come to a conclusion.Kumarrao (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

grrr: Romania

The article has been extremely stable for the past months and right now, when I've nominated it for GAN two noobs drop in to 3RR... Isn't possible to prevent this? Nergaal (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there an autoblock for 3RR? Nergaal (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• A GA nomination encourages more people to read the article, so it's not a surprise that people drop in to make edits.
• There isn't an automatic block. A stringent application of the rules would have resulted in sanctions for both parties, but the admin is allowed some discretion. Consider joining the Talk page to help create a compromise draft. (The hotly-debated differences in wording look minor to me). Having a third party in the discussion might lead to a quicker solution of the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note -- you should have done it yourself, I honestly didn't try to undermine your authority or anything like that by unprotecting the article, so you shouldn't behave as if it's my concern now or anything like that. On the contrary, I tried to avoid bothering you with the tedious task of going through the conversation on the talk page in order to "find that consensus has been reached". Honestly, no harm intended. (Actually, I'm lucky to have proof of my positive intentions -- I have thanked you above before you had any chance to react on the topic.) --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

please restore Hello Beautiful

You deleted Hello Beautiful as A7. Here is a reference which suggests notability: Hancock, Melissa (Aug 7, 2008). "Even grandma will like 'em". Cambridge Times. Retrieved 2008-09-18. and http://dca.durhamc.on.ca/chronicle/entertainment.html?id=37 Scroll down to see the headline " Hello there, Hello Beautiful!" by Jenna-Lee Mainse, The Chronicle, October 2, 2007. --Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Eastmain. Please check the list at Wikipedia:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and tell me under which points you feel that Hello Beautiful qualifies. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable", as cited in my request. And I found another reliable source: http://www.tbsource.com/InTheBay/index.asp?cid=111072 from the Thunder Bay Source, which also mentions that "their first single, Virginia Symphony, is in heavy rotation on MuchMusic, even peaking at No. 2 on Much On Demand’s Daily Top 10." MuchMusic is a national cable channel in Canada. --Eastmain (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues at User talk:Eastmain. EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter

Hello. The RfC on in which you were a certifier of has been closed. You are encouraged to read the conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter#Conclusion. Wizardman 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

The 3RR report by anon is malformed but the other party also violated 3RR. I provided correct diffs, so please examine the report. Because it would be not fair that one editor who violated 3RR got blocked, but the other who did the same got no sanction. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page question

Is it acceptable for one editor to translocate your post from his talk page to the talk page of an article? McJeff (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• An editor is free to remove others' comments from his own Talk.
• If you don't want your comments to show up on the article Talk (where you didn't put them yourself) I suppose you could remove them. Leave a note about what you did so it's not confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Sure. I will stop editing South Korean cultural claims. But I want you to believe I am not against 3rr. Thank you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI - The 24 hours have passed and Michael Friedrich is playing his revert games again, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Michael_Friedrich_reported_by_Novidmarana_.28Result:_.29. Novidmarana (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a quarrel here, but please do not talk as if you were not involved. You're the one who kept adding [sic] although you don't even know how to use it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hed PE

Although Prophaniti is blocked, User:Ibaranoff24 is still continuing to edit war over the same material with a different user. You may want to take a look. Landon1980 (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free

Feel free to do an RCU if it will make you feel better. My edits to the article were valid and had a clear edit summary. I happened across the page in a random search through articles of similar content. I was not familiar with the other editor who is currently violating WP:OWN and WP:3RR on the page. You will notice that after his umpteenth revert on the page I did not bother trying to argue as I see that the other user is ready to violate multiple policies to keep his personal version of the page intact and... for me... its not worth the bother and so I avoided edit warring over the deleted citation.(3 valid edits does not an edit warrior make) If an RCU will clear you mind that I am not Prophanti then by all means RCU away. Personally... I actually cannot stand Mr. Prophanti and have basically told him to f*ck off and several talk pages because of his penchant for drastically altering(or attempting to drastically alter) FA's or articles that are going through FA process as he does not believe achieving FA status is of any value.

My own history on Wikipedia is lengthy. After initially using an account... rolling over 20000 edits... and being asked to let my name stand for rfa about 15 times(which I declined)... I could see a growing trend of "anti-anon" and I felt this went against what Wikipedia was all about. I decided to reject my original account and began anonymous editing for about 2 years... feeling the full brunt of "account ignorance" during my anon history. But felt I needed to maintain that "purity" of anonymous editing and made many friends among the admin ranks with editors who could see what I was doing and why. 30000 anonymous edits later and I became overcome by 'Wiki-burnout' and left the project completely. It was only after receiving several dozen "please come back" emails that I decided to return. And that is where this "new start/fresh start" Wiki libs account comes from.

As for my IP edits... an admin friend gave me this list of previous haunts:

List of IPs used in the past
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
156.34.142.158, 156.34.208.112, 156.34.208.163, 156.34.208.166, 156.34.208.171, 156.34.208.218, 156.34.208.227, 156.34.208.42, 156.34.208.47, 156.34.208.51, 156.34.208.95, 156.34.209.108, 156.34.209.124, 156.34.209.136, 156.34.209.197, 156.34.209.209, 156.34.209.217, 156.34.209.221, 156.34.209.23, 156.34.209.240, 156.34.209.243, 156.34.209.34, 156.34.209.39, 156.34.209.52, 156.34.210.119, 156.34.210.147, 156.34.210.158, 156.34.210.185, 156.34.210.243, 156.34.210.252, 156.34.210.255, 156.34.210.28, 156.34.210.47, 156.34.210.48, 156.34.210.6, 156.34.210.66, 156.34.211.13, 156.34.211.133, 156.34.211.166, 156.34.211.18, 156.34.211.181, 156.34.211.193, 156.34.211.215, 156.34.211.237, 156.34.211.242, 156.34.211.41, 156.34.211.58, 156.34.211.60, 156.34.211.93, 156.34.212.136, 156.34.212.143, 156.34.212.184, 156.34.212.230, 156.34.212.57, 156.34.212.88, 156.34.212.94, 156.34.213.102, 156.34.213.120, 156.34.213.146, 156.34.213.161, 156.34.213.177, 156.34.213.204, 156.34.213.216, 156.34.213.235, 156.34.213.29, 156.34.213.34, 156.34.213.35, 156.34.213.52, 156.34.213.97, 156.34.214.105, 156.34.214.115, 156.34.214.123, 156.34.214.159, 156.34.214.181, 156.34.214.205, 156.34.214.237, 156.34.214.29, 156.34.214.68, 156.34.214.76, 156.34.215.109, 156.34.215.110, 156.34.215.122, 156.34.215.139, 156.34.215.179, 156.34.215.188, 156.34.215.201, 156.34.215.210, 156.34.215.213, 156.34.215.218, 156.34.215.223, 156.34.215.31, 156.34.215.43, 156.34.215.45, 156.34.215.47, 156.34.215.61, 156.34.216.110, 156.34.216.115, 156.34.216.119, 156.34.216.130, 156.34.216.139, 156.34.216.15, 156.34.216.159, 156.34.216.162, 156.34.216.200, 156.34.216.202, 156.34.216.210, 156.34.216.32, 156.34.216.38, 156.34.216.45, 156.34.216.55, 156.34.216.68, 156.34.216.90, 156.34.217.110, 156.34.217.117, 156.34.217.154, 156.34.217.192, 156.34.217.216, 156.34.217.221, 156.34.217.48, 156.34.217.80, 156.34.217.92, 156.34.218.130, 156.34.218.194, 156.34.218.199, 156.34.218.212, 156.34.218.243, 156.34.218.248, 156.34.218.39, 156.34.218.49, 156.34.218.58, 156.34.218.69, 156.34.218.74, 156.34.219.11, 156.34.219.119, 156.34.219.132, 156.34.219.175, 156.34.219.191, 156.34.219.206, 156.34.219.214, 156.34.219.217, 156.34.219.222, 156.34.219.240, 156.34.219.247, 156.34.219.252, 156.34.219.32, 156.34.219.50, 156.34.219.85, 156.34.219.89, 156.34.219.91, 156.34.220.123, 156.34.220.124, 156.34.220.13, 156.34.220.142, 156.34.220.145, 156.34.220.185, 156.34.220.185, 156.34.220.210, 156.34.220.222, 156.34.220.50, 156.34.220.66, 156.34.221.111, 156.34.221.115, 156.34.221.137, 156.34.221.149, 156.34.221.170, 156.34.221.175, 156.34.221.214, 156.34.221.221, 156.34.221.249, 156.34.221.252, 156.34.221.29, 156.34.221.31, 156.34.221.39, 156.34.221.76, 156.34.221.89, 156.34.221.91, 156.34.221.99, 156.34.222.110, 156.34.222.121, 156.34.222.133, 156.34.222.140, 156.34.222.2, 156.34.222.204, 156.34.222.210, 156.34.222.231, 156.34.222.247, 156.34.222.38, 156.34.222.50, 156.34.222.9, 156.34.223.115, 156.34.223.124, 156.34.223.144, 156.34.223.171, 156.34.223.178, 156.34.223.191, 156.34.223.204, 156.34.223.225, 156.34.223.236, 156.34.223.238, 156.34.223.26, 156.34.223.41, 156.34.224.105, 156.34.224.2, 156.34.224.83, 156.34.225.235, 156.34.225.50, 156.34.225.75, 156.34.225.77, 156.34.226.159, 156.34.226.160, 156.34.226.197, 156.34.226.197, 156.34.226.252, 156.34.226.76, 156.34.226.99, 156.34.227.11, 156.34.227.140, 156.34.227.195, 156.34.228.106, 156.34.228.140, 156.34.228.22, 156.34.228.60, 156.34.228.63, 156.34.228.95, 156.34.229.100, 156.34.229.239, 156.34.230.106, 156.34.230.166, 156.34.230.187, 156.34.230.78, 156.34.230.90, 156.34.231.155, 156.34.231.30, 156.34.231.56, 156.34.231.74, 156.34.232.128, 156.34.232.134, 156.34.232.93, 156.34.233.153, 156.34.233.42, 156.34.233.79, 156.34.234.163, 156.34.234.7, 156.34.235.195, 156.34.235.217, 156.34.235.222, 156.34.235.69, 156.34.235.98, 156.34.236.16, 156.34.236.193, 156.34.236.222, 156.34.236.3, 156.34.236.46, 156.34.236.51, 156.34.237.192, 156.34.237.194, 156.34.237.214, 156.34.238.173, 156.34.238.179, 156.34.238.192, 156.34.238.220, 156.34.239.151, 156.34.239.197, 156.34.239.61, 156.34.252.246

There are likely a few more in there but they are all me. If you can find any connection in any of those between myself and Mr. Prophanti then by all means take the proper action. If Mr. Ibernoff continues his own history of WP:3RR and WP:OWN on the Hed PE article then that is his choice. I do not like deleting cited content. But debates with article owners are just not my cup-o-tea. Hope that helps you. Have a nice day. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your extremely thorough response! I really don't consider you a sock, I was just trying to figure out if anything could be done about the genre wars on certain music articles. Obviously that's a large problem to solve. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I like being thorough :). Now you know exactly who I am. Finding a solution for genre wars???? :-D . Boy if you could do that it would be a miracle. There is no solution beyond verifiable/reliable sources and consensus. I edit mostly music related articles. I am a librarian and have a masters in engineering(strange combination I know) but prior to that career warp I was a professional musician for 20 years. So I have strong interest in music. I am very careful about which article I edit and what content I add because I am acquainted with hundreds of individuals who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I do not broach COI by having inside information about these subject and, other than vandal reverts, try not edit these pages too much. I see genre wars everyday. I have numerous IPs blocked on a daily basis for "genre trolling". Music related pages are magnets for passionate pov. And genres are the easiest targets. Verifiable reliable sources and consensus is about all we'll ever be able to do to brunt aside any opinion wars. I wish there were more. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

I did sign the report, Ed -- try to edit it, and you will see. I don't understand why my signature does not appear. RolandR (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ed. But, as I say, I already have done that -- check the source to see -- but my signature simply doesn't appear. RolandR (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dead-or-Red

Hi Ed. User:Dead-or-Red is continuing to edit-war, in conjunction with an anon ip, on Lauren Booth. I appreciate that you gave him another chance, but he appears to be using it to edit disruptively. IronDuke 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not file a complaint at WP:ANI? I don't want to be the only decision-maker on this case. Please try to make your statement very clear, so nobody has to investigate to figure out what you are saying. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. Sorry to disturb. IronDuke 20:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) Routed here via way of a notice at wp:blp/n. It does appear that User:Dead-or-Red did have some legitimate wp:blp concerns, which I have tried to address in the article. I will continue to watch the article for blp violations, in any event. Take care.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for filling out the headers and for notifying Wehwalt for me. This is my first time visiting COIN so I wasn't exactly sure of the protocol. Aurum ore (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you, EdJohnston, for the warning (which Landon unsurprisingly failed to give me). I've since undone my last revision, even though it was for patent nonsense, as I genuinely didn't realise I'd made 4 in a 24 hour period. Prophaniti (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:IP editor forging a signature (very late reply)

That seems like a very good decision to me.   jj137 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Cladistics

I'm reluctant to semi-protect a talk page, especially if the article is (likely to be) semi-protected, since it blocks an avenue for constructive contribution. That said, there is an issue with User:Consist and Cladistics, yes. So long as he's editing from one IP, a long block on the IP is probably the way to go. If he starts IP hopping, then yes, I would endorse semi-protection of the article and, if necessary, the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the vandalism revert Ed. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Favour

See here and (afterwards) here. Seeing as you're in charge of the 3RR board now since Scarian left ;-) Utan Vax (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I only see three reverts by the IP you named. The article on the 2008 Ryder Cup has been getting a lot of updates due to recent events, but it may be settling down now. I'd consider semi-protection for a short period if edit warring by IPs goes on much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the nonsense has continued, I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Regular Vandalism

The article, Nicholas Evans, is currently being vandalised regularly by an anonymous user. I've been reverting the vandalism when I see it, but it's becoming rather boring and this pest seems to be very persistent. Would you mind protecting the article for a while? The Stickler (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Seems to be a different IP every time. EdJohnston (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A recent spate of vandalism?

