User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Latest Reverts by Tom Reedy

[[1]] Smatprt (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[[2]]

[[3]]

No idea why these last two were made, but a revert is a revert, no matter how small (sounds like Dr. Suess). Smatprt (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Invention of the Jewish People

EdJohnston, I can understand why you editprotected the above page. I am troubled that you protected this page just after this sentence had been added to the lead;

The book repeats a long refuted notion that modern Jews are descendants of Turkic converts and has been thoroughly debunked by scholars. [2][3][4][5][6]

Surely this is a breach of WP:NPOV when historians of the stature of Tony Judt and Eric Hobsbawm have written in praise of this book? Thanks Mick gold (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on Mick, you can't blame Ed for this. Don't you know that it is ALWAYS the Wrong Version that gets protected? RolandR (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Roland, your humorous point is well made. Apologies to Ed, I was expressing concern about one sentence & I shall control myself. Mick gold (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is the right version RolandR? The one you tried to impose? Because you see, I do have complains about the use in weasel words and the disproportion share between praises and critism. So, the wrong version in which section or on what aspect exactly? Someone should explain you that you don't own this article/kind of articles. The article was nominated for neutrality check and the best solution is to wait for it to take place.--Gilisa (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So what you suggest now? to start another edit war? At the least these arguments are well sourced -you also posted your argument here[4] (and replied by me). Also, you should not apply directly to the admin who protect the article but to apply through the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Gilisa (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If Gilisa and RolandR will cooperate in their editing, the protection on The Invention of the Jewish People could be lifted. For example, these editors could work out a compromise for the disputed sentence on the article's talk page. The talk page has a very heated tone and I don't see much cooperation happening there. This could change, if people are willing to exercise their diplomatic skills. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

With all good will, I find it difficult to see how we could cooperate. Our understanding of the subject is totally contradictory: I believe that the book makes a major contribution to the way we understand Jewish history, while Gilisa thinks that it is "pseudo-historical charlatanism".

The specific issue has been discussed round and round on the talk page, and it is clear that we will not agree on this. I think that the formulation "is considered controversial" is weasel language, while Gilisa thinks the same about "has been described as controversial". It seems to me that only a third party can resolve this dispute. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those two wordings sound almost identical to my ear. Do you want to expand it to name some of the people who think it is controversial? If the problem is to remove any WP:WEASEL language, neither your formulation nor Gilisa's manages to name the people who consider it controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that the sentence includes a citation from Haaretz. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to state that it "has been described" as controversial, with the appropriate link. The formulation "is considered" controversial implies, to me at least, that this is a normative assessment, and that to think otherwise is aberrant. That is why I consider Gilisa's formulation to be POV. I genuinely don't understand why Gilisa thinks that my preferred form of words is POV. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, why don't you offer "..has been described.." (including a citation to Haaretz) on the article's talk page and see if you can persuade other people to support it? Many people have edited this article since March 1, surely you can get hold of one or more of them to give their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I did just that yesterday[5]; but this was rejected bt Gilisa, who described this as "POV" and "disruptive". RolandR (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems possible that Gilisa could be mistaken. But my opinion doesn't matter, you should find someone on the article's talk page to give their view. You could also try to find a formulation that doesn't use 'controversial' at all, but simply implies it, by citing the varying responses to the book. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But that is the nub of the problem. As I have stated on the talk page, I do not consider the book to be at all controversial, and I would leave out the reference altogether. But Gilisa appears adamant that the article should state, not only that the book has been described as controversial, but that it is controversial. This has been discussed round and round on the talk page; and for every edit I make, Gilisa makes half-a-dozen, swamping any rational discussion with a mass of unhelpful extraneous verbiage. RolandR (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I opened an RFC in Dardanii, Talk:Dardani#RfC:_Which_maps_are_relevant.2C_are_anachronistic_ones_relevant.3F. In the noticeboard i received a warning along with him, but can he just accuse people like that (he writes "sneaky delusion of user") ? The diffs are the same.Megistias (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please look at this, you have seen the article, as i dont know how to react to such a thing, rfc, i give up and raise my hands in magnanimous surrender as to what is the next step. I am cool about it, but i just dont understand what the process is now.Megistias (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning

I know I could have gotten a whole lot worse, so thanks. Much appreciated :) Factsontheground (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Geography of Mexico

Hello Ed. The article became unprotected and the only person "anonymous" is edit warring again. He's reverting to the version before you protected the article against anonymous edits. Can you please protect it again? It is very clear that he's not gonna stop. The same has happened in other articles you protected, remember? Well, thank you very much for your support. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Groupthink

This user that you blocked is currently requesting unblocking. They're suggesting that the "ultra-conservative" line you mentioned was in fact introduced by an intermediate edit, and was restored by a mistake on their part; seems to check out, though I gather the block was more based on edit warring than that. Thought I'd notify you of their request, at any rate. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I have lifted the block. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa

Hi Ed, Blablaaa (talk · contribs) has a long history of aggressive, uncivil and POV editing on a range of articles, and not just the Battle of Kursk article (though their focus has mainly been on World War II articles). As such, unblocking them with a restriction that they only not be involved with World War II articles would probably just shift the problem elsewhere, particularly given that they've breached previous commitments to work cooperatively with other editors. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Would you please consider undeleting and redirecting Triple Play (pricing game) (see [6]). There is more information in that article than in the list and a merge would actually be useful. Said merge can't be done if the article is deleted however, even from the cache, due to licensing problems. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The information that was in the deleted article was not sourced. If someone *does* manage to find a source on Triple Play in the future, couldn't they use the source to improve the list at List of The Price Is Right pricing games? For the moment, the old article can still be viewed in the Google cache. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Close of John C. Acton

Hi there. In your close at WP:Articles for deletion/John C. Acton you mentioned that WP:MILMOS is "marked as a guideline". That's not quite true. It is a guideline for the purposes of the manual of style, but it does not have any bearing on wikipedia's notability guidelines and should not have any bearing on the AfD. WP:MILPEOPLE is explicitly marked as an essay. Could you please reconsider your close (by the way if the outcome is still "no consensus", I'm fine with that). Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited my closing statement as you recommended. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Copying user talk page posts to article talk

Wispanow copied some comments that you, SilkTork and myself had left on his user talk page to the article talk page here: [7] It seems inappropriate, because he has copied the signatures and time stamps along with the text. This creates the impression all of us posted these messages ourselves to this talk page. Could you have a look at that?

Thanks for your earlier supportive comments at WP:AE. --JN466 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not bother me specifically that he moved these posts. If you think that the moved comments could be misinterpreted, perhaps you could add a new note of your own at Talk:Scientology in Germany to clarify that stuff was moved from elsewhere. Since Wispanow doesn't seem to be registering what caused the concern, probably a new round of talks needs to occur at AE to agree on the appropriate warning or sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed yesterday that there has been a prior warning on Wispanow's user talk page linking to the discretionary topic ban remedy. Sandstein placed it there when Wispanow was edit-warring again a couple of hours after Sandstein unblocked him. There were a couple of other warnings by admins as well, and I have added the diffs.

Wispanow says he wants to add more detail to his statement on Sunday, so perhaps he should be given the chance to do so – though personally I am convinced it will just be more of the same. (I've hatted the talk page comments following SilkTork's example.) --JN466 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Consensus at AE seems to be that we should be engaging with Wispanow. I've summarised one of the issues he has edit-warred over here: Talk:Scientology_in_Germany#Protection_under_Article_4_of_the_German_Constitution. It would be great if we could resolve this, so it does not result in future flare-ups, and I would welcome your input. --JN466 11:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

AN protection JIDF etc.

Thanks for the message. At present things are protected at the wrong version. So my immediate instinct is not to have the protection extended. Once the SPI has concluded, I would like long term semi-protection. Last tiem it was semi-protected I tried to push through some proposals via talk page discussion. Unfortunately most of the comments were by JIDF puppets. I think only two other people apart from the socks commented on the proposals, one of whom was User:Oboler who is a political ally of the JIDF out in the real world. (They've posted his material and he's return favourably on them.) He's also an editor in good standing so I couldn't just dismiss his comments out of hand.

The events leading to my posts today were after a new person had turned up and made his own edits. The JIDF IPs reverted them and I decided to revert the IP edits as ones by a banned user. Having looked at the location of some of the IPs I see that they are in nominally in three US states plus two European countries. I don't know whether this means it is meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry going on or whether the ISPs are ones which allow edditors to appear to be elsewhere than they really are.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Something you might consider is long-term full protection, using {{editprotect}} to ask for changes. Since this is a small article, that might be a practical choice. Admins who performed the protected edits would be able to filter out obvious SPAs and socks from the voting process. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A new editor tried to add edits which were grammatically incorrect and in which he did not form consensus in the talk area before making them. They were reverted. Mr. Cohen is trying, and has tried, to change the article to put the JIDF (with whom he has personal qualms) in the worst possible light and lock it in that way. All of this protection nonsense and his widespread allegations of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry is just an extension of that.--98.143.144.83 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed,

The page is actually currently not as NPOV as you think as it contains dubious claims about anti-terrorist and anti-racist material in the text which the JIDF socks were defending just before the block. The new editor had fixed that although the above sock is correct that there were some problems with the edits to do with grammar. I had intended to address these but the full block prevented me

You mention {{editprotect}}. COuld you please explain how it is preferable to semi-protection to try to limit things to registered editors only contributing. In that case any socks could be picked off one by one which has happened in the past. (My first choice would actually be for sighted edits to be introduced so that the socks would be unable to do anything instantly. It would solve this and would also have solver the Greco-Persian Wars trolling too.)