Is it just me, or has there been a recent increase in IP vandlaism of existing articles? Should we post this at WP:AN? Bearian (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only seen a few localized problems. The people who run anti-vandal bots might know more, or anyone who is active at Recent Changes. If it were up to me, semi-protection would be more widely used. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Final Fantasy Legend

I appreciate you stepping in, but will a minor protection really be enough? Kung Fu Man is only going to continue reverting any changes made to the article that he personally disagrees with. This has nothing at all to do with policy. Policy is only cited based on convenience.

This article isn't the only instance of the issue, either. Take a look at his talk page and you'll notice that this sort of behavior is going on in other articles with other users. 74.242.121.166 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for giving me a new chance and I'm sorry, I wont let you and wikipedia down. I want to work with you on makining San Bernardino, Inland Empire a good article. House1090 (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Airlines

Hi Ed. The IPs have started again. I think we need semiprotection. Please let me know. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ed

There have been some mild additions in the Olympic Airlines article. They concern for example an article of a leading Greek newspaper critical of the airline, citing people calling it tragic and unreliable.

The user Dr.K keeps deleting them with no serious reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.52.67.230 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

NYSR

Darn, I had just found {{subst:polltop|type=|result=}} and was going to close and you beat me to it! Well at least you said the exact same thing, down to the word, that I would have. MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have realized that since the closing admin wasn't expected to do anything, there could be many volunteers! On the other hand, closing a WP:COIN issue could take 30 minutes of intense thought.. :-) EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whitefish Mountain Resort

Hi EdJohnson, Are you certain that Alyeska is not trying to operate under the radar. We have tried to include info pertainent to our guests and visitors, but the editor just replies with his opinions. We have posted proof of Alyeska's bias or misinformation and have included web pages to support our claim. Can't we have another editor? Remember, we asked for protection FROM Alyeska, but the page got locked with Alyeska's revisions. Thank you for helping.72.160.46.220 (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment as to your affiliation? When you say 'our guests and visitors' do you mean you're associated with the resort? If you are, that might help us figure out if the article is fair. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnson, We do not have any affiliation with the resort other than skiing there. Our guests stay with us in our home in order to avoid the expenses of staying on the mountain or in town. It is very difficult to deal with the new management as they would not honor implied contracts with the public, which is probably in violation of Montana State law. They also could not bear to reveal the new lift closing time which inconvenienced and endangered visitors.

We asked for protection from Alyeska because it became impossible to edit the article without getting reverted with angry retorts. I know there's been lots of vandalism on the article, but it behooves editors to sort it out and refrain from ad hominen, etc. Thanks for your help, there are some positive changes to the article already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.49.4 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

IndustryPlayer undeleted - thanks for your help

Thank you for helping to resolve this issue - I will review the article and try to resolve all issues Sunshinebr (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

65.35.113.170

Do you think 65.35.113.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) might be Antiedman‎ (talk · contribs) trying to evade their block? They seem strangely interested in that user and other editors involved with them. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't tell for sure if the IP is a sock, but he's earned himself a block for vandalism anyway. Thanks for letting me know. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Their contributions seemed to "overlap" with that user's contribution somewhat so thought it would be best to flag it for your attention. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

America's Waterway Watch

I think I have salvaged America's Waterway Watch and turned it into a neutral article with adequate references. Could you please restore the article's history? -- Eastmain (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Your version is a big improvement! EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Koov

Bidn (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Has been taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but have you taken care of this one? Cidn (talk · contribs) Special:Contributions/Cidn. Perhaps Wikimedia should offer you a full time job to scan for and ban Koov sockpuppets. pmsl. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. All in a day's work. I've started doing permanent semi-protection of articles, since he's running over the temporary ones. I wonder if he'll ever understand that all his changes are being reverted, so there's not much point in making them, except to annoy us? EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sidn (talk · contribs). Another one for you. Do you think if we block all 4-letter usernames, this might stop him? ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

It's there now; not sure why it fell out of the category. I'll have a look. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well strike that, it was deleted. I'll see what I can do about getting a live test running without having it deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The second template calls {{db-a7}}, which itself calls the categories. when the template called them, it appears to have cancelled them out somehow. When I fixed it, the page was promptly deleted. I've re-subst'd the templates now, so it's a mockup of what will appear if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Koov :(

Sidn (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Need help with a possible block

You are one of the few admins with whom I've ever come in contact. An anon IP attacked me on my discussion page here: User talk: Atlantabravz. Can you help? Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Another admin has already blocked 68.223.51.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch out, Wikitestor is coming

You blocked him a month ago, right? Well, I hate to say this, but it expires tomorrow. Are you going to watch his page?--RoryReloaded is in the process of R.E.V.E.R.T (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

His Talk page is still on my watch list. I thought he preferred to run socks and wasn't going to use his registered account again. If he changes his mind, that would be good. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeongeunmun

Hi, I've replied to your comment on Talk:Yeongeunmun Gate. --Nanshu (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia-United States relations

Hi, I noticed that you semi-protected the article for 6 months, seemingly based on one edit by a banned editor. As far as I can see it was only one edit, and there has been little history of IP vandalism on the page. Could I persuade you to unprotect it? Or, if I've overlooked the reasons for protecting it, please point them out to me. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I've undone the protection. There have been eight edits by Koov socks since July 1. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Koov

Enlip (talk · contribs) Colchicum (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Handled by Alison on October 5. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian Religions

The way user Angle reflection (talk · contribs) has taken over from Nexxt 1 after being blocked is a suspect. Angle reflection (talk · contribs) has already started canvassing with other editors for a full-fledged edit war. He is insisting on using same dubious references of medical and geography books to make historical claims on Indian religions page. Please check out this user also. As of now I have reverted his edits.--Anish (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I request Check user for Angle reflection and Nexxt 1 to verify sock puppetry. --Anish (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For the result, see WP:ANI#Edit war on pages of Indian religions by User Nexxt 1. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR Noticeboard: Bobby Fletcher

I just noticed that you made a decision on the noticeboard. There is a report on Bobby Fletcher that's been there for about 20 hours...do you mind taking a look at it and seeing what you think?LedRush (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Criticisms

I gather from the talk page that the history of criticisms toward the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been contentious and storied. However, I think there needs to be such a section. I was not aware, until encountering this Wikipedia article that there was anyone-- fringe or otherwise-- who questioned their findings. I have since become aware that there are many who do so. Just today, I found such criticism in a cookbook at the grocery store I had picked up to leaf through. I understand that heavily biased smear compaigns are not likely to produce an encyclopia-like discussion of the controversy, but there needs to be some such discussion. Do you have any ideas on how to proceed? Thanks, Rnickel (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have time to look into this? Find anything that has been said about the quality of CSPI's work in reliable sources, whether it is pro or con. It needs someone with the patience to read a bunch of online material and summarize the results in a neutral way. The previous Criticism paragraph was not up to Wikipedia standards. (Charges made in blogs usually can't be relied upon). EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I had a go. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Rnickel (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfair Deletions

I would like to know why editors can remove published information from prestigious physics journals. Where do I go to dispute this. Gravityforce (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not every theory that has been offered in a published paper deserves space on Wikipedia. Our articles, such as Gravitation, are supposed to present mainstream, well-accepted views. New theories need to wait to find acceptance and general recognition before they qualify for Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So now I am not violating anymore policies but the reference to the published paper does not deserve space? I still am in no violation of policy when inputting a reference to an alternative theory which meets the requirements of ALL the experimental tests of gravity. In fact, if you were a true to heart about knowledge you would think that one line in a huge database does deserve that one line of space if it means learning something new. Gravityforce (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people come to Wikipedia hoping to publicize their own ideas. This is not usually a good move on their part, and they are surprised when they encounter resistance. They should wait until their ideas have become so famous that others come forward to write them up. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: New section button

I just think it looks cool. It would also help to standardise AN reports, with all the useful links at the top of the report. Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MVDDS Dispute

Thank you Ed....please apologise the green language! Jean-Claude Ducasse

Details of the dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ed, again, my renegade son display false statments about my old company MMDS Hypercable and myself MMMDS Hypercable and worlwave brand start in 1986 and still alive and with nothing to do with MDSi or MDSa or with Arab investors I hold the brand Hypercable TM in europe and in USA i am inventor of various systems for MVDDS you can see WIPO for my patents or I can send you adresses to see this. I have Licensed some companies with my system and also for Hypercable brand use.. Fabrice 10 is Fabrice Ducasse a poor asshole, a very bad boy stoling the father to give my work my clients and the system design to the Sheik Ali Khalifa Al sabah ( you can see on google stories of billions stolen by this guys to another guys) I send the copy of this infamous pages to my lawyer and the court for the advertising of documents with no connection with me and with my company MMDS Hypercable MDS international (MDSI) Bankruptcy[3] THIS ITEM BACK ARE FALSE STATMENTS MIXED WITH RIGHT PAPERS MADE BY MY RENEGADE SON FABRICE DUCASSE ( Fabrice10@mac.com) MY SON A POOR ASSHOLE! I can also advertise the inane XXX hard core inside the hard disk of fabrice10, cease by the bailiff this are right things and much more...about this guy I can display better pictures from the computer of this renegade ! "Jean-Claude Ducasse the Old Father" Early in 2007 MDS America withdrew support for MDS International. 15 June 2007, MDS International was ordered by the French court to pay $1,000,000 to one of their clients for business related failures. On the 5th of July 2007, the French court of commerce declared MDS International bankrupt. MDS International stopped its activity on 31 July 2007. Jean Claude Ducasse was the CEO of the company from 2001 to 2004 followed by Corinne Ducasse Sanchez from 2005 to the end. This management team have attempted to form shell companies (Worldwave LLP [4], MMDS Hypercable [5], etc.) These companies still have a web presence but are not backed by capital. French court of commerce bankruptcy judgement [6] MDS international bankruptcy official identification [7] MDS America is still deploying MVDDS technology worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.190.10 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have reverted the MVDDS dispute article to the last version that was free of WP:BLP violations, and warned User:Fabrice10. I am boxing up the above posting due to the colorful language used. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW unblock

Thanks for taking the time to reevaluate your block of NJGW. It is a nice surprise; no WP:ANI dramafest was needed. I appologize for being so touchy about the whole thing; this is the second time in a week that he's been blocked for WP:3RR violation without actually having violated the rule. Thanks again, HiDrNick! 03:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: HoSilesia

I'll take a look; I am not familiar with the editors but the IPs seem to be causing some above average disruption, and semi-protection wouldn't hurt. One of them seems to have created an account recently ([14]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we also protect those articles? I think they are affected by the same IPs... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I added Prince-Bishopric of Warmia to my watchlist. I notice that Episcopal Duchy of Warmia was edited by one of the same socks as History of Silesia, and the latter is now a redirect to the Prince-Bishopric article. Let's see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re FYI about MVDDS dispute

FYI, one of the protagonists of this old quarrel is adding material to MVDDS dispute that seems to violate BLP, since it suggests the demise of his father's company without providing any reliable sources. His father brings this indignantly to my attention from time to time. The son reverted my last cleanup of BLP at MVDDS dispute. No action from you is needed yet, but I've suggested to Fabrice10 that he could be banned from editing Wikipedia if this continues. If you see a role for further diplomacy, please suggest it.EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for the notice. I see that he stopped and that the article is stable now. I'll be keeping an eye on that. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

William Eric Alexander

I agree with you PRODing this page, just wanted to get your opinion. There's a brand new editor at Winchester3 (talk · contribs) who appears to be a sock of the COI editor. His first edit was to remove the PROD, which I reverted. Just letting you know. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain how my latest edit to Atom (standard) was unconstructive. Breast milk419 (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Yaneleksklus

Hi, EdJOhnston, I notice you blocked this user, warning him about sockpuppetry. Well, I am fairly certain anon 93.85.48.186 is the same person - making edits that match the blocked users style, on pages where he has proven to be a troublesome editor. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. --Kaini (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed, although I have a feeling we'll be seeing this anon again over at Dubstep, Dark 2-step, and maybe UK garage and a few other articles too. I presume reverting his edits on the 2-step article would still place me in violation of 3RR myself? --Kaini (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

2-step garage is now semi-protected. Why not say on the Talk page what revert is needed? If you find yourself wanting to revert more than three times in one day on any of these, it might be better to request semi-protection first. Let the admin do the revert, if one is needed, rather than go over 3RR yourself. If you leave a note here, and I'm around, I may be able to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

well, the problem is he essentally completely rewrote the article (over and over...) based on material that mostly doesn't pass WP:RS in terms of context. Anyway I think User:True Steppa has probably got this one, and now we have some time to develop the article without constant revert warring (although I tend to work more on a related genre, dubstep. Thanks for your help :) --Kaini (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated the Hasan di Tiro case at 3RR

Hello Stifle. Since there were additional reverts by IPs after your close of this AN3 case, I took the liberty of putting on three days of protection. Let me know if it would be better to ask you first when these things arise. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, we have enough to be doing without leaving extra messages and waiting for replies. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

Hello,

I noticed that you have still not answered the message I left you at 12:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC), and you have been editing and writing to other users in the meanwhile. Please get in touch. Breast milk419 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, brand-new editor. Your information, if it belongs anywhere, belongs at Atom (disambiguation). Try your chances there. I don't think your concept has much to do with a standard for updating web sites. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I have added the information in question to Atom (disambiguation), with a link from ATOM to Atom (disambiguation). If you would mind checking whether I have done this correctly, and correct any errors I may have made, I would be most grateful. Breast milk419 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hm2k

I prepared this for WP:COIN, but thought it would be better to find a less threatening approach given the other dispute he's in with me. Herbythyme doesn't have time to address it, but thinks someone should:

• Hm2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has added links to a website that is identical to his username:

• 14:53, 5 July 2007 to Xen
• 10:21, 10 April 2008 to MagicISO
• 12:13, 6 June 2008 to E-mail_address

He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link [15] in E-mail address.

Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008.

I couldn't find any new additions of the link, so I think it got through that he shouldn't be adding them. Maybe all he needs is a friendly reminder by someone other than myself? --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He's certainly not been eager to hear from you lately. This is not a strong 'link abuse' case because he does a lot of regular editing, not just link addition. Lately he's not been friendly in Talk discussions, but that's hard to put down as a policy violation. He also does participate in article Talk. If you believe the link addition is ongoing, consider applying to have the link put on the spam blacklist. Then offer him the option of presenting his case at WP:COIN if he doesn't want it blacklisted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's ongoing. He edits mostly articles that are poorly sourced and contain linkspam, so the links he's added are no worse than what he usually encountered. He's seen me cleaning up the inappropriate sources and links, and hasn't commented on any of it that I recall. Thanks for taking a look. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, this is all bullshit. Ronz has decided to start a personal vendetta against me. Citing oneself is not prohibited, See: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself. There is no COI. Cut the crap. --Hm2k (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to cite yourself if you were a recognized authority. You'd need to have reliable sources commenting on your work to establish that. Even in that case, it's better to wait for others to add the link. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, I can cite myself if I am an expert on the subject. Now the reason why I did cite myself, is because I'd spent the time researching it, thus making me an expert on the subject. Without the links, the accompanying facts aren't relevant as they would have no citation. And right now, Ronz is removing the links anyway, so it's all pointless. --Hm2k (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your web site doesn't qualify: If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person.. A self-published site is not a reliable publication, and except for trivial biographical facts about a person (if the WP article were about yourself) it can't be used. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the criteria for being a reliable publication? --Hm2k (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Essentially, we can cite newspapers, magazines, published books, edited websites like www.cnet.com that have an editorial policy and employ regular paid reporters. Per WP:SPS we aren't supposed to use personal websites. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And what if no such article exists covering a particular issue at present? Do you leave it with no citation, or use the best possible citation you can find available to you? --Hm2k (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If no reliable source can be found that comments on the issue, then we should be silent. We're not supposed to do our own research; we just reflect what the published references say. WP:V has more. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this to COIN given Hm2k's reintroduction of the link. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Hm2k --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag deletion edit warring

Hey Ed, can you help out with [16]? Maybe protection? Flags are getting deleted. Thanks. 155.188.247.7 (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection over at the Commons version of AN. I'm not an admin on Commons, so somebody else will have to do the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been semi-ed. It would help if you would add your own reasoning over at the Commons Talk page for that article so that the Commons admins can tell if that version has consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Arabian Peninsula

Hello Ed. The initial revert from your retored version to my old version was bot-generated on the basis of suspected vandalism. I also placed a user report of the vandalism on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and mentioned the edit war on the article talk page. The 3RR specifically provides an exception for vandalism. Several other editors have reverted to versions containing my edits and left Edit comments mentioning vandalism.

There was no lack of scholarly citations or links to scholarly works and dictionaries in the changes to the article that I had made.

I have no idea what the nature of the dispute might be, since none of the so-called 'editors' - Hisham, Chaldeaan, NoPity2, Patrick0Maran, and etc. have chosen to use the talk page to discuss the matter. I simply responded there to the brief comments they had placed in their edit summaries. I also placed messages with the citations and links on the user talk pages of Hisham, Chaldeaan, and Patrick0Maran, but they have not responded.

You have reverted the article to a version that has no mention of the disambiguation page for Arabistan, which is hardly an improvement on the situation I set out to correct, i.e. The disambiguation page for Arabistan is pointing to an article about the Arabian Penninsula that makes no mention of that term. The Merriam-Webster Geographical Dictionary contains a completely unambiguous entry which says that the Arabian Peninsula is Arabistan. I had already mentioned that under a separate section heading on the article talk page. harlan (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I consolidated the information about Arabistan into a single entry on the Arabian Peninsula talk page. There has been no discussion there so far. The vandalism is down to a few anonymous IP edits and a few socks like Acctry2. harlan (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edited your comment at Talk:Stephanie Adams

Ed: Do you know if there is a link to an official sockpuppet report somewhere about the subject of this article? There has now been sufficient abuse to start blocking them on sight, but I don't know how to link to a justification.

I haven't looked very far in to how to file an official sockpuppet report. But I'd agree with Gwen Gale that official report is needed. Part of the reason I haven't looked into it is I'm not sure what good it would do so far as having any real effect. The sockpuppets Ms Adams has used so far include:

List of socks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alive n fighting -- 8 of 12 edits (67%) made to the Stephanie Adams article and talk page, or to other pages but regarding Stephanie Adams An-Apple-A-NY-Day -- 22 of 22 edits (100%) GODDESSY -- 96 of 100 edits (96%) Ladysekhmet -- 13 of 13 edits (100%) RJMC -- 3 of 3 edits (100%) Roughridehome -- 3 of 3 edits (100%) SEKHMET7 -- 3 of 3 edits (100%) SomethingYouShouldKnow -- 2 of 2 edits (100%) Swiksek -- 45 of 48 edits (94%) TimeForYourRealityCheck -- 16 of 22 edits (73%) TringleTrident -- 2 of 2 edits (100%) W28008 -- 6 of 6 edits (100%) Words4Wicked -- 2 of 2 edits (100%) And the anonymous IPs she's used include: 151.202.15.218 -- 5 of 6 edits (83%) 170.170.59.139 -- 2 of 44 edits (5%) (only 2, but both of similar wording and tone to postings by "others") 208.120.11.116 -- 7 of 7 edits (100%) 208.120.11.47 -- 3 of 3 edits (100%) 209.167.67.130 -- 1 of 2 edits (50%) 66.108.144.201 -- 3 of 3 edits (100%) 66.108.145.222 -- 6 of 20 edits (30%) (all 14 non-Adams-related edits were of Terren Peizer 66.108.146.133 -- 1 of 1 edits (100%) 66.108.146.77 -- 1 of 18 edits (6%) (only 1, but both of similar wording and tone to postings by "others") 66.108.3.221 -- 2 of 2 edits (100%) 66.108.4.133 -- 4 of 4 edits (100%) 66.108.7.182 -- 2 of 9 edits (22%) (all 7 non-Adams-related edits were of Terren Peizer 68.161.222.151 -- 33 of 33 edits (100%) 69.203.12.124 -- 1 of 1 edits (100%) 69.204.224.140 -- 13 of 13 edits (100%) 69.86.244.121 -- 1 of 3 edits (33%) (all 2 non-Adams-related edits were of Terren Peizer 71.167.226.135 -- 3 of 3 edits (100%) 71.167.226.96 -- 18 of 18 edits (100%) 71.167.227.11 -- 14 of 14 edits (100%) 71.167.229.224 -- 2 of 2 edits (100%) 71.167.230.171 -- 21 of 21 edits (100%) 71.167.232.90 -- 1 of 1 edits (100%) 71.167.236.169 -- 7 of 7 edits (100%) 71.167.246.204 -- 4 of 4 edits (100%) 71.167.246.8 -- 2 of 2 edits (100%) 72.89.109.165 -- 1 of 1 edits (100%) 72.89.117.239 -- 2 of 2 edits (100%) 96.246.110.200 -- 3 of 3 edits (100%) 96.246.110.27 -- 1 of 1 edits (100%) 96.246.113.133 -- 6 of 6 edits (100%)

The edit counts include every edit made except those made to the user's own User Page. Given this tendency she has to switch around, trying to stop the abuse is like playing a game of whack-a-mole. Perhaps permanently semi-protecting the Stephanie Adams article and discussion page so only named editors can make changes would help. -- Sean Martin (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are notes on how to take this issue to the next step. While the problem may have temporarily settled down, there are further steps that might be taken:

Possible actions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Draft up a WP:AN posting to explain the problem The editor behind these posts has identified herself in the past as the Goddessy PR department, rather than the article subject The abuse by these socks has been limited (recently) to posts on the Talk page that are usually quite indignant and self-righteous, and indicate that Wikipedia is being unfair unless the subject is allowed to have a promotional article that includes just about anything she would want on her own web site. Periodically the socks make legal threats. The most recent one threatened libel charges unless the word 'venom' was struck from a comment another editor had made, as well as the claim that this editor had used multiple accounts. There isn't a recent SSP or RFCU that I could find which collects in one place the evidence of the rather obvious socking The socks make personal attacks on User:Sean D Martin from time to time. The socks post occasionally at ANI to denounce all and sundry, with lots of Wikipedia policy talk. Oftentimes sympathy is expressed by other editors there. I have the impression that they might not be supportive if they could refer to a convenient summary of the past history. The socks have made many statements in the past that others judge to be ridiculously incorrect. Diffs can be found. The socks are usually blocked quickly. What's needed in the future is probably a consensus that admins who watch the Stephanie Adams talk page are allowed to promptly issue blocks to apparent new socks, and do short-term semi-protection of Talk if socks are created too rapidly. We also need to continue indefinitely the semi-protection on the article itself. An RFCU might be requested but only if it could search for static IPs that might be behind some of the socks. Since so many IPs are used in the above list I don't know if this would be worthwhile.

That's all for now. May leave this issue alone unless it flares up again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

MVDDS dispute

Hello Edjohnston.

Referring to the message concerning the "MVDDS Dispute"The text is referring to primary Legal documents.

The documents that were attached are legal documents issued by the French Court of commerce.

There is no personal comment, no personal judgement.

The first document is the judgement of the MVDDS company bankruptcy

The second one is the official company identity at the day of the MVDDS company bankruptcy. The Managers names at the time of the Bankruptcy are mentioned on this document.

These are public documents issued by the French Authorities (French court) which I guessed could have been considered to be reliable sources. Fabrice10 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood what was a "reliable" source as it seems to me to comply with "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" If the French court document are considered to be unreliable source, then I will be happy to be learn how to identify a "reliable" source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice10 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to interpret the significance of primary court documents on our own, per WP:PSTS. If a newspaper commented on the court case, then we could quote the newspaper. The amount of analysis we are permitted to do here would not justify the following type of conclusions:

Early in 2007 MDS America withdrew support for MDS International. 15 June 2007, MDS International was ordered by the French court to pay $1,000,000 to one of their clients for business related failures.

On the 5th of July 2007, the French court of commerce declared MDS International bankrupt. MDS International stopped its activity on 31 July 2007. Jean Claude Ducasse was the CEO of the company from 2001 to 2004 followed by Corinne Ducasse Sanchez from 2005 to the end. This management team have attempted to form shell companies (Worldwave LLP [17], MMDS Hypercable [18], etc.) These companies still have a web presence but are not backed by capital.