Who patrols {{editprotect}}? Are they any more au fait with the issues than those who patrol WP:RFPP. Or can information be recorded in the admin section of the SPI that established editors can point to as official grounds to ignore the Sock IPs and throwaway accounts are all likely socks and should therefore largely be ignored?

My concern is that at present the WP:Wrong Version is protected i.e. the one that the socks were defending. They will therefore see themselves as being rewarded for their breach of multiple policies. If the edits by the socks could be undone and then we could start again, trying to sort out the edit by the new user, if necessary with a full block while we negotiate the rewording. We would then be starting in a position where the socking is not rewarded.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If Einsteindonut is resuming a full-bore sock campaign, he will probably create some registered socks. That is my only doubt about semiprotection. We may have to watch for, and block, several registered socks per week. With full protection, all edits can be checked. If you make an editprotected request, you can leave a message for me, and if I'm around, I can review it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that's one of the reasons why I'm a fan of sighted edits. Now if I were to put in a request for ED's recent IP edits to be undone so that we could start our discussions from where we were without him, how would you look on it? Oh and what would your view be of my undoing his edits to the talk page?

1. Wrong in principle, I'm too involved.
2. Legitimate but unwise. I would be making him think he's getting to me.
3. I can do it if I want to.

--Peter cohen (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

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) 15:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yediot Ahronot

Why is Yediot a "weak source"? Breein1007 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is nothing in WP:RSN that comments on Ynetnews. I've amended my 3RR close. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Can you say more about your concern? EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger

You have suggested "joining the discussion" at the Heidegger talk page. There is no discussion. No one has posted to it since March 2.

The currently-active Wikipedia admins don't read the Heidegger talk page. Those who wish to ban the use of the link Nazism ignore what Wikipedia admin Poor Yorick wrote in it, namely that Wikipedia must follow standard practice, and it is standard practice to often refer to Nazis as "Nazis" and not only as "National Socialists."

Perhaps you would be kind enough to read Wikipedia admin Poor Yorick's decision in the Heidegger Talk Page and implement it. That would mean stopping single-minded apologists from removing all Nazism links. Ruggermunger (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you gave the impression of being interested in what the problem was/is on the Heidegger Talk Page, I will tell you. A group of single-minded apologists for Heidegger are imposing their own censored view of what can be said about him. They are vigorously insistent that links to Nazism are not allowed, only links to National Socialism. Furthermore, they insist that the Biography section of the article cannot contain any quotations from Heidegger himself in which Heidegger espoused Nazism.

Various editors, most notably KD Tries Again, have attempted to reason with these single-minded apologists in the Talk Page, but to no avail. Even when these apologists, eg Snowded, appear to agree to include Nazism links they singlemindedly revert every such link. KD Tries Again wrote a text which included merely the title of a Heidegger Nazi speech. The apologists reverted it.

We are well, W-E-L-L past the the point where it is possible to reason with the Heidegger apologists on the Heidegger page. They believe that Wikipedia admins back their ban on the use of Nazism, etc. and are in no mood to back down. I am of course okay with some references to Nazism and some to National Socialism.

Please, please read the Talk Page. Everything has been gone over in great detail in it already. Ruggermunger (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Groupthink's talk page. Groupthink (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jed Brandt (activist)

How could you close this as 'keep'? This isn't a vote! There were solid arguments based on sound application of Wikipedia's notability criteria; how does this article meet them? How do any of the arguments on the AfD sway you otherwise?? I'm frankly disappointed. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If this was truly WP:ONEEVENT, then in three months time there will be no new sources about this person, and little media attention. A new AfD nomination might succeed at that time. Your comment as nominator said it seems to be a fluff piece trying to capitalize on Glenn Beck's reference to him. This leaves me unsure whether you think the subject is promoting himself, or supporters of Glenn Beck are promoting him. Neither was obvious to me, and the current form of the article appears neutral. Unless the voters in an AfD missed something important, don't understand policy, have an obvious COI, or used bad reasoning, I tend to accept their verdict. It's probably true that without Glenn Beck's interest in this guy, there would be no article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually think that someone reacted to Beck's on-camera statement that "I couldn't even find a Wikipedia article on this guy." Without that statement, I doubt anyone would have even tried to create an article. Certainly no one from his group or any supporters had thought of it until then. I think it was basic inclusionists who lept onto the idea. Certainly, in the arguments for 'keeping', none presented more convincing sources, and nearly all of them referred to Beck's diatribes as `all the proof they need'   to support the article. This is why I think the close needed more contemplation on policy, as opposed to "popular" opinion. (That does happen from time to time, you know.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cobalt, I am not an inclusionist. I do not question that Glenn Beck mentioning him is what prompts the wikipedia article. Essentially I find the argument that "I couldn't even find a Wikipedia article on this guy." is what prompted the article and that hence it should be deleted unconvincing because it has a tinge of circularity to it: pretty much all of the BLPs in wikipedia were, at one point or the other, prompted by some media report on the subject... are we to argue deletion on all of them based on that? In other words, not a single of the deletion arguments focused on Jed's notability as a whole, and only on the WP:ONEEVENT flavor it had (a flavoring Granted, some of the keeps focused on the Beck mentions too, but not all (certainly I tried to focus away from this).

Furthermore, there are many notable people with no wikipedia articles - hence arguing that he was not felt notable enough for an article until mentioned in Glenn Beck is an exercise in speculation. This is why I supported and argued keep: I felt Jed should have had an article even before the mention in Beck's show. I have a more famous example of this: Chesley Sullenberger didn't have a wikipedia article until he glided a plane into the Hudson and saved his own life and that of dozens of passangers and crew in the plane. Yet, one examines his previous record, and he deserved a wikipedia article on the sole strength of his notable contributions to the field of airplane safety, policy, and labor conflicts. He was highly notable in the world of US commercial air piloting. We didn't know it, and many screamed WP:ONEEVENT at the time, but in reality, rather than WP:ONEEVENT we had a classic example of WP:IDONTKNOWIT: Sullenberger was already notable, but it took one dramatic event for wikipedians to recognize this.

Kasama is a notable left organization, Jed is one of the better known Kasama members, and on top of it a high-rated media commentator found him notorious enough to use him as a representative slice of the views he opposes. That, my friends, is notability. Having voted for deletion in many occasions where the closer voted keep (Japanese niche fetish porn stars, for example), I can hardly be described as an inclusionist. But I can say without a doubt that by now I have a feel for what the generalized inclusion consensus is. And whenever I have time, I try to rescue articles, such as this, whose deletionist have a bad case of the I-dont-know-it-itis.--Cerejota (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have to take exception to the Sully argument. He was notable before? Really? Was he significantly discussed in at least two independent, verifiable and reliable sources prior to his river landing? It seems as if all of the discussion about him occurs after the event. Not one source that would indicate notability was found published before the event. I agree that he meets the threshold of notability because of one event, but that event was in itself notable because of its uniqueness and the widespread coverage of it. Is Brandt's event significant in itself? This is the question I want discussed, if we are going to include him on a one event case. Beyond that, there are really no sources unconnected to him or his patron organization that were used to establish his notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sullenberg was a published author on airline safety, widely cited, and highly notable in his field, way before he glided into the Hudson. This is my point: notability - and what we consider reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability - is contextual and changes from person to person and topic to topic. Sullenberg is certainly notorious now, but notoriety and notability are not the same thing - a distinction often forgotten. I am not going to base the notability of, say, Ralph Asher Alpher on wide media coverage. BLP/biography notability is not popularity or notoriety: it is encyclopedic worthiness based on the field of endeavor that makes one notable. Obscure elected local government members and mediocre professional sportspeople of all eras, for example. And fringe political leaders, such as Jed Brandt. Its all relative if, of course, verifiable. We can verify that Jed Brandt is a spokesperson for Kasama, and that he is notable in the far-left political space, using sources -such as the publications of the far-left and the coverage in FoxNews that brought notoriety- that verify this.--Cerejota (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "wide media coverage." I said "at least two independent, verifiable and reliable sources prior to his river landing". Clearly not the same thing. All but two of the references in Sully's article were created after the river landing. Of the two sources that are pre-splashdown, the one for SRM has since been updated to meet search expectations for Sully, which makes it difficult to use as a notability reference; the other simply describes him with the same weight and in the same context as the other speakers at the conference: how many of them have articles? Please note that there are no sources listed for Sullenberg created prior to the one event that establish notability. Sully is clearly a one-event case, but that doesn't make it WP:ONEEVENT. There are lots of people who tour the country or globe, lecturing about topics of which they are experts, and may be widely known in their field -- but the documentation for whom cannot be vetted through Wikipedia's standards for non-trivial, verifiable and reliable coverage. And so, they do not make it into Wikipedia, plain and simple.

I stipulated that there was even less reliable coverage for Brandt. I am not a fan of Beck being Brandt's wikiclaim to fame, and I'm trying to assert that such should not be acceptable to Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the warning?

I've seen some pretty funny consensuses in my time on Wikipedia, but Debresser + 2 other dudes who comment once is the weakest "consensus" yet. Not to mention that there is Zscarpia who is part of the debate but refuses to take any sides.

Secondly you make judgements about the content. I thought WP:AN3 was not a content noticeboard, but a behaviour noticeboard. I thought judgements about content were supposed to remain at the relevant talk page.

Thirdly, my recent addition was a completely different compromise text that was not the same as the other 3 reverts. It was so different to say I was "reverting" is quite wrong.

Also, why didn't you give me any time to reply? I live in AEST and I was sleeping at the time.

Debresser also edit warred against me and ZScarpia to remove any mention of Purim and Ramadan from the lede even though we had a good source (Time magazine) that described the significance which Debresser accused of "poor journalism".

I recently went to the trouble of finding a book quote that supported the common-sense mention in the lede in order to end the silliness once and for all; a book quote that significantly improved the sourcing of the article. And what do I get for my trouble? I am not "edit warring" on the article I am trying to improve it.