We have no idea of what significance the court-ordered payment of $1,000,000 might be, and the statement 'business related failures' probably requires interpreting the court's original words. The statement about Ducasse and Sanchez creating shell companies also seems to be WP:Original research according to our standards. If a newspaper called them 'shell companies' then we could quote that paper. Who is to say whether or not these companies are backed by capital? Not us. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Ditter

Hallo Ed

I fear it will be very difficult to prove the notability of Ditter. As I know there exists no Festschrift with an ISBN. But the case seems for me more complicated. M.K. seems apparently belonging to the people who think that the wiki articles I created under the nom de plume Pinus pinea should disapear as soon as possible from the English wiki (for ex. Robert Ditter, Bernd Richter, Susanne Andreae, Bernd Richter, Evelyne Marie France Neff or Dieter Anhuf(the last was deleted in the last days]]. And were the articles survived – or the proposal to delete was not successful – see the article on my person (Christophe Neff) he is putting libellous material on the talk page on this article. ( I have asked the sysop DerHexer to remove this material/see his talk page). Concerning Robert Ditter it will be very difficult to prove its notability for the English wikipedia . Hans555 has written a good article – but as I know sources a rare. There is a book dealing with Robert Ditter (his role for german-french School exchange) – but this book has no isbn, - you can find a copy of the book cover under [[19]]. yours Christophe Neff (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Christophe. I redacted the comment on your Talk page that you were distressed about, and left a note for the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston,

thanks for point out that my comment has been removed. I won't include it again, although I think the talk pages are there for exchanging and discussing any kind of information. Mr.K. (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Hans555's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion review

Sir, I apologize for the lateness of this note, I've been out of town substantially, then returned home to a computer crash. The Kay O'Hara article I authored has been deleted. Could this decision be re-evaluated? Kay is at the fore-front of her industry, known world-wide as one of the pioneering pinups to bring the genre into mainstream. She is the leading and most influential Canadian pinup model. Her following is huge and her accomplishments in the pinup genre are substantial. I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia proceedure, but I hope this is a good place to start to re-open discussion for the reinstatement of Kay's article. Thank you Mr T Mrtphotography (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mrt, see my note over at User talk:KenWalker#article Kay O'Hara. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. I have left Mrphotography a comment about getting rid of some of the links. It seemed to me to be unsalvageable but I will work with it and see if it can be brought into some sort of conformance. --KenWalker | Talk 01:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Evelyne Marie France Neff

Hallo Ed You have the deletete the article Evelyne Marie France Neff – reasons given “ “In Germany thousands of citizens receive the Bundesverdienstkreuz (Federal Cross of Merit) every years. It does not make you notable. '.)” This is simply unthrough – in Germany not thousands of Citizens receive the Bundesverdienstkreuz, - furthermore in German Wikipedia the fact having been decorated with the Bundesverdienstkreuz is including you automatically to wikipedia Germany. I think you should reconsider the deleting – and check what german wikipedia writes about the Bundesverdienstkreuz. Furthermore if the article should really disappear, then the argumentation should be – for the English wikipedia the fact being decorated with the Bundesverdienstkreuz provides not enough notability at the international level. That could be a logical argumentation – but not as it has been done. Yours Christophe Neff (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

and furthermore - I haven't move the tag "Proposed deletion" away because i am the son the E.Neff - and so avoiding a conflict of interest. But as things worked with the proposed deletion was in my opinion unfair and i think you should reconsider your decision. But now i will remove the tag on the Robert Ditter Article and trying to improve the article in the next days ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a coincidence, since you and I were talking earlier. The wording of the WP:PROD came from the nominator, not me. I did look at the sourcing, though. I can restore the Evelyne Marie France Neff article if you formally request it. However it will probably be deleted anyway unless more reliable sources can be found. If, as our article on the Bundesverdienstkreuz indicates, as many as 5,000 awards are given every year, it would be surprising if receiving that award alone were accepted as automatic proof of notability. If a more detailed writeup of what the person did could be given, from a published source, the case would be stronger. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the reply. Perhaps I will try to respond in detail in the next days, - because I have to work now ! Just one information – I think the English article concerning the Bundesverdienstkreuz is incorrect. After the German Wikipedia in 2006 2312 people receveid the Bundesverdienstkreuz [see here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdienstorden_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland]. And here you find a list oft the decorated peope. [ http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Tr%C3%A4ger_des_Bundesverdienstkreuzes_am_Bande). Yours and good evening in the Americas ! Christophe Neff (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed this article for deletion and I still have no doubts that the France Neff's article doesn't fulfill the notability criteria. There are thousands of people receiving the Bundesverdienstkreuz. You can even buy one in ebay Germany for a couple of Euro. See here.Mr.K. (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Lai

I'd like to draw your attention to potential WP:BLP violations which have been occurring sporadically. by IP accounts. Peter Lai is a very common name. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince Henry

Hello Xyz. You mentioned that the image of Prince Henry may not be correct. Can you point us to a source which discusses the matter? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The discussion seems to have risen in the early 20th century, when the interpretation of the Panels of São Vicente de Fora (a polyptic painting where the well-known figure actually shown in wikipedia is) now at the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, began. Some commentators note that the hat and vests are burgundian (if I recall correctly, maybe flemish, but see Philip_the_Good, married to Infanta Isabel of Portugal, and ponder an interest of Portugal to get its influence inland), and that it seems that the prince never used a moustache, and that his likeness should be more possibly such as the one on his tomb. Furthermore, they claim to trace this "error" to a fake image glued in a fake copy of Gomes Eanes de Zurara Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea sold to an Englishman (?).

The only reference I have on the controversy on the panels figures and this situation is António Quadros "Portugal, Razão e Mistério" (vol. 2), a non-mainstream work which refers the controversy with some extent and points out many of the scholars and artists involved in it. I would have serious difficulty in pointing to a scholarly source, as it's not my field. See also [20] which is worth whatever it's worth, but has some imagery.

The idea I have about the controversy is that few, if none of the figures was identified, and that the jury is still out, if considerably tired of all the uncertainty. Yet the burgundian hat figure entered the common imagery to the point of international recognition and of popping out in the Descobridores monument in Lisbon, so maybe we shouldn't bother too much either. In a nutshell, the likeness of Prince Henry can be considered as still being unclear. (Sorry about the English, I'm too tired for a decent translation). --Xyzt1234 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So sorry to hear that the image may not be correct, since that's an impressive-looking guy. I was luckily able to persuade the other editors at Isaac Brock that the former image was not right, but that was based on an extremely-thorough academic paper that someone had written. Sounds like we don't have any one source to point to in the case of Henry the Navigator. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops -- edit conflict... I merged my last version, no particular, relevant change I think.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If we could find an academic source the discusses the issue, maybe we should keep the current likeness, but footnote it as 'traditional.' EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Or conventional, or supposed, or disputed, etc. As I mentioned, I can't be of further help at this moment, as it's definitely not my field. Bye, Xyzt1234 (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a (clear? unclear?) footnote to the image's caption. Xyzt1234 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ed, - I have put a message on my Pinus pinea account ([21]) to show that it is not a socket. I will use the Pinus only very very occasionaly . My main account is the Christophe Neff. yours Christophe Neff (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Urban Ministries, Inc. (UMI)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Urban Ministries, Inc. (UMI). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Urbanministries (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ed. I left this message here [22] - I think you should know this ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whitefish Mountain Resort

The anonymous IP editor(s) is back in the Whitefish Mountain Resort article posting irrelevant material and has vandalized the article and posted inflammatory comments against me. Alyeska (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection again. Alyeska (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for your No Action Ruling. I would confirm that (1) The last revert by myself should have been dealt with in a different manner. (2) I am aware that edit warring is discouraged whether or not 3RR is reached. But I would request if you would confirm whether you consider the was a No violation or not. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No I can see that it was Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"16RR" edit warring on Van Allen radiation belt

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

14K Triad

I am trying to start a page for the 14K triad but I dont know how to work this thing, so i tried to change the page that says redirecting, but it wont let me. give me a hand to put thing on pless, put it under 14K triad, i copy it to the space below:

14K is a globalised triad that opporates with all other underground organizations. it has groups all around the world, recently it has spreaded into the United Kingdom and other Europian countries. Now it is believed it has countrol of the London chinatown, sharing with the Wo AKA SW, also up in Manchaster chinatown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cai1992 (talk • contribs) 18:09 25 September, 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 8

Thank you for opening up the "Proposition 8" page for edits. I had made edits, but Mike Dougherty undid them. It is unfortunate because he appears to have a strong and irrational bias. Please review our comments on his talk page in this regard. Thank you again for your efforts. User:wvogeler —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

I read the discussion at User talk:Mike Doughney/Archive/Nov-2008#California Proposition 8 (2008). If I'm not mistaken, you haven't left any comments on the Talk page of this article. I have to sympathize with Mike Doughney unless you can provide a better explanation on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Ditter

Hallo Ed, - I have put an message for you here [23] ! Christophe Neff (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of CT:INV

I have nominated CT:INV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your block of IP 192.30.202.22

Ed, thanks for the block of 192.30.202.22 (talk · contribs), but on checking the WHOIS of the adjacent IP 192.30.202.21 (talk · contribs) which seems to be similarly involved, I see that it's an IP for the Toronto Public Library. They only seem to have x.x.x.20 - x.x.x.22 enabled. Maybe you would consider reducing your block down to a couple of hours to reduce collateral damage? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be a good-faith edit from the same IP on Oct. 23, so I reduced the block to 12 hours. The adjacent IP, 192.30.202.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not seem to have vandalized in October, so far as I can tell. Are you aware of some bad edits? EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was actually 192.30.202.20 (talk · contribs) that was also involved in the reverts today, but all are related to promotion of Nelson Chan. I don't think any block is required for the IP, I was just pointing out that is was a public library. Thanks for reducing the block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of Koov?

I noticed you signed the block notice of Hinr as a sockpuppet of Koov. A new user, User:Hirt is making the same edits. Thanks for your help. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Ed Johnston! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Help desk

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:WP:AN/3RR

Thanks for the heads up. I've left a reponse here. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b banning decision

Hi. Your decision should end the present edit war, but this was a repeating edit war, and both users including me clearly feel that the edit war was forced upon them. I certainly can't say that I know what I could have done differently, and of course in my case no edits or comments have been pointed out at all. I question whether your stated approach ("The main reason for existence of this noticeboard is to bring edit wars to an end, and there are crude but effective ways of achieving that. Administrators don't have all afternoon to count every byte in the edit history and see who is slightly less diplomatic or slightly more revert-prone. I'm strongly tempted to propose a voluntary one-month article ban for both editors.") is going to work here as it obviously leaves open the possibility for each of the two editors that they have been dragged into the ban by the actions of another, and could have done nothing to avoid it. (You openly admit to not having checked in detail, so both of us can believe that maybe the difference is not slight at all - and indeed I'd say that is the case.) So can you give any non-generalized advice on what we should have done differently? Surely for example it would help if someone would actually comment on whether Causteau's interpretation of "vandalism" is in line with Wikipedia norms like he clearly thinks it is?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have nothing to add at this time, but you are welcome to ask another admin for their opinion. If you think that the other editor is not behaving well, or misundstands policy, consider opening up an WP:RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think such an RfC needs two be started by two editors who were both editing on the same article? So also in this way, my problem is that it I am the one other active editor on this article. Am I right about how that works?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All you need is another editor to co-sign the RFC/U. That second person should also agree that there is a behavior problem to be addressed, and should have attempted to solve the problem. If you are trying to report somebody who has caused problems on a range of articles, you might be able to find another editor to agree with you. If Causteau doesn't edit much outside this one article, then you might have trouble finding a co-signer. Mediation or Wikipedia:Third opinion might be alternatives you should consider. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User conduct? I think my detailed analysis over at WP:3RR more than shows who is really in the wrong here. It's certainly not me. If User:Andrew Lancaster can't find it in him to follow administrator EdJohnston's sensible advice that he and I both take a week off to think things through and come back with a new frame of mind, then perhaps another mediation is in order. Causteau (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I shall certainly follow his advice, or command, designed to stop the most recent edit war for one week. There was no suggestion I would not, and your implying that there was one is unfortunately another great example of how you constantly look for a fight where there is none. I also have to consider his other advice about what I judge to be on-going conduct problems which will probably lead to more edit wars (or a stagnant article). You know I prefer never to use policy as an argument, but you are a serial violator of all sorts of policies, and I have to now try to at least work out how to get a ruling on your statements about how you think you should use policy. Please understand that I do not seek any sort of punishment - I just want someone to read your posts about policies which you think allow you to revert and treat other edits as if they were vandalism, and say whether they are bogus. I am perhaps naively hoping that you'll then stop. Unfortunately none of the moderators we've had on the E1b1b article have wanted to spend the time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang asking for help

At the moment I have sort of argument with user Bathrope over Qing, and he says my edition will be reverted if I continue. Could you have a look at talk page Qing and give me your opinions?Arilang1234 (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I do not have the patience to read your extremely long postings at Talk:Qing Dynasty. My impression is that you are supplying an additional viewpoint from which this period can be viewed (sufferings of the Han people under the Manchus), but you are not doing so in a way that fits with the Wikipedia policies. Hence you will encounter resistance; people will tend to think you are a POV warrior. You need to step carefully and make incremental changes that have very good references. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston, your opinion is a very fair. I totally agree with you.Arilang1234 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I'm asking you and Moonriddengirl for advice. In a discussion at User talk:Coppertwig#User Arilang, Bathrobe and I are talking about a plan to revert essentially all of Arilang1234's edits (from now on) unless they're discussed on the talk page for a couple of days first. Do you think it's OK if we just go ahead and start doing that? Do you have any other advice or suggestions for this situation? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - what was your opinion on Expert editors proposal ? Please note that in my proposal I am only suggesting to use expert editors for science related articles. I could retreat further and suggest that such review (by expert editors) could be an optional feature (again for science related articles) either requested by the author of the article (for the purpose nomination of the article to become attested as attaining the "scientific publication" quality ) or by admin/editors during the deletion discussion.

Cheers, ARP Apovolot (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal will go anywhere. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and scan it for articles on scientific subjects. You will notice the participation of some experts. For instance this review. Subject-matter experts can't be summoned on demand to do a review of a Wikipedia article, but often there are people who are regular editors here who do some work in the general area, and whose input is valuable. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ed - I am not saying that "the system doesn't work at all" but if you will reread what you just wrote yourself above (words like "some", "often") you will get the sense that it is left to chance. Please note that in my proposal I am only suggesting to use expert editors for science related articles. I could retreat further and suggest that such review (by expert editors) could be used just as an optional feature (again for science related articles) being either requested by the author of the article (for the purpose nomination of the article to become attested as attaining the "scientific publication" quality ) or by the admin/editors during the deletion discussion, when they feel that the participation of experts is needed to decide on the issue. On another hand (optionally) Wikipedia may consider to extend its charter (from being just an encyclopedia) and create/keep the section for the "original scientific research" postings - being clear marked as experimental and NOT fully reliable info ... That would allow Wikipedia to perform / stand as a "catalyst for change and innovation". Apovolot (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up, but I would not support this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR resolution at Colin Farrell

I've never reported anyone before, for anything. So, I didn't even know that there was an AIV noticeboard until the other user said something. Thank you for the advice and thank you for helping out. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New sock puppet of Koov

Hi. I've noticed Jigp and Brsh are making the same edits like Koov. Thanks! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 06:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've blocked Jigp, but the case for Brsh is not quite so clear. He has certainly been edit-warring. Do you have more specific evidence? EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My first evidence is, all of Koov's sock puppets have 4-letter names and they don't hava any user page like Brsh. Second evidence is, Koov's banned puppets Fsbi and Dibn always edit Template:Foreign relations of Iran ([24] and [25]) and Brsh edited it too ([26]) Third evidence is, Brsh made his last edit in 25 October and then Jigp created in 26 October. Jigp made his last edit in 1 November and Brsh came again in 1 November. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Airlines

Hi Ed. The IP's are at it again. Dr.K. (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Dr.K has been deleting a simple critical contribution to the Olympic Airlines article for more than a month now. They have done this more than 10 times. Why should this editing war, initiated by Dr.K be allowed? Why should the watchdogs of a company be allowed to protect its image from any criticism and even complain about it on top? Is this compatible with the Wikipedia spirit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.249.159 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I already expressed my own opinion at Talk:Olympic Airlines on 24 September that the quote from Katimerini could be used, if it was summarized in neutral language. I'd suggest that Dr.K. and the IP might be able to reach a compromise along those lines. I don't notice that an WP:RFC has been done yet on this article, and that remains an option. Consider following the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I am not inclined to take any further admin actions on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed. While I understand your position and I respect that, I would like to point to your attention the decidedly uncivil remarks and the personal attacks of the IP as expressed above. Notice that he/she speaks about "watchdogs" and he/she refers to me in the plural "they" because he/she thinks I am a group of people. Adopting a neutral stance on the actual dispute is one thing but I would really have appreciated a word of caution to the IP if there is such obvious transgression on their part and on your talk page. --Dr.K. (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you made a typo on a semi-protect of Arabian Peninsula

[27] think you made a typo there, i tried to correct but did not seem to work, Tom B (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I finally fixed it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Londo06

User talk:Londo06 <- Those terms good for you? MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Your offer was to shorten the block to a total of five days if he made this agreement? It might be good if you would re-state the condition in the exact form that you understand it, on his talk page, with the expiration date (six months?), so that others can link to it in the future if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like wiki-lawyers [28] :( MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Song For Life by Isis Gee

I believe the edit war is due to confusion regarding the result and a number of Pro-Isis and Anti-Isis people adding material. When either group goes too far the proverbial hits the fan. The solution is not to ban other people or protect the page but to find a compromise. In the end the sockpuppets will return ( from both sides) and it starts all over again.

The best way to get a compromise is my idea below. I've come up with a solution explaining the result ( she came equal last on points but after a tie-break she came second last). It explains everything and is accurate.

See below:

At the final, "For Life" was awarded 14 points, received from the United Kingdom and Ireland, creating a points tie for last place with Germany and the United Kingdom. The tie was broken by taking into account results from the semi-final placing the song 24th out of the 25 entrants in the final. "Eurovision Song Contest 2008 Final". Eurovision.tv. 2008-05-24. Retrieved 2008-08-28. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.201.92 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment (I removed the <ref> brackets so the link would be clickable). I'm not convinced this will solve the problem. The reference you provide shows the final standings of the singers but says nothing about how the ties were broken. Perhaps there is another web page that has more information on the tie-breaking rules? The usual wiki way is to keep silent on points where there are no reliable sources. Maybe you can reword so that we don't have to say anything about tie-breaking? EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Koov

Linp (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry Kloor

My first article ever. A little BLP on an amazing fellow... Still need wikifying and cleanup, but I think I have sourced the hell out of it and welcome your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello2

Hello Damiens.rf. I have restored some of the comments removed from the AfD, and I've been keeping an eye on further events there. Please avoid touching anyone else's comments from now on. Let me know if you see any more misbehavior in that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the help. But just a notice: I wasn't the one touching other's comments. I User:Opcn removed my comments, and I reinstated them. No offense though. --Damiens.rf 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, don't even restore your own comments if someone removes them. It makes the trail too hard to follow. Leave the situation to the admins. I hope that the AfD discussion will settle down no if no more people say anything outlandish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I got it. Will do that next time. Thanks for the advice. --Damiens.rf 18:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! It just happened. The user is back from his block and is already into moving other editor's comments back and forth. I haven't reverted him, as you told. What we do now? --Damiens.rf 03:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He is tempting fate by tinkering with the AfD, but changing indents and putting the comments in time order seems harmless. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AN3 Report

Hey there EdJohnston. It looks like I stepped into something that you were in the middle of working on. Would you mind reviewing my actions here please? Just wanted to make sure that I adequately addressed all the issues. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 19:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, WP:ARBMAC.  Done Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MigrationWatch UK

Hi there, user User talk:Mighty Antar here, I think the same POV-pushing IP-hopping editor who kept reverting the above article has now switched to vandalising my user page while the block on the above page continues. Hope you can effect some remedy. Thanks in advance. 62.64.211.97 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help, just noticed that the same anonymous IP address has also attacked my sandboxUser:Mighty Antar/Sandbox, if you put the same protection on that it would be much appreciated. Anything else and I'll go to WP:RFPP Mighty Antar (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Done (Sandbox). EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Koov again

Indp (talk · contribs). Turkish Flame ^☎ 15:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Checkuser

My reply can be found [29]. Tiptoety ^talk 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

sarah palin talk

Please see my response there to your overzealous rejection of the Rasmussen poll edit request. Writegeist (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thx for the explanation. — Writegeist (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

AN3 negotiation proposal

Ed - I've noticed that you've said on more than one occasion that Master of Puppets' proposal didn't get enough support, or that I didn't support it. I'm not sure where you got the notion from; I thought I expressed my support for his advice clearly enough. Could you elaborate, if you feel it's worth while? Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

I would like to request a block for 209.247.22.140. He has been not stop vandilizing and hasn't been blocked. Raggonix 05:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Be sure that this editor has been warned using one of the vandalism templates for his recent activity. On his talk page, put {{subst:uw-vand1|Articlename}}, followed by vand2 for the second occurrence. (See WP:WARN for the complete set of possible warnings). If he continues past the warnings, submit his name at WP:AIV. I would have blocked him myself if I saw truly blatant changes, but I did not see him doing enough bad stuff very recently (in the last 24 hours). His edits, though strange, might have been well-intentioned. Nobody has warned him since November 2. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kinon

Yes, Kinon was operating on the same IP address as a number of other Koov socks (all of whom were already blocked). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already blocked the IP addresses used. Perennial sockpuppeteer Ron liebman (talk · contribs) was also operating on the same IPs used by Koov. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cischelalocuat

Thanks. I must have fallen asleep :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tylman COI notice

Greetings, You may recall participating in a Conflict of Interest notice concerning Richard Tylman earlier this year. I have presented evidence from this COI at a current Request for Arbitration. In doing so, I notified Gordonofcartoon whose name was mentioned in the evidence. It has been suggested by Poeticbent that I should have notified all participants… hence this notice. Kind regards, Victoriagirl (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. It is interesting to watch people trying to dissect a previous thread from WP:COIN and figure out what it means. I'm sorry to hear that your experience of this case caused you to leave Wikipedia for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Soulscanner#3RR_2

Please see User_talk:Soulscanner#3RR_2 for a response to your questions. Thank you for your time here. I know everyone would rather be editing and researching articles rather than dealing with this. It's a complicated issue because it involves repeated conflicts with G2 both on my part and a number of other long-standing editors on the Canada page, as well as a long line of admins. There's no hurry. Take your time to make sure everything represented here is accurate. This is a case of seeking a long-term solution to a long-term problem, not instant gratification. --soulscanner (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. I'll figure them out. I think I know what happened here. I broke up my reverts into smaller postings between the History and Etymology section. I'd make a series in one section, and a series in the other section. Contributions from other editors would land between these series of "reverts". I'll look at them more closely. I'll get back to you later with a detailed presentation. --soulscanner (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll just suck it up. Permanent solution at hand at my talk page. Sorry for burning up your time. --soulscanner (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which closed as successful a few hours ago. It's an oddly nerve-wracking process, but I'm glad you liked the answer to the CSD question, and I'm flattered by the support from you and others who were longstanding editors before I first clicked "save page". The admin reading list makes clear there's a million foolish errors to avoid, so if you see me not avoiding any of them feel free to stop by with a gentle push in the right direction. Thanks again. Euryalus (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And another thank you ...

... for your quick action on the Gravitation article :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mac

Mac came back today with 9 more copyright violations. They're on his talk page. NJGW (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take another look when I have some time. Your comment at User_talk:Mac#Nine more new copyright violations appears to be the strongest evidence so far of misbehavior. The usual case seems to be that he lifts single sentences out of other publications. If there is anything more drastic it would be good to hear about it. It does look as though further action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a few instances when he lifts paragraphs. He made 5 more such violations after I left links for the 9 mentioned above. NJGW (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again. Unfortunately, in these cases the incommunicative editor tends to view it as a test of wills, so I'm not optimistic for a good outcome. Any other ideas? I assume people have tried sending him email. He seems to have some expertise, and I wonder if anyone knows him off-wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying the one thing that would force him to talk. I think he's been around long enough that he'll want to stick around (unless he decides to use socks). From his first edits, assuming of course that he didn't usurp the account at some point, he seems to have started with an interest in computers and programming, though now he says he has a radio show in Spain on electric cars, solar power, alternative energy, etc. (I only know that from his talk page). All of his edits the past few months have been based on news reports, blogs and press releases, so I'm not sure what his formal background is on these subjects. Here's hoping this will work and he stops creating clean-up duties for others. NJGW (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, someone pointed out in one of the RFD's I opened for today's redirects that when Mac creates links between processes/products and some company that is somehow connected, he is effectively google-bombing Wikipedia, creating multiple hits for his favorite companies. I've seen this in google searches before, where a bunch of hits will be to redirects instead of to content. NJGW (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is Mac. Same editing time and style, and mysteriously appears yesterday with lots of edits to obscure pages. NJGW (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mac is now using 82.159.136.216 (talk · contribs) and 193.145.201.52 (talk · contribs). You can see how these two tag-team edit Glossary of fuel cell terms and Reform (disambiguation) within minutes of each other. I haven't made the reports yet because I want to see if he responds to you. I'm usually pretty impressed with your approach to admin tasks, so I'm hoping that you can have a more positive effect than whacking at him with blocks. NJGW (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino again

Hi Ed, as you've probably noticed, Ragusino is coming along each day and making one minor edit [30] [31] [32] [33] to a couple of the articles he's interested in. It's not especially problematic, as it's only been once a day, but I've reverted each of them as I feel he ought to address the issues surrounding his block before he is allowed to edit. However, so that I'm sure I'm on safe ground, I'd like you to review this and let me know whether you feel I ought to continue to revert, as they are minor edits. Thanks for your guidance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with you reverting his edits. Is there a sockpuppet report open for Ragusino? Adding the IPs there would be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

likely Koov

Five characters now: Kinpo (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Five letters: he is branching out! His interests are still the same, though. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

False Minor edits?