Debresser himself is edit warring about the simple factual title of the section in question, and has yet to provide any argument why it should not be in accordance with its content. [8]

The section is about people celebrating the massacre. Its not just about the veneration of Goldstein himself. That is a fact, not an opinion. Factsontheground (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, ZScarpia agrees that I was not edit warring. [9]. As he says, "It may be seen as significant that none of Factsontheground's edits has involved hitting the Undo button."Factsontheground (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Debresser's complaint was about the video. I trust you are not continuing to defend that. Since this is under WP:ARBPIA, admins are allowed to watch for tendentious editing. We are allowed to consider sources, and think about whether the claims being made are inflammatory. No objection to any well-sourced consideration of the Purim/Ramadan connection, and you might even find reliable sources that talk about groups of people celebrating Goldstein's terrorism. If you would wait to get consensus for your changes, you should not have any problems. Since I assume you can be careful about this, I hope we don't keep seeing your name show up at 3RR. If you can get agreement on the Talk page, you won't have any need to be mentioned there. If you reach a deadlock, you can use WP:Requests for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The video was acquired by a reliable source, Yediot Ahronoth, who felt the claims were serious enough to report them. I didn't want to make any personal assessments of the video beyond that performed Yediot Ahronoth and the Jerusalem Post because it would be original research. If you feel that the news reports are unacceptable because of the video source or some other reason, you should probably say so on the talk page to establish a proper consensus there. I will accept the consensus of you + Debresser regardless for now. However, don't claim that it is obvious that the video is unacceptable or that I was knowingly violating WP:RS ; I sincerely felt the source was acceptable.

"you might even find reliable sources that talk about groups of people celebrating Goldstein's terrorism." actually there are many reliable sources in the article discussing the massacre celebrations, which you must agree goes quite beyond the mere veneration of Goldstein. Preeminently, Tuman, Joseph S. (2003). Communicating Terror: The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terrorism. p. 93. - "Indeed that was exactly the way his actions were interpreted by other settlers at Kiryat Arba, and in the years to come after 1994, there would be numerous instances in which the settlers would celebrate Purim by also invoking Goldstein's memory and image in a provocative manner."

Can you justify Dbressers continued edit warring to rename this section "veneration of Goldstein" which is clearly an inadequate title? His contribution to discussion on that page is very poor with multiple comments refusing to answer my questions and "brushing me off". I don't understand why he was not also warned for edit warring. I'm really just concerned that I was warned of edit warring despite making extensive use of the talk page and trying to make compromise versions of my additions. In the meantime, DBresser, who edit wars against the common sense mention of the religious holidays supported by Time magazine gets off scot free. Factsontheground (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to you opening up a WP:Request for comment. If you do that, and abide by the results, nobody will be able to complain about your edits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, on the 3RR noticeboard you said: I hope he does not take these reports as a ringing endorsement that the events narrated in the video actually took place. Ynetnews says: A video obtained by Ynet depicts Jewish residents of east Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood during their Purim celebrations singing songs of praise for Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish terrorist who murdered 29 Palestinians 16 years ago at the Cave of the Patriarchs. The Jerusalem Post says: A video that surfaced on the Internet this week features footage of Jewish residents of Sheikh Jarrah in northeast Jerusalem singing songs praising 1994 Hebron massacre killer Baruch Goldstein during Purim celebrations inside a house in the neighborhood’s Othman Bin Afan Street. Since neither article says that the videos "appear" or "purport" to show the residents singing songs, I think it is reasonable to assume that the two sources themselves believe, and expect their readers to believe, that the video (or videos - do we know that they're the same or that YNet's copy was obtained from the Web?) show what they describe. Incidentally, neither does YNet say that the video it posted (which is what the reader who commented on authenticity watched) was an unedited copy of the video it obtained. In writing this, I'm not commenting on whether this event should be detailed in the article (perhaps, settlers doing the kind of things that people expect settlers to be doing isn't very noteworthy) or supporting the repeated inclusion of detail when all the other editors who had commented were against it, just pointing out that expecting anyone to interpret what the articles are saying as that there are videos, but that they might not be showing what they appear to be showing, might be unreasonable. Hope I haven't distracted you from anything really important. -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't offer my own personal critique of that source. If you can get consensus that it belongs in the article, it can go in. I think there are better sources for the fact that various people celebrated Goldstein's killings since 1994, if that is the topic of interest. Some of them are currently in Cave of the Patriarchs massacre#Veneration of Goldstein. I still think that an WP:RFC is the best way to get to a balanced version. On some of these articles, the quality of the talk page discussion seems poor to me. Article disputes that would be resolvable elsewhere can sometimes lead to a stalemate when they come up on an article on Israeli/Palestinian topics. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that, as far as the veneration of Goldstein goes, it's not worth mentioning specific incidents unless they're of particular note (and I'm not convinced that the Sheikh Jarrah one is). It would probably be fair to mention the revulsion produced in Israel by the veneration, too. Hopefully, now that WP:RFCs have been brought to people's attention, things will improve. You have my sympathy, by the way; you can't be sysoping the Arab-Israeli conflict area of the project for the fun it brings. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bondates

User:Bondates, an account that has made edits that fit the pattern of the other Jonathansamuel sockpuppets, remains unblocked. He was given a 24 hour block for edit warring, but it has expired now. UserVOBO (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship page issues

Hello Ed. I can only imagine how weary you are of all this, but because of your experience your perspective might be valuable here and here.

Best regards,

Tom Reedy (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger article

As the admin overseeing the protection of the Martin Heidegger article, I'd be interested in your opinion on the following as part of the lead section, particularly whether you think it might help to resolve the edit-war. Given that the meat/sock puppets are still incredibly active, I'd like to avoid adding to the mess on the article's talk page:

However, Heidegger remains controversial due to his political views, and membership of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (abbrev. Nazi Party) from 1933 to 1945.

With the above in place, I feel it would be a moot point whether 'Nazi' and/or 'National Socialist' were then used elsewhere in the text. I don't believe that the edit-war will be resolved by range blocks, bans or by protecting articles. Subsequently, I'd like to find a compromise between the two warring factions that's nonetheless balanced and accurate. I'm familiar with a number of politically and socially controversial philosophers, and avoiding terms such as 'Nazi' for "emotive" reasons, which I think was the original justification given for its removal, is not a valid way of reporting them. I'll seek out other non-partisan editors and, if once I've established their concerns and made progress, then make a suggestion on the article's talk page. Thanks!  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict between those who want Heidegger's adherence to the Nazi cause to be expressed in the most vivid way possible, and those who think that a more general summary will suffice. I have no particular opinion, and as an admin I should not take sides. I keep thinking that people should be able to bargain this out. The blocks and protection are to prevent abuse of Wikipedia, and the editorial discussion should be able to make progress regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and it's surprising that the war's been going on since September 2008. I realize truly value-neutral articles are most likely impossible, but since the current arguments surrounding the page seem to have settled on the contents of the lead/introductory sentences, and inclusion of 'Nazi' or something similar, I think there ought to be a solution. The quoted sentence is intended merely to note that there is still controversy and also acknowledge his membership of the party, which in itself does not mean that Heidegger was a zealot or akin to the likes of Adolf Eichman. Snowded has indicated that he'd accept a sentence like the above. It might be worthwhile changing the heading 'Heidegger and National Socialism' to 'Heidegger and Nazism' in line with the title of the main article. These two points are a start, and it's worth seeing where they lead us.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A compromise which used both Nazi and Hitler was proposed (my myself) and accepted by everyone except for our sock farm. There really isn't a content dispute here, or a dispute between established editors. However no one wants to put changes in place until the sock is out of the way. The above wording is fine (but clumsy a plain Nazi would be better). However its not going to stop the attacks on the article by the socks --Snowded ^TALK 22:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is a range block really feasible? The user's shown himself to be adept at accumulating puppets and evading blocks so far.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The full protection on the article will have to suffice for now. People can request changes using {{editprotected}}, if they can get consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left a comment about this on the Heidegger talk page. I have my own preferred view of what wording should be used, but I'm happy to respect consensus and agree to a different wording if that is what most editors want. UserVOBO (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also left a comment about this on the Heidegger talk page. English language dictionaries show that "Nazi" is a word in its own right, like "table" and "chair." Dictionaries show that "Nazi" is not an abbreviation. If the Heidegger article were to state that "Nazi" is an abbreviation then the Heidegger article would be making a false statement. I hope that Wikipedia admins will read the Random House definition of "Nazi" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Nazi and not knowingly include false statements in protected articles. "Nazi" is not an abbreviation. It would be false to say that it is. Gadmuemi (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor you tackled is back

Hi Ed, you dealt a few months ago with a disruptive editor who was hopping between numerous IPs (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive) and was eventually blocked for three months by Elonka (which he promptly evaded). He is back and still causing problems. I've proposed a permanent site ban on this individual; please see WP:AN/I#Enough is enough: proposal to ban 99.142.1.101. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive (which you cited above), User:Brandon suggested the following range blocks on 31 October, 2009.