As per my talk page, on another note, I am perplexed as to why user Scientizzle was able to make at least two falsely marked Minor edits when reverting my entire edits in article Creationism on Nov 10th at times 17:07 and 16:56, and it seems he received no warnings or repercussions? Is this something you can look into? Hassandoodle (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of the 'rollback' feature causes edits to be marked minor, by default. I hope he won't do that again. Meanwhile, I'm still looking forward to those positive contributions from you. If we were sure you were not a sock, we would think more highly of you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lion King Semi-Protect

Thank you for protecting the Lion King article from vandalism. It is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrNegative (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Red Bull Music Academy lectures, and Lorenzo43

Hi Ed - I'm a little late to the party as GraemeL has dealt with it but since you asked for my opinion I would say, like Graeme, it's pretty clear link spamming. If the editor had only been updating links I would have looked further to see who added them originally (since we often find someone comes back to update links they originally spammed) but since s/he was also adding new links and all edits were to do with that site that's fairly blatant to me. It's not the content of the link that's important with spamming - it's how they're getting into the encyclopedia. Spamming is (IMHO) disastrous from an NPOV perspective. If a link looks like it might significantly improve an article and its been spammed I sometimes move it to the talk page so a reasonable editorial judgment can be made by regular editors of the article. -- SiobhanHansa 17:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Since GraemeL took care of answering the COIN posting, I will leave things as they are. It does not seem that Lorenzo43 was editing in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

As one of the admins who was involved in my WP:3RR block case, I am alerting you that Biophys has entered evidence into an active arbcom case, which you can view here. The decision was made to block myself for WP:3RR, but only warn Biophys, even presented with evidence of breaches of WP:BLP and violation of WP:3RR. I have no idea who did or didn't make that decision, but this will now be asked about on the arbcom. It was mentioned at the above 3RR case that the decision is harmonious, and on my talk page that the discussion is a relic (for the record, I stand by all of my comments in that particular section). As one can now see, it is not harmonious, nor is it a relic. I was going to post a message on your talk page before the arbcom development asking as to why there is "one rule for some, and one rule for others" and enter into discussion that way, but given the arbcom development it is now necessary for me to address this, what has now become an issue, on the arbcom. Sorry about that, but I don't believe there is any other way, and do not perceive this as a revenge or anything of the like because it is not, I am actually trying to sort these problems out outside of resolution structures. Anyway, this is just a heads up to advise you that I will be entering into evidence at the arbcom the relevant 3RR case and everything thereafter, so you may wish to put it on your watchlist, and respond to it if and when appropriate. Cheers, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Koov

Kiddn (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Thanks for the comment. I really am at a loss here. You sum up the way I feel quite well. Edit warring is not just an act of reverting or undoing an edit (continuously over the course of time), but I tend to look at the users general behavior that is surrounding the situation. In this case, there was very little being done to resolve the dispute. There was no formal request for any sort of dispute resolution. Instead, we have a few editors who have been reverting each other for a couple of months it seems. Surely not productive. Even page protection didn't work here, so I felt that blocking was the next thing needed to try and get these guys to actively discuss this, and stop edit warring. It would be proven that many editors disagreed with the block, so I unblocked them. I still feel the block was the best course of action, but I am, of course, open to the possibility of being disagreed with by others, and when that happens, as it did here, I'm willing to disregard my personal feelings and acknowledge the community as a whole. Thanks again for the comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI ... USS Liberty

you stated --- "Hello, Henrywinklestein. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#USS Liberty Incident. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)"

GOOD !! That is perfectly fine with me. I just hope that someone with a more objective view than Narson and JayJG wrestles this issue to the ground. Their consistent and constant repression of my edits and the edits of others is an insult to the sailors and marines who lost their lives on the USS Liberty. I think their actions need to be investigated.

And please assure them that I am not a "sockpuppet" - go ahead - do a check user. BE MY GUEST.'--Henrywinklestein (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Do hurry this discussion on. I've made my comment and rebuttal at WP:ANI -> USS Liberty. Having the page frozen for one day, but miraculously just after Jayjg removes my entries, is one delay too many. Now I have to deal with another previously uninvolved editor who has had NOTHING to do with the talk page, yet is willing to create yet another delay and stall scenario, with hardly an unbiased word concerning the real issues on the USS Liberty Page. Speaking of bias, I notice that even though you opened the WP:ANI, you thought it appropriate to say this at WP:ANI:

I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that it is you who started this WP:ANI, isn't this rather similar to being judge and jury at the same time? Apparently, the obvious conflict of interest on your part doesn't bother you at all. I'm curious as to whether you have even read the Talk Page. I had heard that the standards at Wikipedia were low, but had not imagined how low they could get. These low standards, in fact, are why I joined - to increase the standards. Did you know Wikipedia is no longer allowed as a source at any reputable university? No matter, I am only trying to increase the USS Liberty incident pages truth and fact quotient. I for one know there has been a plethora of talk and delays. I also notice the only attempts at consensus, however, have been on my part.

As for making other entries on other subjects, I'd love to, but until I can get these to stick, I won't be moving on to others.

Let's move this along, shall we. My entries will be added back before long if you do not act. These little issues brought up on WikiPedia do have the effect of decreasing the time intervals that my entries are not on the USS Liberty incident page, a fact that has not slipped by. In fact, I suspect, based on the lack of real discussion at WP:ANI, that this is the point of these little games played by completely uninvolved, but obviously biased, editors. (Your Bias is indicated above.) I don't intend to play what any casual observer would see as your delay and stall game. Facts on this world will always be WorldFacts (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to ensure that the policy against WP:Edit warring was being followed at USS Liberty incident. It also seemed to me that a group of socks, or meatpuppets, might be editing the article. (Three of the accounts were created in early November, and had no other interests). Since the article has settled down somewhat, and many people are participating, I haven't followed up lately. If you think our policies are not being followed on that article, say what is specifically the matter. (Your dislike of what the article says is not a good enough reason to change it. Find sources and make arguments based on our policies). Editors who are willing to engage in a source-based discussion on the Talk page would be immune to the warning that I issued above. My concern was that some people were backing each other up by repeatedly re-inserting material that was removed previously, without participating on Talk by adding any new sources or any reasoning based on Wikipedia policy. As I see it, that violates WP:Edit war. You yourself have not been active on Talk lately. If you restore previously-removed material without Talk discussion, admins may be on your case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think WP Policies are being followed at all. Concerning this comment from above, "If you think our policies are not being followed on that article, say what is specifically the matter.", I have made several charges concerning which WP policies are not being followed in my WP:ANI - USS Liberty incident response. I do not plan on sitting around waiting for explanations, as these charges have been made before with no satisfactory explanations given. It is no secret that 'waiting for responses' is exactly what I am expected to do - simply wait for explanations which are not forthcoming, or receiving explanations which have little or no relevance at all. During this wait time, my entries remain off the page. How convenient!

I have made several attempts to conforming to WP policies and I have provided several rebuttals to arguments used against the entries. None of my rebuttals have been addressed. No one addresses any of the comments I made in the WP:ANI page. No one addresses the rebuttal's of any WP: Charges made. I see nothing by way of an explanation, for example, of the very last entry I made. Look at WP:ANI -> USS Liberty and you will see that while I have explained myself, we have little more then a collegiate diatribe about what I have to say, without addressing what I have to say.

Regarding another item you mention, I do not have a problem with the USS Liberty incident page as it stands. My concern is that it is missing commentary from the Moorer Report, which is what I am trying to correct.

Since I simply won't allow the exclusion of a valid report with valid references to remain off of the USS Liberty incident page. I will be adding it in yet again. I have gone out of my way re: WP:AGF, but none has been returned. Charges are made of WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS, all of which I have addressed. That none of the editors removing my entry care to my address my concerns is not my problem.

Lastly, claiming that meat or sock puppets may be involved in re-inserting my entries is inappropriate. It's good to know that there are others who feel that the USS Liberty page has room for improvement. I don't think they'd like to be referred to as meatpuppets or sockpuppets, however. Just because they agree with me and not with those deleting the entries doesn't make them meatpuppets or sockpuppets. It's just as easy for me to describe Justin A Kuntz, Narson or others removing my entries as meatpuppetts or sockpuppets, but that would be rude, which is why I have chosen not to do so. That's my attempt at WP:AGF. WorldFacts (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WELL SAID WorldFacts --- it would be too easy to describe the so called "editors" who disagree as meatpuppets (and who knows maybe that's what they want). One does wonder if they are meat puppeting. In all factuality it remains that you very clearly provided multiple proper secondary sources all of which were summarily ignored and edited out by these "editors" (who also incorrectly applied WP:SYN to the sources). I see no policy violation.

What did Narson say in one of his rants ? Some nonsense about if there are gecko's you won't necessarily find dragons. Whatever ... WP:CHKUSER WP:MEATPUPPETUSER WP:SOCKPUPPETUSER. Geckos and Dragons abound !! --Henrywinklestein (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Moors 3RR

Yes I wasn't aware of the 3RR Rule I will be more considerate in the future.--Gnosis (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Punnett square

I think "The higher the percentage of vandal edits, the greater the need for protection" pretty much covers it—common sense takes care of the rest :) Thanks for your tireless work at the noticeboards, by the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Diplomatic missions of Ireland

Hi - I got this message from you:

Hello Redking7. If you keep on reverting the article itself, without waiting for a Talk page consensus, you and your counterpart may both be blocked, per WP:Edit war. Please work toward a consensus, and wait for it to form. Bring in outsiders if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There have only been two participants who have given a view so far hence "consensus" has not been possible as usually I would just accept the usual head count, even if the answer was plainly wrong. The dispute is about whether to list Taiwan on the list of the diplomatic missions of Ireland. The position at the moment is that I have quoted the Irish Government stating that Ireland:

• quote "recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China";
• quote "does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan";
• quote "[there is] no inter-Governmental contact between the two sides [Ireland and the Taiwan Authorities]"; and
• quote "[considers that] Taiwan’s official status is that of a Province of China".

User: Kransky (the other protaganist) does not dispute the authenticity of these quotes but insists that the Article should:

• list the "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" as a "country" that Ireland has a diplomatic mission to when this is clearly not accurate.

I think the default position for the page should be that Taiwan should be left out (in light of the above Government statement - so I have reverted it once again....Should User: Kransky's opinion outweigh a fully sourced Government statement - Is what I have done bad - or does the quotation above count for more than User: Kransky's opinion? Bit of a deadlock. I am bringing this to you - an outsider. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You should wait for a consensus on the article's Talk page. (You yourself are persuaded, but that is not enough). The dispute seems very subtle to me, and perhaps not important, but it's the Talk page of the article itself that matters. If Redking7Kransky doesn't yet agree, you don't have a consensus. Go to a relevant WikiProject if you think that others might have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Redking7 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (me) was the one who listed the above post. We do not have consensus. I am disappointed that you think it is a "very subtle" difference. I can't see how you could draw that conclusion. I would welcome your views on the talk page allt he same. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the name of the other participant. As an admin who is trying to enforce the rules on edit-warring, I can't participate. The two of you may both be blocked if you don't work toward a consensus, but simply continue to revert. Try WP:3O if you want a third opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have outlined the dispute on the category page, and have placed an alert in the international relations project page. The onus is on Redking7 to deliver a consensus - not a straw poll - a consensus. If he has not delivered one within a decent time I will revert the article back to what it was before it was changed. EdJohnston: is this reasonable? Kransky (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert wars don't advance Wikipedia. If this point is truly important, it is surprising you can't find even a single other editor who wants to comment. Admins who just see a two-person revert war going on forever are unlikely to be sympathetic. Wikipedia:Third opinion is worth trying. My own opinion doesn't count, but have you considered the possibility that Ireland wants to have their cake and eat it? I.e. they may want the practical advantages of having a mission in Taiwan, while still officially claiming that they don't have diplomatic relations? If that's what is happening, a certain amount of doubletalk is to be expected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Broadly, I think you have set yourself low standards. Thats a pity. Nevertheless, as an Administrator, is canvassing by **User: Kransky ok? See:

• User talk:Cybercicada
• User talk:WhisperToMe
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan
• Talk:Taiwan
• User talk:Avala.

I suppose it may help User: Kransky get the "consensus" he desires. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS, neutrally-worded invitations to third parties are OK, unless the editors are selected due to their known opinions on a topic. It would be better to file an WP:RFC, though. If you believe that Kransky's invitation to the other editors is not sufficiently neutral, how would you word it yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi, this is Bob calling about a request. I noticed you took out the Gigablast page, which was unnecessary. Can you please put it back? Signed Bob. --99.145.25.51 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You must be referring to my removal of Gigablast from List of search engines on August 14. The article on Gigablast was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigablast. The nominator argued that Gigablast was a Non-notable search engine, presented in an article that reads like marketing collateral. Dismally fails WP:RS (all of the references in the nominated article circle back to the Gigablast site). If Gigablast has been covered by any reliable sources since that time, you could present the new sources for consideration. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec AN/I thread

I see that you gave this user a block in July for edit warring. I am not familiar with the details of whatever transpired then, but in case you have something to add, there is a thread regarding him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Krzyzowiec. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you help at User_talk:Randolph_Polasek... a polite and professional approach. —Noah 16:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hasan di Tiro

Hello Esemono. Long-term edit-warring is still edit warring. I have full-protected the article for a week. Please explain the current points under dispute on the article's Talk page, so that others can understand. If you join in Talk, and the IP will not, there might perhaps be a case for semi-protection. But lately both you and the IP do little but revert.EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have put my arguments on the talk page. People have agreed, third opinions given and a consensus reached. Yet the IP refuses any arguments that disagree with his own personal research, refuses to provide any sources that back up his claims, and refuses to respect the consensus. Basically I'm just reversing vandalism and the IP, who uses a variety of IP sock puppets to avoid 3R, copies my Edit Summaries statements, ignores the consensus and adds his own POV edits. -- Esemono (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page is confusing for newcomers. Perhaps you could write a few sentences and summarize what was discussed on the Talk page for the last 3 months? Try giving the arguments for both sides. Some of the Talk threads seem to have petered out with no resolution. What's the answer about grandson versus great-grandson? Ref. 1 just says the older man was Hasan di Tiro's ancestor. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I did summarize it in the ethnic exclusivism/chauvinism is the sole reason section. And two links that say he is his grandson:

-"Its Founding father was Hasan di Tiro, grandson of Teungku Chik di Tiro" -Pg 86 - Terror, Insurgency, and State: Ending Protracted Conflicts

-"he was the grandson of Teungku Chik di Tiro" -Pg 39 Resources and Rebellion in Aceh , Indonesia

-Esemono (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What more can I do? He refuses to acknowledge information from article sources and continues to add his own research. When I try and reverse the changes, he just reverts them using various IP sock puppets. -- Esemono (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Koov

Rolsb (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:AN3

Hello McJeff. I posted a question for you in your most recent 3RR complaint about Veecort. EdJohnston (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I posted on the AN3 page, but I wanted to ask you for further clarification. Veecort has admitted to canvassing off-wiki for support and acknowledged that 70.190.149.252 is a meatpuppet. While Veecort has agreed to stop edit warring, his meatpuppet remains active. I've never dealt with meatpuppetry before - how is this handled? McJeff (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I proposed a course of action in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Veecort. EdJohnston (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Koov

Khoin (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Theserialcomma

I'm sure you remember my dispute with Theserialcomma, and are aware that it's one of the reasons I decided to retire from wikipedia.

That being said, he is still after me.

Would you care to warn him about this? McJeff (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The harassment continues. [34]. I seek no contact with this editor, but he is trying desperately to pick a fight with me. Can something please be done about this? McJeff (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.

Hi, Sir! May I please ask if you will still be willing to consider re-opening the appeal at the opportune time amid the intense Wiki and off-wiki personal battle (legal) between me, User:TheCoffee, User:Cma and Max? I admit that I had filed off-Wiki administrative school confidential case (verbal and still undergoing probe) against these 3 above, with reservation to file the Articles 19, 20 & 21, inter alia, of the our New Civil Code lawsuits for damages in our Courts. This is my legal right which is respected by Wikipedia. I admit that since last year I cursed these 3 and the entire Filipino Wikipedian community. I stand by my position. I thank all of you who have had faith in me amid all these bickering. My emails is judgefloro@yahoo.com I state that I never used any sockpuppet or alter amid accusations. I noticed that there is an ongoing multiple registration in order to create a case against me. That will fail. If you please desire to reply, then, please, to my email, or here, since my talk page is protected, I do not know if you can do so there.[35]

God Bless your family and the entire non-Filipino Wikipedia community. Sincerely, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. (I am posting here at Netopia, Bulacan, with the IP address of this business cafe).[36]--124.106.80.18 (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI comments

when i saw User:McJeff's post to ANI, begging for the community to ban a newbie User:Veecort, who has since apologized and wants the opportunity to make amends, i became a bit frustrated. see, i remember that on McJeff's userpage, in an edit summary, he referred to me as a "faggot and a tard". (he didn't name me directly, but the context of the time and situation made it obvious to whom he was speaking.) McJeff was never punished, which is fine; and then he 'retired.' Okay. No problems so far. except for one thing, he requested his userpage deleted before his retirement, which also deleted the history of his userpage -- and now McJeff is back again editing without any record of his userpage misdeeds. To some people, it might look as if he's exploited some loophole to escape scrutiny for his previous actions. So, i think User:McJeff's userpage should be restored for one simple reason. according to Wikipedia:User page [[37]]: An administrator will then delete (a user page) after checking that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. since the page had blatant evidence of policy violations (homophobic attacks and other incivility), and since he's still editing, then i see no reason why he should freely be able to escape scrutiny from the community. cause next time mcjeff has some sort of altercation that he brings to the public, the average wikipedians reading the reports should also be able to review McJeff's own history, which i believe should be part of the whole decision making process. it's only fair that an editor filing a complaint on ANI (and other boards) should have their history, as well as the history of the person they're reporting, scrutinized, so that we can all see the entire picture. what this has to do with my reputation, i have no idea. i thought i made a comment fairly on topic, stating that veecort should be given a second chance - which seems to be the consensus. i also mentioned that mcjeff's history should also be taken into account, which it currently cannot be, because it's hidden due to a loophole. mcjeff has currently reverted my comments to ANI two times, which i don't think is appropriate. i want my thoughts to be heard by the community, not censored by McJeff under the guise of harassment and personal attacks. he's been blocked for removing people's comments before, possibly by you. my question to you is, do i have the right to make these comments to ANI? is this harassment and personal attacks? or should the reporter on ANI also put themselves up to legitimate scrutiny (the userpage stuff is true, and relevant, so how could it be an attack?). Theserialcomma (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

another thing, ed. i was going to leave this other point alone, since i assumed that mcjeff was retired, as his talk page stated such; however, since he is editing again, and since you've commented to me on my talk page about another issue with mcjeff, please look at this [[38]] and comment please. i want to put a stop to these accusations from mcjeff so they do not occur again. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RedKing7

Following several reverts - which led to his suspension for 24 hours

• I have repeatedly explained to RedKing why Taiwanese representative offices are included in Diplomatic Missions by sending country articles
• I sought his views about why he thinks they should not be included, or included in a way with a disclaimer that I considered inappropriate for an article that focusses on Ireland's overseas representation (as opposed to recognition issues per se)
• The central thrust of his argument was Ireland's non-recognition of Taiwan, an issue that no other editor refuted, but which was not pertinent to the debate.
• Other contributors and myself explained the difference between missions and recognition, none of which seemed to register with him as he counter-argued with non sequitors
• I then invited him to propose a change to this policy (according a stricter definition of what would go in, which would require the wholesale re-editing of 100+ articles)
• He did not bother to seek a consensus on this change, so I sought feedback from users. He raised a complaint of canvassing, which was not upheld.
• There was a variety of feedback, none of which was favourable to RedKing's suggestions, and two (excluding my own) which were negative.
• I then proposed a comprimise based on his disclaimer and another writer's contribution, that would (a) go in the front part of the article as opposed to sticking out like a sore thumb (and inconsistent with the formatting of the other 200 articles), and (b) be a condense paraphrase of what RedKing7 wanted to say (Ireland, which does not recognise the Republic of China, maintains a representative office in Taipei.)
• RedKing7 considered my wording was "vague" and changed it back to his preference.
• I have now taken this to RfC, but I am pessimistic he will be adaptable given it has been discussed twice.

My observations

• This debate has continued since 28 October and should have been resolved weeks ago.
• RedKing7's rejection of a proposal that for all intents and purposes is what he wants strongly suggests he is being disruptive, or even Trolling.
• RedKing's behaviour here, and in other debates I have observed, indicates he either has a pattern of confrontational behaviour, or a profound inability to comprehend counter-arguments.

My request

• Could you please provide your views whether his behaviour in Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland can be considered disruptive?

Thanks Kransky (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It's good that you were able to bring in some other editors. I don't see any cause for admins to intervene. Your comment here wasn't very civil. I suggest you reword to avoid commenting on the other editor's state of mind. EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Fru23

Hi. Do you know if a CU has been done on this editor? Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No RFCU has been filed, according to these search results. Do you think he is the sock of some other editor? EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'm not sure. Viriditas (talk)

Combat Survival

[User:Mallila c]] just recreated this and Elite Combat Fitness. I've deleted the first as a recreation of a recently deleted article, does the 2nd ring a bell? dougweller (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The common element might be Moni Aizik, supposed to be the founder of both schools. I've nominated Elite Combat Fitness for deletion via WP:PROD. The article on Moni Aizik looks shaky as well. If the prod on this one is contested, I recommend a combined AfD for both articles. Since Combat Survival was recreated after an AfD, I have salted the title. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Example editor appears to be back

The editor I had used as an example in the AN3 discussion, 72.219.132.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to be back as 72.219.128.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He added back some of the copyrighted material that he'd been previously edit-warring over. I'll request page protection if he appears with a different ip. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the Telepresence article one month due to the promotional editing and copyvios, by an editor who won't respond on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR etc. on New Kadampa Tradition article

Fair enough. I was unaware previously of the 3RR. I am willing to undo reverts, but the article has since been edited multiple times by other users - afaik reverting my last undo would also remove these later edits, would it not?

I can't find the specific ANI discussion - could you provide a link to it? I In my naivety I was acting to correct some false information that I believe is being maliciously added to the article, but I do understand that edit-warring is not desirable, and I'll try to refrain from this. If you're looking into it, you'll see what was going on, with Kt66 - I don't think I need to say much on it, and I'll accept the Admins' direction on it. Atisha's cook (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for having a look and making a note with respect to this. --Kt66 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Trubbles

Re [39] - interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Everyone on the North Irish Horse has forgoten it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us so information

Hi EdJohnston, thanks for your comments here, it was helpful. Could you clarify for us what the 1RR actually means? Is it 1RR a day or a week? This needs to be clear to editors, and since this is an area I edit in, it would really help. Just one more thing, if their is a breech of the 1RR AE imposed sanction, were should we report it? Should we go to AE or the Admin's who imposed it. I know AE can get very cluttered, and I've no wish to go there, full of bad memories. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Rlevse posted the latest update to the remedies in the Troubles case, it would be better to ask him what it means. If you see edit warring that appears to break an Arbcom sanction, you could post to WP:AN3 and mention the sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston, I'll ckeck it out with Rlevse. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucia de Berk

Have you noted what was done today on this article? Also see this and this. I've reverted it again and will leave another note on the talk page. What do you suggest to be done past this? Nothing new was added, no sourcing or changes, and this is a problem. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning of possible admin action at User talk:Webmuize. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that User:Webmuize stated that he/she was "hired as the webmaster" at the website from which he or she may be linking, so there's a possible COI issue involved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We should watch out for new material that seems excessively complimentary to the article subject. Let's see if he will work for consensus in the accepted way. Eventually we should try to cure the issues that led to the POV tag. I think Momoricks put the tag on because of a lack of citations. Maybe Webmuize can help us find Dutch citations. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

She put it up because of that, but also because it did read as apologetic and defensive of her. It wasn't/isn't clear what de Berk's legal status is and it wasn't clear whether the facts in the article were valid or from a pro-support faction. But yes, it needs to be monitored. I'm glad you're watching as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for semi-protecting my userpages -- Tinu Cherian - 06:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

81.155.47.47 came right off your block running and immediately made three POV edits, again refusing to use the talk page (and ignoring the concept in his edit summary). Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, what gives?