• 99.135.168.0/21
• 99.141.240.0/20
• 99.142.0.0/20
• 99.144.240.0/20

These were blocked for three months, but the blocks expired. Do you think that another three months would be worthwhile? EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the IPs appear to serve a chunk of the Chicago area, I suspect it would cause too much collateral damage, and a three-month block isn't going to do any good - the editor came back and continued the same behaviour as soon as the last lot of blocks expired. I've proposed on AN/I an alternative approach involving a site-wide contributions ban enforced by short blocks on the individual IPs. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please semi-protect my talk page

Ed, my talk page is being repeatedly vandalized by 72.93.213.25, most recently here. It is probably a sock or meat puppet of Jonathansamuel. Could you please semi-protect my talk page. UserVOBO (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been semiprotected. When the problem goes away, ask for unprotection. Be aware that good-faith IPs won't be able to contact you in the mean time. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. UserVOBO (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ddaann2

Hi. I am the person who possesed the account User:iaaasi and I want to ask you a favor:

I understood my mistakes and the reasons for my block and I changed my behaviour. Since I started my new account, User:Ddaann2, I started making only constructive edits, as you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ddaann2. Even if i made all my edits in good faith, the user User:Squash_Racket reverts my edits, even if it's obvious that they are constructive, judging them by the author, not by their content. He claims that I am a banned user and I have no right to contribute on wikipedia (a fact which is theoretically true)

Can you please check my last contributions on the new account and unblock my old one if it is possible? I am not here to make disruptive edits. Thanks in advance (Ddaann2 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

I see that Ddaann2 is now blocked for evasion, and talk page editing has been disabled for Iaaasi. My suggestion is to send your unblock request by email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done

Nicely done. Thank you very much Ed. All the best. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please protect my user page too

Jonathansamuel or one of his meat puppets appears to have an interest in vandalizing my user page, most recently here. Based on his past behavior, he's likely to keep doing this. I'd be most grateful if you could semi-protect my user page. UserVOBO (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism

I saw that you reason for your actions was "Large removals of article content do not suggest good faith". It is important firstly to see what I removed and my reasons thoroughly analyzed in the talkpage. I would also like you to take part in that conversation, because neutral contributors would be very helpful. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

JIDF puppets

Hi Ed Are you going to block any of the identified userids? I did send an email to another admin about this connecting particular of the ids to activity elsewhere, but real life has got in the admin's way. I could send you a copy of the email as to why I want certain puppets blocked.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

At WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Einsteindonut, none of the registered accounts has edited the article in 2010. I don't see the value of blocking the IP socks. If User:Mreditguy gets into more trouble, I supposed he could be blocked, but there is not much he can do while Jewish Internet Defence Force is protected. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Hello Ed Johnston: Alright, I was unaware that I had that many reverts. I was having trouble reverting reflected in an error message which said unable to revert because of intermediate edits. I then tried to make intermediate reverts one at a time. I didn't know that these counted. I was reverting for a good cause because of multiple changes without discussion and dialogue. I have saved a link to the Dispute Resolution page and will try to use it in lieu of reverts in the future. RHB100 (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Karunyan Back Again

Despite your note as his talk page[10], Karunyan just started editing again, and is back to his same behavior, reverting my edits on the List of Clique characters. Thus far it is the only one, but I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye on him, as I suspect he intends to do it all over again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

He has now done five reverts, so I have reported him to the edit warring noticeboard. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:interaction ban proposal

I understand what you are saying, Ed, but once the article is unlocked, the whole thing is going to start again with DocOfSoc. It happens each and every time. As I stated in my initial post on this at AN/I, DOS needs a mentor so she gets a better idea of how editing in WP (among other things WP) works. Once that article is opened again, and if there *is* an interaction ban in place - she will head right back there and do exactly what she's already been doing. With the ban in place, she will be free to do what she wants to the article so that it reflects her POV and COI and I will be helpless to fix it. I have worked hard (long before DOS came along) to make that article what it is today and to keep it as POV-free as possible. Why should I be forced to just turn my head and allow it to be sabotaged? No one else really edits that article - and no one other than me works to keep it POV-free. If another, trusted, experienced and unbiased editor would commit to keeping the article POV and COI free when she *does* start editing it again, I would be okay with the ban. But until that happens, I can't just say yes to the ban because it would be giving her carte blanche to destroy it. Do you see where I'm coming from? (and I'm open to more suggestions, BTW) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil

"Stubborn" puts it pretty well. I actually mentioned in the report that it wasn't full-on yet but was very close. We have had an ongoing discussion and the NPOV noticeboard for feedback. That s why the stubbornness is starting to be a slow edit war between three editors. It is clear which way consensus is going. However, I did make a mention at his talk page about your notice. He is aggravating me but I don't think he is trying to be disruptive to the point that any block would be necessary.Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Message from Rip2010

Hi, I see you wrote on my talk page. Here's what you wrote...Hello PMDrive1061. If you are watching this page, can you respond on my talk? I can't seem to leave a message for you since your user talk is fully protected and you do not have email enabled. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk)

First of all, y can't u leave a message from PMDrive1061? I just saw his talk page and it's not fully protected. If you want to explain y u wrote this on my talk page, please go ahead. Thanks for ur time, Rip2010 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Rip2010

I had to write to PMDrive1061 at some page where he had recently posted, so I could be sure he was watching the page. I did so on 3 February, since he had recently written to you. Later, on 12 February he unprotected his talk page, and the problem went away. Sorry for the inconvenience. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology in Germany

Hi Ed, further to the recent AE thread, I would be grateful if you could cast your eye over the Moderated discussion transcluded to Talk:Scientology in Germany and share your impressions. Thank you. --JN466 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. I've moved it from the transcluded discussion to the article talk page, per SilkTork's introductory comments in the moderated discussion; I hope that's alright with you (if not, please undo). --JN466 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That was quick.

This block is truely Wikipedia administrator intervention at its finest. I noticed the edit, saw the title and the changes, and even before i could even finish sighing or making a report at the obvious sock-puppetry someone already took care of it. Good work, keep it up! :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a vague feeling that he would start socking as soon as he was blocked. No big surprise, as it turns out. I wonder if there is some national-pride issue behind his stubbornness. If discussion fails, this could become an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of blocked editor Iaaasi is back again

Good evening, I would like to inform you that User:Iaaasi, whom you blocked for an indefinite period of time has returned under the usernames of User: Iadrian yu, User: Umumu and User:Dicocodino. He is, according to Iaaassi’s habit, engaged in edit warring on the John Hunyadi article, and deleting alternative Hungarian placenames from Transylvania-related articles (hundreds of them) against the old and not easily reached compromise on bolding Hungarian placenames if minority > 20%. He pretends to seek mediation to support his activity ( like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu ) and when his opinion is not supported by the requested editors or admins, he asks another opinion from others under a new name, like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal. As Iaaassi, he is engaged in Wikihounding as editor User:Nmate remarked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miercurea-Ciuc&action=history. As a Bonaparte sockpuppet, he should be blocked asap, ortherwise, he may trigger serious edit war by disregarding long established practices.User:RokarudiRokarudi 23:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As this is already discussed, i just want to say that your accusations incorrect. Feel free to conduct a socketpuppet investigation. iadrian (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, I havent't done any disruptive edits and I am not a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte (Umumu (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Pseudo edit conflict

And that is why I always refresh that page before committing to a course of action after looking into an incident. You propose a slightly different approach than I was going to, but seem to have read the situation at Vitamin D much the same as I did. Thank you for all the good work you do at AN3. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Thank you for your time spent reviewing the Nobility 3RR. I am relatively new to editing on Wikipedia, so am still learning the ropes about these things. It does seem that cartels can exist on Wikipedia, if one or two editors want to maintain a false record and no one else engages. That surprises me. Anyway, thank you for showing me the ropes. I have a better idea of protocol now. Your time is much appreciated. Out of interest, and so that I understand Wikipedia procedures, can you please explain why the party I reported was not warned too? Editor8888 (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

UAF edit

Hello, could you take another look at the UAF talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unite_Against_Fascism#Protection

To quote: "The piece ANON keeps inserting is irrelevant and is only there in an attempt to soften the criticism. The Guardian article criticises the UAF for its closeness with anti-semitic Islamist groups, and its silence on modern day anti-semitism. Anon's addition to this paragraph of 'the UAF's website featuring a holocaust survivor' does not refute or even address the section it has been tacked onto. It is not an official UAF response to the criticism, It is Anons addition and Anons response to the criticism. It has not been given by the UAF. If the UAF respond to the criticism that would be fine to include. This should be removed now. Anon tacked it on again just before the lock."

What are your thoughts on this?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out at AN3, this article was getting a huge number of daily edits (over 30) and many daily reverts at the time of protection. If you are inclined to try to give a summary of the various disputed points on the talk page, and what position various people are taking, that would be helpful. If the anon's viewpoint is truly strange, perhaps he has no support. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for reply. The anonymous editor was reverting his addition of the irrelevant material I have highlighted in the above passage. Also, Anon repeatedly added a line stating that the 'edl' are the bnp's 'street fighting wing, this despite no reliable source to back it up, and a police statement stating the opposite and a bnp condemnation of the edl. I have no political leanings in this regard, however, the uaf have been receiving mounting criticism in the press recently and the wiki entry originally reflected none of this. I added just a selection of the controversy surrounding their actions and Anon proclaims me a fascist and attempts to get me sanctioned. The article was then locked after anons very contested revert, hence his/hers complete silence ever since. I tried repeatedly to reason with anon and come to an agreement, but he/she simply would simply do a bit of name calling and then re-add. I request that the article be stepped down to semi-protection so that responsible editors can continue to contribute. Thanks for listening.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Hopefully he won't violate 3rr again. For the record, and as you might have noticed, he deleted my contribution to the discussion from the talk page before you had made your final decision. Thanks for your time though. I know wikipedia can be time consuming (from personal experience, believe it or not). Regards, Mitsube (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyria

Perhaps you could check my edits?

I DID source my edits with independent links, and to studies by Non Assyrian historians, Assyriologists and Iranologists.

I also tried to discuss these issues on the talk page, but got practically no response.

The person i reported then agreed on my own talk page, to accept some of the edits, but these have since been reverted again.