Would you mind explaining to me why you did this behind my back? I thought the policies stated that you must contact the maker of the page before you do that, and you do not appear to have. Please answer on my talkpage. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Complain to the PROD nominator, User:Droliver. If you like, I can restore the article and it can take its chances at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. Thank you, though. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IP still at it

Still going... ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of it. Would you mind reverting the diff I cited here? I hadn't considered that I might be up against 3RR rolling back disruption, so I don't want to make another reversion if I am. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick work. I have one further question for you. Do you feel I used my rollbacker tool properly here? It seemed more expedient than the longer way, after I'd figured out what the guy was doing, but if it was a misuse, I'd like to know, so I can make sure I'm using it properly. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't have any concerns about your use of rollback. The difficult case is when you are not 100% sure it is vandalism. In those cases it is better to use some other method. As soon as you think you are seeing vandalism or disruptive editing, it become reportable, and you should worry less about immediately removing the change, and more about whether it's being promptly reported. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I really mulled it over before I used the tool, since it wasn't as obvious a case of vandalism as rollbacker is normally used to combat. But after investigation, it seemed very clear what the guy had been doing, and as he had been very "busy", it seemed much more expedient, logical, and beneficial to the project to use the tool than to not use the tool. Are you saying that you agree with me on that view? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 02:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is puzzling whether his change in Lyndon Johnson's cause of death was plain vandalism or not. In case of doubt, it would be better not to use rollback. There are other ways of undoing a change that are almost as quick. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, when I was evaluating whether or not to use the tool, it wasn't so much any one individual edit that I looked at, but his edits in toto that seemed like pretty blatant disruption. Perhaps it was a bit of rule breaking on my part, but I think that it was a net benefit to the project to do it the way I did. Also, you said there are "other ways" that are nearly as simple. Are you talking about the automated tools? If so, I've yet to get my mind around how to use them, so if you'd care to explain them a bit, I'd appreciate it. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• By 'other ways', I meant Undo, or a manual revert. I've not used the automated tools. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much of one for automation either. I've had some bad bot experiences perpetrated against me, you might say, and haven't always had the best experience with Twinklers either. Thanks again for the feedback. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

An idea!

This is regarding the current situation regarding Che Guevara (photo), i.e. the two blocked editors and the proposed solutions.

I have refrained from editing anything about Che Guevara since User:Redthoreau entered the scene and took possession of the Che Guevara articles, although I still have them on my watchlist. I have no interest in getting involved now, as Redthoreau is far too aggressive. I do not know the other editor involved in this dispute but I can sympathize with a complaint that 61 quotations is too many for an article! I frequently review articles for GAN, and there is no quality standard that would allow that at Wikipedia!

Do you think that a solution might be to get an outside editor's view of Che Guevara (photo) for a quality review of such issues? Redthoreau does not allow quality input and never submits his Che Guevara articles to any kind of outside input, such as Peer Review or WP:GAN. There are several very good editors that I am sure that neither Redthoreau nor the other editor has had any contact with. For example, User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and User talk:Geometry guy basically run WP:GAN and both are excellent editors.

I experienced Redthoreau when he took over the Che Guevara article, which at the time was a Featured article. Because of the massive changes he made to the article, I took the article to Feature article review and ultimately its FA golden star was removed. See: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1. To his credit, Redthoreau modified his attitude during the FAR, when forced to deal with knowledgeable editors. That is why I am suggesting this alternative now, rather than an RFC, which I am pretty sure will not be helpful to the article. User:Jbmurray, who helped out Redthoreau trying to fix the Che Guevara article, also might be willing to get involved.

I am suggesting this because Redthoreau will continue to dominate the articles, so perhaps he could at least learn to produce articles of more quality. Perhaps a good editor aware of article quality could act as a mediator. If User talk:Malleus Fatuorum were willing, he would be excellent. He is not only a very good edtior but he is tough and would not be intimidated by Redthoreau. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your idea suggests a way of breaking the deadlock. Perhaps we could get both editors to abide by the advice of some GA reviewers on the proper number of quotes. I wonder how that could be phrased? Both Damiens and Red would have to agree to the deal, for it to work. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask User talk:Malleus Fatuorum what he thinks. If he were willing, I believe he would be fair. I don't know Damiens but he must be fairly reasonable if he has hung on so long. Redthoreau usually responds to a "father figure" type approach, which Malleus can provide. If User talk:Geometry guy were willing also, then there would be two neutral editors to give opinions. Perhaps Damiens and Redthoreau just each need a way out. Redthoreau did fairly well when another editor entered into a mentorship-like relationship with him, but that editor User:Coppertwig eventually got tired. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not intimidated by anyone, but Redthoreau has to want help before I'll offer it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that Redthoreau's recent postings display the same inflexibility, lack of knowledge on correct criteria for a wikipedia article, and issues of ownership as previously. I would not wish any of the GA editors to become involved in this sort of hopeless situation. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we tried! Thanks for your efforts; I agree that was a better plan than a regular RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Ed, just wanted to say thanks again for your help with the Threshold (online game) articles and the COI-affected editor. Considering the articles have been dead quiet since they got semi'd, I think our friend has given up. I appreciate your help! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

conflict with article and the unwillingness of editors to accept 3rd party sources

Hi Ed, you checked already a note I left some days before on the admin board regarding the NKT article. It looks like it is as hot as that of Scientology. What strikes me is that I commented again and again about 3rd party sources and gave excerpts of them etc but two editors remove again and again 3rd party sources to favour heavily WP:SPS by the organisation. I like to ask you to check the last edits by User:Atisha's cook and User:Truthbody on the NKT article, the latter may have violated the 3-times- revert-rule. What I can not understand is that the changes - eg to quote Clarke - were in a way the result of all the other editors, like emptymountains. With the present changes by Atisha/truthbody the article follows line by line only WP:SPS at the cost to exclude all other sources. I can also report this to the Admin board but wished to look for a soft way to solve this. thanks a lot, t --Kt66 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best is to revert it to a version, which includes at least some 3rd party sources, and then to block the complete article. --Kt66 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with the current revision although it may be accidental reverted to this by truthbody: the current revision of New Kadampa Tradition as edited by Truthbody (Talk | contribs) at 17:30, 2 December 2008. Maybe it is good to block it with this version. --Kt66 (talk)

There seems to be a very active discussion on the article's Talk page, in which you are participating. If you have doubts about the suitability of a source, you could ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you disagree with a decision about the NKT article, you could open an article WP:RFC to bring in outside opinions. Contact me if you need help following the RFC instructions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Kt66 has a conflict of interest (as can be found with his anti-NKT blogs and websites and comments all over the WWW, which he does nothing to hide). It seems he will not stop undoing the other editors' changes until he reverts the NKT article to his own POV, as it was largely before April of 2008. He will not listen to any other editor's reasons, he mainly ignores them, and repeats the same things over and over again on the talk pages. There are plenty of third-party sources in the NKT article -- it is not perfect, but it is vastly better and more wp:npov than it was when kt66 was the main editor (before others stepped in). There is a controversy section at kt66's request, and that is fine, but he seems to be aiming at making the whole article into a controversy, which is grossly misleading to the reader. There have been ad nauseam discussions with user kt66 over the past few weeks. Today he started a redundant article called prehistory of the NKT, which makes no sense given the material is already included in the NKT and Manjushri articles. He will not accept others POV at all. It is hard to know what to do to work with him. Please advise. (Truthbody (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

I have officially proposed that the Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition page be deleted, as it is mostly duplicate content from other Wiki articles and has many copyright violations, as demonstrated on the talk page under the heading "Content Forking?". Emptymountains (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I must concur with Truthbody. There are now a number of editors engaged in trying to stop this one user, Kt66, from monopolising this and related articles and rewriting them to his own, highly-opinionated pov. Reasoning with him is almost impossible. He DOES have a very good knowledge of the WP Rulebook, though, it seems!

Atisha's cook (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry, i may have accidentally reverted kt66's changes four times -- actually, I ended up accepting his version (with a suitable compromise suggested by a third editor), but I was unaware of the Wiki rule against reversions until I just looked it up, and so I overdid it. I know now and will be more careful in future. (Truthbody (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Ha! Exact same thing happened to me!  :-D Only I had to be told about this 3RR rule... But I sympathise - this Kt66 drives a body to it.

Atisha's cook (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you all can't reach agreement on the Talk page. I don't see any reason why admins should intervene, at this point. Avoid WP:Edit warring. Use an WP:RFC if there is an intractable dispute. Since I'm not planning to take any action, it would be better to continue this discussion on the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. We'll try to work out a solution, another editor has already made a proposal. I would be happy if you can have a short look on Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition if that subpage fulfills "content forking" and "copyrightvios". I am just interested to have a outsider perspective. Maybe its good to let pass it through the deletion process, then more can add their pov. What do you think? Thanks --Kt66 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page discussion seems rather hostile and consists of exchanges of debating points. It would be easier to follow if someone (such as yourself) could provide a calm and neutral summary of what each side is asserting. You might do so at Talk:New Kadampa Tradition. From a very quick look, your 'Prehistory' page does look like a POV fork. Some of us are aware that most of the participants have a COI, so it is not necessary to keep mentioning that every five seconds. You COI-affected guys are the only ones interested enough to participate, but if you would be patient and work step-by-step, we could get a useful article from your efforts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Koov :(

Rolhn (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And Rohly (talk · contribs).--Avala (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Recent gravity theories

Dear Ed, I was hoping I could get your permission to include a new gravity theory under the section "recent gravity theories" on the Gravitation page, which has published in a peer reviewed physics journal. The journal is listed as an acceptable and credible source by Wikipedia (Acta Physica Polonica B). The peer review status verifies that the basis and results of the new gravity theory are correct. I have been stifled by editors when I tried to make a page for the theory and even the company which has developed and is working on doing nuclear experiments which validate the theory. All I wish to do is list the title of the theory without any bias or argument towards current theories. Being that the listing of alternative theories section includes many which do not pass all the experimental tests of gravity wouldn't it make sense that this one be listed since it passes all of them (as is criteria for a journal even thinking about publishing a new theory considering the flak they would receive if it did not). Please advise. Thank you! Gravityforce (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The arguments expressed by the Delete voters in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified Gravity Corporation persuade me that your theory does not yet have the general recognition that would allow it to be included in Gravitation. Come back if the theory gets covered in a mainstream physics journal. If the mainstream can't even be bothered to refute the theory, then it's probably not at the level where Wikipedia needs to include it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about use of COI template

Hello Ed, you might remember me from having worked on the article New Media Strategies when I was using my personal account, WWB, and thanks again for your help with that.

Just last week I sought to create another new article, building on what I had learned from that process: about Pete Snyder, who is the founder of the company. Knowing what I do about COI, I sourced every fact presented in it and, as before, posted it to my user subpage and asked the Help desk to review and approve it.

The problem is that shortly thereafter, the editor Orangemike tagged the article with COI and tone warnings. I tried to discuss this with him, but he soon stopped responding and I am not entirely sure what to do next. Can you give me some advice on how to resolve this issue? Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note that another editor has already looked into the situation. No need to follow up if you're busy, but you're always welcome to. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

reference repair squad or citation study group

Thanks for your message about my AN post. Unlike other topics on that board, mine is very much about working on articles (little drama), not about socks, blocks, vandalism, etc. Usually, there is not an argument about the date format with a particular FA candidate. I'm not yet skilled at fixing these so it takes a long time to do 50 references, often having to do a few more than once. If someone knew how to do it well and fast, they could come in handy. I would be willing to try it to gain expertise. One third to half of the battle for nicely written articles to become FA is to fix the references. Chergles (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

edit warrior

ed, what good would that do? i ask because i am not the most savvy wikipedia user. i am on wikipedia to help edit when i think it needs it and this is my first (and hopefully last) foray into admin issues. Brendan19 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll think about trying an article RfC if you can't get a consensus at Joe the Plumber. If the claims in your 3RR reports are correct, you are probably part of a majority on one or more of those issues. Though the majority doesn't always rule, it strengthens your bargaining position. An RFC/U takes a great deal of patience, which not everyone can spare. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

im open to an article rfc or anything that will help, but i believe the ultimate problem lies with the one users behavior. if my complaint is about that users edit warring then what good would the rfc/u do? maybe i dont understand what the end result of an rfc/u is- please explain if i am missing something here. i think a clear pattern of edit warring is visible, so why isnt my complaint best served at the edit war admin page? i would like to help the jtp article, but at this point i am more interested in stopping future edit warring by collect on all the articles in which he is involved. Brendan19 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The political articles tend to have nasty debates around them. It would be surprising if Collect's behavior is really far below the usual standard. State the question to be decided in an article RfC and see what happens. You will have to negotiate on the Talk page to get support for your version of the RfC, which itself may be helpful. You've already availed yourself of WP:AN3, you got an answer, so let it go. You are asking such basic questions that it suggests you don't have much experience of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. If so, please don't ask the admins to do unusual things that are not really part of what we do. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

unusual things? really? ive been asking questions precisely because i dont have much experience with dispute resolution. who would you propose i ask if not admins? "Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information, or in a dispute. "-[40]. Brendan19 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but i didnt get that impression when you requested that i stop asking for unusual things. far as i could tell i was just asking for answers. anyhow, now that thats cleared up i wanted to bring to your attention the fact that collect has now been temp blocked without any input from me. given that fact i do not plan to go through w/ the rfc/u, but thanks for the suggestion. good day. Brendan19 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)