How can i be warned for Edit Warring when i made the edit (with links and references) and my edit was reverted with no discussion, or sourced alternative view being presented by the reverter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You filed a complaint at the 3RR board which is now archived. Be aware that Assyrian topics are a frequent area of controversy on Wikipedia, and several admins are familiar with the issues. You are trying to do a major change in the text of the Assyria article, arguing for a continued Assyrian identity after 612 BC. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. I notice that you are continuing to add your material to the article, though you still have no supporters. This meets the definition of edit warring. If you continue, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		With thanks for your comments at WP:AE a couple of weeks back. They afforded me some solace and reassurance at a time when I was sorely in need of it. JN466 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you've been involved with the block of User:Notpietru ...

... I bring to your attention some block evasion on his part, the details of which are here. Cheers,  RGTraynor  17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR thing

Thanks for responding. Yes, this has been a very long term issue, at least in regard to the use of the quote function. RAN claims that ArbCom upheld the inclusion, but it's not that clearly stated. The fact is that the other editor routinely pastes in extensive quotes, or in this case, everything included in the abstract from The New York Times. Here is the citation that he added. My position is that since a link is provided to the exact same content from the newspaper, that using the quote is pointless. It is easily verified from the link included. He keeps saying that ArbCom upheld the use of quotes, which is simply untrue. The ArbCom decision was "6) In the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in Wikipedia:Footnotes covering the content of footnotes, the question of what material – such as quotes – should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content. Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation." They said this was a content issue, and consensus should determine it. The evidence page includes the places where this has been discussed, including that RAN has ignored consensus before, and multiple links to AN/I. My position is that when we have the direct link to the source, which is a very stable link, the use of the copy and paste quote of everything shown is both redundant and my gut feeling is that it skirts copyright violation. That would be the point where he said my ignorance astounded him. The next point he kept reverting was from New York Times archives. First, consider that the newspaper articles involved employed an antiquated style of titling, which included the main title and multiple subtitles, which I feel are unnecessary. The example of which he kept reverting is found here. The main title is "POLICE TRY TO LINK BUDD GIRL'S SLAYER TO 3 OTHER CRIMES". The other 4 or 5 sentences after that are subtitles, which would be reflected if the webpage included a copy of the actual newspaper page. Also note that the portion RAN included as a "quote" encompasses the entire first paragraph of the article. The last issue is his insistence on including blank template parameters. It is simply relevant to the source what parameter is left and what can be removed from the citation. Like I said at the 3RR board, in this specific case, retaining the parameters in case the author of the Times article will suddenly appear, when the actual source itself, which is over 75 years old, does not name the author. Thus the argument presented by RAN and Jack Merridew is moot. It isn't going to happen that a name will suddenly be discovered. This all covers my rationale for refusing to respond to the biased questions RAN posted on Talk:Albert Fish. He's posting general questions about the issue, while the point here is that the questions should be specific to the situation. His questions did not take into consideration the issue specific to the Fish page. I left the quotes he put in that had no links to check, and removed the ones that did provide means of verification. Does this answer your question? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have little interest in the Fish page. My attention was drawn to that page and the 3RR section by the complaint by WHL a few sections above (on that page).

This:

• Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation

is a great quote. It gets right to the heart of the concern that I have with what the participants in WP:ACTOR are doing. That RfC is still stalled and WHL and a few others have objected to closing it and yet have not collaboratively sought to address the concerns.

Please consider closing that discussion and offering a summary, or handing it off to some uninvolved admin to do. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Then pray tell, why are you responding to this thread and inserting yourself into an issue that does not include you? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the ACTOR discussion and concerns issues that are not included in style guidance, despite what RAN insisted. In fact, while RAN insists ArbCom upheld quotes, it actually said it was a content issue, not a matter for ArbCom. But by the by, reasons were stated in the objection to closing the ACTOR discussion, so that is untrue. Please stop inserting this issue into things that are completely and totally unrelated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See your prior post, you specifically referred to me. And see my post, above, I don't care about the Fish page thread, much. However, the quote you offered from that ArbCom case is spot-on regarding the inappropriate hard-coding of stylistic markup into articles that you and a few others associated with WP:ACTOR are still intent upon. I will continue to seek to bring all of those article into line with site-wide consensus. Any honest reading of that RfC will show that site-wide consensus does not support your position and that you've a long history of obstructing efforts by the wider community to bring you into line. Regards, Jack Merridew 02:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
p.s. thanks for the quote.

Ed, I've re-posted a request to close the WP:ACTOR RfC at WP:AN#Stuck RfC @ WT:ACTOR#Filmography and have referred to your suggestion of this approach (on my talk page). Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny that you wholly supported leaving in parameters at the 3RR talk page, even when there is no possibility of the parameter being used? That would be the only reason your name was mentioned. Please desist from making the ACTOR discussion a personal matter, Jack. Your comment regarding "obstructing efforts by the wider community to bring [me] in line" has the tone of a personal attack and is exceedingly incivil, which you've been called for doing regarding me before. And kindly stop trying to hijack this thread which is about something else entirely. If you don't care about the Fish article, then kindly step out of a pertinent discussion about it to try and make it about something else. This is disruptive in regard to solving an issue which you admittedly aren't interested. And please stop following around my edits and launching arguments and disputes wherever I step. It's becoming an issue of wikistalking and that's something I read has been a previous problem from you. And by the way, please stop trying to canvass for someone to close the RfC. Reasons were given with the objections to close it, which you ignored and instead asked why. Those reasons are there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

Sir, I noticed you have semi-protected this page, which is probably a good idea given the 3RR violation committed on it by an ownership editor (Beyond My Ken). But I noticed you gave the reaosn that there is COI by IP socks, which I assume you mean me. I'd like to ask you to clarify what that means. I've never touched that article before, have nothing to do with it, and your welcome to run a checkuser. I follow WikiProject Films which said the article needs improvement. I read the deletion nom and I agree it's got inconsistencies. In the nom discussion this was said by the nominater:

"Accuracy is in question because there are inconsistencies. Variety review is the most notable review, but the remainder of "Reception" section is wierd: "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews." But then the reviews listed as having occurred during the "earlier festival run" include 3 reviews that it looks like were written during the theatrical run according to the cites. Then it says the film got "generally positive reviews" during its festival run "with certain notable exceptions." However, no exceptions are provided. So on second thought maybe there is some COI going on here? I think it needs fresh editors if we're keeping." To this, Beyond My Ken answered: "That's a fair point -- the reception section was subject to a good amount of back-and-forth editing as the sockpuppets tried to put the film in the best possible light, and other editors, including myself, tried to keep the section as accurate and neutral as possible. This is almost certainly the cause of the discontinuities that you point out. I agree that fresh editors with fresh eyes would be a good idea."

So Beyond agreed that there were what he called "inconsistencies" in the article's data due to "back-and-froth" editing that he was involved in. He agreed that a fresh editor (not him) should fix. But when a fresh editor goes in and corrected these contradictions, Beyond 3RRed me by saying that he will not "allow" the article to be edited that way. "Allow" was the word he used.

I feel I accurately and honestly in good faith tried to fix the contradictions that Beyond My Ken seems to have introduced into the article. If I am wrong p[lease clarify how:

Inconsistencies I saw:

The Varirety review of the movie was positive. (DeBruge is a Top Critic with RT that means he controls how his reviews are posted.) Before I edited it, this article read like the Variety review was (in Beyond My Ken's words) a semi-uncomplimentary review. Phrses from the review were cherry picked to make it sound bad. (For exmaple, Nothing in the review criticized the movies plot at all, yet Beyond My Ken wrote that it did. That was just bad information. I corrected this and wrote, in good faith, what RT and Metacritic said.

Second, Beyond had written it so it said that the film only received positive reviews during it's festival run. But like was pointed out in the deletion nom, the examples given weren't during the fest run. Beyond also said there were notable exceptions, but there aren't. So I fixed this.

The result was that Beyond swooped in and 3RRed. Again if my facts are wrong please clarify how. Thank you. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the article has, with good reason, been semi-protected, if you have suggestions for changes that will improve the article, please make them to the talk page where they can be discussed. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did. You ignore them and only want your version. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you made changes, and they were not helpful to the article Please discuss your proposed changes first. I'm not at all adverse to improvements. For instance, an IP editor from your range introduced information about the film's home video release, and that was an improvement. Unfortunately, your changes seem to me to be detrimental to the article.

In any case, the place to talk about this is not here, but on the article talk page. I will say, though, that I'm not terribly interested in hearing re-hashed arguments about my "bias" or how I "introduced errors" or whatever, those are inaccurate and inflammatory, and unproductive, so please don't bother to post those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And the is Wikipedia, so I am permitted to make the changes without getting your permission your royal highness. You admitted the rticle had bad info, I fixed it. The rraosning is above. If you can poke a hole it in, be my guest. Otherwise, this is clearly just a man who thinks he owns an article . Seriously man what is your glitch? Why are you so hung up on this. That articles been almost completely edited be you lately and yet you accuse others of controlling it? Is this your movie or something? 208.88.120.86 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I never "admitted" to anything like that. This particular discussion seems fruitless. if you're interested in collegial and cooperative editing, you know where to go, but I'm disengaging from any further conversation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie

Thank you for semi-protecting this article. I've been trying to write up an AN/I report about it for 45 minutes, but my %&%#@ browser kept losing it in progress. My apologies for the preemptory tone I took with the IP, but it seemed like much too much of a coincidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A brand new editor, User:DivaOfDan, created just fifteen minutes ago, posted to Talk:Yesterday Was a Lie, referring in the first person to the changes made to the article and reiterating the same arguments as above. This is obviously the IP. Creating accounts for immediate use is something the sockmaster does quite readily and without compunction for the niceties, so the evidence is mounting up that this is the same guy -- same article, same arguments, same MO. Do I need to go file another SPI, or can he be blocked on the available evidence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, checkuser me. I have nothing to do with any sockfarm. Obviously I am that IP - I've edited under anonymous IPs for years but I just made that account because a page I edited in good faith was semi-locked due to Beyond's god complex and irrational belief that he owns the article. Now the guy sprays suspected sock tags on my user page without permission? What a jerk. Why the hell bother with Wikipedia when nazis like this are here controlling artilces? I tried to do something good and contributive and all I get is grief and sock tags placed on me. Ya;ll can fuck off. DivaOfDan (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: So he's told me to "fuck off" on my talk page, told me to "piss off" on the article talk page and called me a "douchbag", slapped a "sorrywrongnumber" suspected sock template on my user page, and called me a nazi with a god complex here. Is that enough to block the account for incivility and disruptive editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this. DivaOfDan (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Tim Song blocked indef as a sock of Sorrywrongnumber. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New Development in Newman Luke's edit war

User Newman Luke has taken advantage of the Passover holiday, as you know, to make new attempts upon the Judaism articles. What you may not know is that he has created a new ADMINSTRATIVE section called WP:OWNING.Mzk1 (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

[11] I reverted Alexikoua here, because he added that while there was no consensus. In the talkpage I told him repeatedly that what he wanted to add was mainly the conclusion of 2 interviews, but instead he ignored me and added it "per talkpage". You told me 2 weeks ago to act after getting consensus, but other users don't seem to follow consensus.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

[12] he added that(without consensus), was reverted [13], and he reverted back to his version [14]. Isn't that disruptive according to that link you posted in my talkpage WP:BRD?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Zjari: in a weird wp:idontlikeit claim denies an anthropological&social conclusion by a prestigious journal. Also, mystiriously insists that this is just the result of an interview, but it' s clear that this is the conclusion of the author's research in general.

In a similar fashion he rejects that a fictional Albanian-Pelasgian historical claim isn't called Protochronism, while this is clear by the term's definition.Alexikoua (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not wp:idontlikeit, because we have been discussing this for many days, and suddenly you decide without any consensus to act as if you had consensus, when here [15] I explained thoroughly to you that this is the conclusion of 2 interviews with 2 people of no special status. It isn't a general conclusion it is a conclusion of those 2 interviews.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Same situation in Skanderbeg, where Zjarri defends the personality's racial purity by receting an entire 18 book bibliography[[16]][[17]] (saying that he is revert ready). I've not made any edits there but the behavior of this new user is extremelly agressive following me around in every article I've created the last 2 weeks: [[18]][[19]][[20]], moreover he participated on a harrasing report against me [[21]] 6 days after his account creation.Alexikoua (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this many times about those source being copies from stories, 1910 textbooks and folk myths. Also remember that DS has already warned you not to accuse me. And I haven't been following you, they're in the scope of Albania TF so obviously as a person interested in Albania TF, I'll try to improve new articles regarding it. Is that a harrasing report or a report showing you edit-warring? --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan to continue this discussion(basically defending myself against your 20th accusation), I'm sure EdJohnston is not interested in your accusations(for which you have been warned by an admin not to continue). Immediately after I explain to you the errors of your addition, instead of replying to me with arguments you start accusing me. That shows a lot, about the validity of your argument.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just remind you that you initiated this discussion to complain against me. Please calm down, being member of a wikiproject doesn't justify such an aggresion. Alexikoua (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, and I'm just mentioning to EdJohnston that in accordance to WP:BRD there is disruption, that's all. I'm not the one who came here, recycling old accusations(for which there have been warnings by admins)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the project, please check: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. I'm sorry but endless reporting, both here and in irc, will lead you nowhere.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Endless reporting? I wouldn't say that, because this is the second time I'm notifying an admin about your actions. On the other hand you have accused me of being a sockpuppet/a meatpuppet/a "tactical spa" etc etc. You even went to irc and accused me of those things, unless you deny that you joined irc and said all those things to an admin, DS. But as I said, I'm calm and I don't plan to spam this talkpage, just to answer to your recycled accusations. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me a dif where I say that you are a sockpuppet?Alexikoua (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to copy/paste here some of the things you said to DS? If you want to I can do that. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Hi EdJohnston, I was hoping you could give me some insight on the intricacies of WP:OUTING. Would posting what you believe to be a user's IP address(es) on a user talk page and using this to infer their country of residence apply as a violation of this policy? Furthermore, would posting specific accusations of sockpuppetry (ie: I think user XX is a sockpuppet of user YY) break this rule too when not submitted as a SPI, but rather on a user talk page? Thanks for your help, Breein1007 (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to openly state the name of the article where you think a problem has occurred, without risk of WP:OUTING. Edit-warring where there is a possible use of multiple accounts would certainly be worth noting. Don't post suspected IP addresses outside of an SPI report. If you want to make a sock accusation, be sure you already have enough data to submit an WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was kind of unclear... I didn't fully understand your response, especially the bits about the name of the article/edit warring. I'll be more specific. There is a user who has posted what he thinks are my IP addresses as well as accused me of being a sockpuppet of another user (he named the user). He made these posts on another user's talk page. There is no edit war or article involved. What can I do about this? Is there somewhere I should report this? Breein1007 (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't look into this further unless you give specifics. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness/Archives/2010/January#SPI. I believe Breein is referring to a post I made there. nableezy - 02:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I assume there isn't a formal way to report this then. I'll just give you the diffs here:

Peter_cohen (talk · contribs) posted this on AN/I: [22]

He is referencing the discussion recorded here: [23], which I never saw until today.

Nableezy (talk · contribs) posted two IP addresses that he thinks are mine, as well as accusing me of being a sockpuppet of two other users. Then Peter_cohen comments that he thinks Nableezy is right, and encourages him to compare the nationalities of the IPs and the users.

Thanks for your help, Breein1007 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Breein, like I said on AN/I I dont currently think you are either of those editors. I apologize for making what I now think was an unfounded accusation. Regarding the IPs, I didnt file an SPI over those because it wasnt sockpuppetry, it was an editor registering a username after editing as an IP. If I was out of line in writing that I am sorry, but I really dont think that qualifies as outing. And it was fairly obvious, at least I thought so. nableezy - 02:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I appreciate your long-after-the-fact apology and am happy to say that my dealings with you have been much more civil since the time of that posting. With that said, you're kind of making excuses here and that doesn't make it any better. If it does constitute outing, which I can't imagine it doesn't, then the fact that you think it's obvious doesn't change anything. I don't want people making public assumptions about my IP address or country of residence. If I was comfortable providing this information, I would do it myself on my user page. At this point, I want the violations completely stricken from the record (not just removed from the page), and I'm appalled at the thought that those comments have been sitting there for so long. Again, thanks for apologizing. But keep in mind that your comment has had further repercussions. As you are aware, Peter_cohen has used it as a reference in a new AN/I where absolutely absurd new accusations are being hurled at me about sockpuppetry. Anyway, maybe this is the wrong place to be having this discussion. I'll just leave EdJohnston to deal with this however he sees fit. Breein1007 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Socking is often reported at ANI so it's not out of order to discuss it there, unless the suggestion is frivolous. (The suggestion doesn't appear frivolous to me, just unlikely). If Peter cohen continues to harbor some suspicions and repeats them elsewhere without filing an SPI, I would be concerned. I will notify him that he's being discussed here. If you want the old IPs oversighted from the archive of User:Supreme Deliciousness' talk page, see WP:Requests for oversight. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So what am I explaining at my request for oversight then? Is this a case of outing or not? Breein1007 (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oversight will generally remove IP addresses. Just tell them that people speculate that these IPs belong to you and they'll probably do it. (Link to this discussion if you wish). I personally don't think that any sanctions for WP:OUTING are due. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for the notification of this thread. My referencing the old thread was to provide evidence contrary to the current claim that Breein1007 and AM are the same person in that I was indicating that they edited from different countries and that AM had previously tried to encourage an SPI against, risking exposure had thereby been the same person as now claimed. I don't think I added any new information to Wikipedia about individuals and therefore don't think I did anything that might qualify as outing.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Ed, Wikipedia has changed so much from the time it was a mutually constructive activity of colleagues motivated to compile human understanding that I did not know even where to reply to your demands made on my talk page. Sorry, for my ignorance of the rules for enforcement and for not anticipating the level of theater that could be introduced by what some of us older hands refer to as a "drive-by...(Editor)". Possibly you too, Ed have other more important professional activities than this and that is why you seized upon this ploy of asking me to agree to WP:CON to prove "good faith." My good faith has been evidenced by years of service to Wikipedia and by many successful involvements in seeking consensus --- and even receiving a barnstar for that time and effort.

Ed, what about your good faith? Probably at your rank in Wikipedia it must be stipulated by us "drones" on the front-lines, but I would like to test it. Still not knowing where to put this reply, I will put it several places. FellGleamings' last dictum before obsessing about his "maltreatment" was to propose that the page in contention had no place in Wikipedia. I agree and propose that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy be deleted entirely. Unfortunately, I do not know how to propose that recommendation, but imagine that at your high level of authority you could do it. Please do it. Of course, there is the hazard that FellGleamings will shy away from such an actual consensus with me now that I have caught up with him in agreement and Fell will want yet something else.

--Drac2000 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

You've got email.. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Regarding the accusations made here about "breaking an agreement", please note that the spin being put on this is totally misrepresenting what occurred. I did not introduce or "add code" contrary to our agreement. Actually what I did was undo an edit made here that smushed all the tables together into one huge table, introduced the defunct [[2005 in film|2005]] and returned spacing to the awards. Jack Merridew stated in his reply that he didn't see it was a revert yet went ahead to rant and rave and disparage me, as he keeps doing in the diff I started this with. His behavior toward me is fairly consistent, such as when he barged in to hijack the reply I posted to you about the Albert Fish article. However, he has continued to go about and remove code contrary to the agreement, as I noted in my 3RR report on him and even up to the last two days on Appleby and Mays. So why is he still ranting on about one valid revert in the face of his removal of coding in the midst of the discussion? That simply continues his violations a la 3RR. It mystifies me that an issue cannot seem to arise without Merridew making it a personal issue, but that is what has happened from the first time I crossed paths with him. Is this not something that was an earlier issue? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with edit warring and 3RR violation

Hello, you were kind enough to help me last week regarding a 3RR violation against user Drac2000. At the time, I withdrew my complaint, because the user claimed he was willing to stop his edit warring, and work to improve the article. As it turned out, though, it was so many hollow words. Rather than directly reverting, he just began replacing the text with his old statements, then claiming I had "agreed" to his changes. He's also continued to be abusive in his talk comments. You can follow the whole sordid spectacle here;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy

I don't really have a dog in this fight, except the article as it stands now is, in my opinion, a severe embarrassment to Wikipedia. It contains unreferenced, fringe-scientific, conspiracy-slanted statements, and this user seems willing to do anything to prevent the article from expressing the true situation, which is that this is a pet theory of one professor and a few of his students, and widely viewed as impossible and unscientific by the scientific community at large. The only thing that's kept the article around so long is essentially apathy...it's not seen by many people, so cleaning it up doesn't attract much interest.

Thanks again, and I look forward to any suggestions you may have for dealing with the situation. FellGleaming (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

American Idol contestants from the Southern United States

Ed, someone keeps editing the American Idol entry. This Turian person has an emotional interest in the page and is not being very objective about it. More importantly, he's gotten me banned from correcting his emotional-fueled edits. You really need to check this guy out.

He's saying that Arizona is not in the southern United States. Here is a map that clearly proves that it is in the south:

http://www.map-of-usa.co.uk/images/usa-politcal-map.jpg

Please help do something about this guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreddyPickle (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only one telling you that you are wrong. WP:GETOVERIT. –Turian (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:FreddyPickle#Edit warring at American Idol. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock again

Please see this thread. Unfortunately his topic ban actually gave him permission to edit on the talk page, which he's doing in the form of personal attacks, which is a repetition of the actions for which he was blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? Is it OK to remove personal attacks? His personal attacks had been removed, he restored them, and he was blocked for doing so. Now he's done it again. The attacks themselves are a blockable offense in his situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody will regard Caleb's recent edits as improving his reputation on Wikipedia. But he didn't restore the personal attack against a named person that was originally removed by 2over0. There is nothing wrong with what you did, but his latest remark may not actually be a personal attack. (The question of whether something is a 'threat' or a 'warning' is constantly being raised, so it's not unusual to see that opinion being expressed). It seems to me he is just venting at the moment on the article talk page, and we can safely ignore him, unless anyone has actual plans to improve the Seth Material article. In that case, admins should do whatever is necessary to be sure those people can work without interference. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I get your point. "Personal attack" might be the wrong policy violation to mention. Such statements are failures to AGF, and as such he should receive a warning for that and for poisoning the well against me. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, will you please tell Brangifer and Guyonthesubway to stop removing text from the Seth Material talk page? They don't have the right to do that. Certainly, they don't have a right to remove the comments of Oasisoftheheart and 70.186.173.82 (who isn't necessarily a sock puppet if that person has never created an account). Thank you.

And by the way, if the article isn't being improved, that's not my fault. Brangifer and Guyonthesubway certainly don't have the knowledge to improve it! Oh, I forgot -- knowledge doesn't count for anything on Wikipedia.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Return of 5W/Ronn

So you said a good first step would be for their staffer(s) to create an account, but I think they beat you to the punch. I'm not sure whether to file a sockpuppet report or just let the user be for now. --Mosmof (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In the closure at AN3 I asked for an effort at good faith and I think the behavior of User:Babasalichai falls well short of that. 5W Public Relations and Ronn Torossian are now fully protected. If there is any sincere argument to be made that would justify adding more promotional language or removing some of the criticism they can offer it on the respective talk pages. I don't perceive they have any interest in consensus. They already seem to know what the WP:TRUTH is and according to them we're just being unfair. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Dear EdJohnston, I hope you are doing well. I noticed today that User:Shshshsh removed an Urdu script from the Bollywood film article Veer-Zaara. This is a breach of the agreement you established after the 3RR case here and here. I thought I would bring this to your attention. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong. I did not remove, I reverted a user who added it (Diff) on the same day, so what Anupam had told you is misleading and incorrect. If it cannot be removed, then it cannot be added either. BTW, from what I remember and see you said we could not remove/add such scripts until the 31st of March and not until consensus was reached because consensus to add them actually never happened in the first place. Don't worry, it does not mean I will go on removing scripts. I have better things to do. Take care, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY violations?

Would you please take a look at these diffs? [24] [25] [26] [27]

I've been reviewing the policies and I believe that Smatprt's strategy of wedging in references to the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly Oxfordism) into other articles violates WP:ONEWAY, and I also think it's misclassified as to the particular genre of WP:FRINGE it is. It appears that he's following my edits and reverting them. I've reverted one of them, but I don't want to get in a revert war and would appreciate your perspective before I do anything further. I've notified two others, Verbal and ScienceApologist, to get their opinions. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I am not "following" Tom. I have these pages on my watchlist as I have edited them. In fact, it appears that Tom is trying to delete or reclassify all mentions of the SAQ minority viewpoint from various wikipedia articles which I have edited: [[28]], [[29]], [[30]] and [[31]]. Regarding the first and second links, Historical revisionism and Fringe theory, the regular editors of the HR page had never suggested that that the example was improper in any way, but here is a link to a related discussion where a consensus developed that the SAQ was an example of a Fringe Theory/Historical revisionism [[32]]. And here is a link to a mainstream reference that uses the term "revisionist" in describing the SAQ [[33]] (paragraph 5), and one that uses the same term in reference to authorship questions in general [[34]] (second to last paragraph). Tom is clearly using my edit history, following me around to pages he has never participated in, and reverting my edits. This behavior started after I filed a RFC/u against him. Is this a case of WP:STALK or WP:HARASS? I'd appreciate some input on this. Smatprt (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not planning to take further actions regarding Shakespeare authorship matters. I suggest following the usual steps of WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't say that I blame you. And I apologize for the role I played in your decision making process. I know you tried your best to help. In any case, thanks for responding back so quickly. And best of luck on your endeavors. Smatprt (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

An appeal to reevaluate the current Kim Gu article

Sennen's edit in bold: Also known by his pen name Baekbeom (백범 白凡), he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history and also by some Koreans as an assassin, robber and traitor.

While I agree with the decision, Sennen's current edit is a clear distortion of the original article. This is the sentence he sourced from http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1854.html: Kim Gu was called the 'Assassin, Robber, Traitor' in North Korea prior to his visit to Pyongyang-. This is what he conveniently left out; after which he became 'Patriot Kim Gu'. The insulting comments by North Korea were made when Kim Gu was alive and had fallen out of favor with the communists (poltical enemies at that time). This is not open to interpretation. Cherrypicking a sentence does not prove that he is regarded as an assassin, robber and traitor in modern Korean history. Notice how Sennen completely ignores North Korea's praise, where he is championed as a patriot when he later visits the North Korean capital. And even then, such information is irrevelent to how he is viewed in modern Korean history. His use of "by some Koreans" implies that there is a divide between those who believe him to be those things and those who do not (which there isn't - Korean historiography revere him as a hero). It's an outdated quote, it does not correlate to how the people think of him now.

I urge you to review the content just once more. Akkies (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am frustrated that the discussion at Talk:Kim Gu does not reveal much usage of common sense by the editors. What we have is a slightly scary historical figure, who was revered by some and condemned by others. So far, so good. Just try to compromise on some reasonable language that reflects the sources. If the sources are only in Korean, then try to translate the relevant passages as best you can and see what the other editors think. Surely there are some Korean-language encyclopedias that have summarized the career of Kim Gu? Oftentimes, the usage of encyclopedias as references in Wikipedia is frowned upon, but if you look at what the encyclopedias say, you might get some ideas for how to summarize his career in a neutral way. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be totally fine if the source actually says what Sennen has put forth, but it doesn't. Akkies (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I try to get some 3rd party perspective. Akkies (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please ban Sennen goroshi from wikipedia for breaching rules bu editing every single Korean articles under his own POV, he always argued article should be balance but he's the real troll who edits with his personal opinions. Why wikipedia is helping troll like Sennen goroshi? does Sennen goroshi funds wikipedia?--Korsentry 14:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Korsentry, I refuse to get into any drama on another user's talk page. If you are serious about requesting that I am blocked from editing or you have any suspicions that I have not been blocked due to me financially backing wikipedia, then please take this elsewhere - ANI or wherever you wish. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Avicenna_sis @ 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I think the other editor needs to reach consensus before remove the whole contents of the articles. 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revws (talk • contribs)

The need to get consensus applies to all parties. Please make an effort to discuss, instead of removing his comments from your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the comments to another appropriate place. I don't see such policy that I need his permission in the link you provided. Revws (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I only moved not removed his comments.Revws (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger

Please see the revision history. Jonathansamuel is still active there. UserVOBO (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warriors wearing their socks into battle

Hi, Ed. 2 days ago, a new SPA account named User:DarkHorseSki was created and began repeatedly inserting unsourced content into the Coffee Party USA article. Every edit had the effect of inserting content about an unrelated "Real" Coffee Party possibly run by "Campaign for Liberty" - apparently some sort of Ron Paul offshoot. Anyway, I reported DarkHorseSki for edit warring, and you gave him a short block here. Now up pops brand new account User:JnMalin, who immediately picks up where blocked-DarkHorseSki left off. Worse, he has created an unsourced Real coffee party competing article; redirected Coffee Party disambigs to it, and is now edit warring there, too, against other editors. My first impulse is to file a sockpuppet report and request an article speedy-delete (Category G5 - creations by a blocked user), but I have a feeling those would be futile steps in a battle I'm not looking forward to joining. Have any advice? Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion. I took some action. If there are actual reliable sources which connect this 'new' coffee party to Ron Paul perhaps some material could be added to the Campaign for Liberty article. Then there could be reason to create a redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action, and for the follow-up attention you've given the matter. Apparently to DarkHorseSki/JnMalin, you have done so because you and I have some sort of relationship. (I'll bet you chuckled at that. My perception is that you handle administrative duties evenhandedly, and where there is room for difference in personal opinion, yours has actually run contrary to mine.) Recent comments by the problematic editor today indicate to me that he plans to ratchet up the disruption. He simultaneously said Admins were making up rules as they went along; admitted he will abusively sockpuppeteer; he'll canvass like-minded people to join him in disruption on Wikipedia; and will re-instate previously deleted content without needing to first justify it. I do not share FisherQueen's optimism about where this is heading. I do appreciate your efforts. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD template removed from PP page

An AfD template was removed from Miss Universe 2010 with this edit. The page has since been protected from editing. The deletion discussion appears to be on-going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Universe 2010. Would you mind re-adding the template, if no one else has done so yet? I've made the same request to Cirt, and at the AfD page. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the noticeboard

I don't think that when a banned editor returns without permission to provoke an editor it's fair to impose sanctions on the other party. They added a lot of false warnings, reported me with no real reason (like yesterday, in fact he broke 3RR and twice, not me). If you have questions about his accusations, I am ready to answer those, but I didn't want to address all the points there as it's a specific noticeboard.
You should realize that he had nothing to lose all along and was here to disrupt. I didn't even comment on the misleading way he presented the content dispute. It would send a very wrong message especially in the Eastern European area, if a banned editor could return to provoke, then report others, make serious changes in the most controversial articles without serious discussion etc. He's already banned, he "risked" a fake account only. Squash Racket (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One participant is now blocked as a sock, but I expect this won't be the end of all the Hungarian/Romanian disputes. Let me know if you have any suggestions for settling down this area of disagreement. I still think that a 1RR/day restriction on John Hunyadi and Magyarization is worth considering. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please remove this edit <link removed> from the page history? Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks are usually just reverted, unless they contain non-public identifying information. I have blocked the vandal, and removed your diff link above. If you think that more should be done, write to WP:Requests for oversight. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools

Revws (talk · contribs) is now back from his ban, and has decided the best way to deal with the issue is just to AfD the list page. He failed to put the notice on my Talk page (not a problem as I had the page watch listed), on the AfD as well as beeing the Nom he also added a Delete line. I have placed a comment on the AfD highlighting that I think it is WP:POINTy nom from a WP:SPA, stuck out his "Delete" as the Nom and tagged his comments with the SPA tag. He without a edit sum reverted the changes - I have put them back, however can you please keep a watch on the page.

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Codf1977 not just stuck out the "Delete", but also delete and changed my comments. [35],[36]Obvioulsy, a disruptive behavior. Shouldn't User:Codf1977 be blocked? Revws (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice try but if you look what I did was revert the changes back to a previous version better difs to show would be [37] when I reverted the changes. Any change to the nom text was accidental and not intentional and were changed to the exact words you your self used in a previous version. You are a WP:SPA as your account exists only to edit articles on University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee with the one exception of this edit this morning where you revert an edit of mine for no obviously good reason ! Codf1977 (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977, you don't need to strike out Revws 'Delete' vote. The admin who closes the AfD will be able to figure out the situation. Also, tagging Revws' vote as an SPA is not necessary. You may add any clarifications within your own comment. For instance, you could link to the ANI discussion if you wish. Your vote would be more persuasive if you would discuss the substance of the issue. For instance, does such a list exist for other universities? EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no view either way on the page - I will add more to the comment. I disagree with you over the SPA issue - that is exactly what that tag is for. What about this edit. Codf1977 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Turian

You should check this user out. He edit wars with people, is very rude and if you look on his page...its the same story with user after user. Someone needs to let him know he needs to cut it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.10.3 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your IP has only two edits. I assume this is not the first time you've edited Wikipedia. If you are willing to mention your previous accounts or IPs, I'll follow up on this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Since the situation at the Heidegger article seems to have calmed down, I'd like to try having my talk page unprotected. UserVOBO (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The protection expired on 16 April, so you are all set now! EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

HELP!!

Hey there ED, VASCO here, longtime "no see",

Urgent help needed, please: i asked the chap which has been helping me with vandalism and that "user", user/admin NuclearWarfare, but just discovered he will be on a one-week break.

Could you please read this (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Favorite_vandal) and block the sock vandal? Pretty much like the case of User:Chapecoense - that guy is stubborn to the maximum but in no way a vandal, i guarantee - he has been banned (user/admin Satori Son has pretty adamant in this case), why can't this one be banned too, when he IS a vandal?

Cheers, take care and thank you in advance,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. I don't believe that you've tried to communicate yet with Iklop890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because his talk page is still a red link. Also, if you believe he is a sock, who is the sockmaster? In the case of Pararubbas, he would do distinctive things like remove reference links. What is this guy's signature behavior? EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't understand, Ed, really. The sockmaster? Pararubbas of course! To related matters: i tried to communicate with this "person" until the 10th or so sock, he says "talk to the hand" and writes, in almost two years, ZERO summaries, why should i bother now - also don't know how did you infer i tried to communicate with the individual, i most certainly did not.

He has 20/25 socks now (it is him, believe me!) and, in the last ones, did not remove links or refs always, only occasionally - no moves of the sort with the new sock. However, what he does still, after being asked not to 1,0000000000000 times, is the following: for instance, a club is named (or the article is) S.L. Benfica, he removes dots SL Benfica and creates redirect - also has not done it yet.

Backing my "sentencing" up are the continuing and successful investigations (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive) and the fact that NuclearWarfare has ALWAYS blocked this "person" minutes before receiving my reports, reverting ALL his edits. Not judging your ability to arbritrate man, you also have helped me in the past - and with this vandal - but i don't know what more i can "offer" you. It's him, believe me!!

Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best if you file this as a new SPI report against Pararubbas. I am no longer sufficiently au courant with Pararubbas, and I don't want to start blocking when I can't tell good edits from bad. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okeydokey man, will do. Thanks anyway for the quick replies. Keep it up, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking insults and nothing happends...

Hello, I´m really sorry to bother you, but I remember that some time ago you had a extremely civil way of solving a situation. I need that now... I receved this (see edit summary?), and [38] nothing happends... Because I had been involved in a hot topic discussion, and receved agressive oposition, I had receved a block of one week for saying a bad word in foreign language... That was two months ago, and since then I had been extremely carefull beside oposition, direktor&co., tried to exagerate every word of mine. I am sorry to bother you with this, but I honestly can´t beleve this user is going to escape from it... Regards. :( FkpCascais (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

When there is incivility from both sides, people may tune out. I think that two recent ANI discussions expired with no action, the ones at User:AlasdairGreen27 and WP:NPA & User:FkpCascais. I believe it was correct to take no action in these cases. I am not planning to get involved with this myself. The first of these (in my opinion) does not reflect very well on you, since you alleged some misbehavior by AlasdairGreen27 that did not seem to amount to much. Unless you can find a way to be more calm, and write more concisely, it may be hard for you to persuade people. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I know. Thank you. The first one was very badly written because it was the first one I had ever wrote there. I touth the content is what matters... Anyway, this case is different: I had never been uncivil with the other user, and he has been with me. Until someone doesn´t make a clear warning to them, they will continue to feel privileged, continue with this behavior, I´ll end up in this situation (allways accused of something I did 2 months ago...). I´ll end up guily of reporting... I was blocked 7 days for one word in foreign langauge without even a chance to defend myself... not fair. :( FkpCascais (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Revws

Hi,

Sorry to be a pain but, I am sure you remember blocking Revws (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) on the 15 April 2010 for removing comments from Talk pages - he has just done exactly the same again. Codf1977 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

His comments was to discuss redirecting articles to a deleted article. User:Codf1977 deleted my comments numerous times. Revws (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any occasion where I have removed a talk page comment made by anyone, please retract or provide dif's. Codf1977 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be that Revws removed a comment by Codf1977 here from an article talk page. I encourage him to restore it to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is now moot as 75.2.209.226 restored them on his behalf even though Revws had been editing for over 2 hours today without restoring. I would ask however if you could keep an eye on this editor as he does appear to be making somewhat controversial edits. Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So that IP is a third person, neither you nor Revws, I assume. 'On his behalf' must not be right, because the IP sometimes leaves warnings for Revws. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my choice of words not the best in that case it was meant tongue in cheek comment - the IP is not me. Codf1977 (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: List of publisher codes is OK to use here?

Hi Ed,

I am replying to the message about the ISBN codes you left me (this is, I hope, the right place to answer your question). I am afraid to tell you that I found the publisher codes and 'forwarded' them to wikipedia in good faith. I am not reading blog.openlibrary.org very often, and only had to use the publishing codes once for my own personal use. So I am afraid that I cannot guarantee the save use of the codes given. It seems, though, that the person publishing the codes, used a home made programme to extract the information from online sources. Also, the full publisher list is actually hosted at http://home.us.archive.org/~edward/isbn/list. This might unfortunately not mean that it is necessarily publishable on wikipedia. I am sorry not to be able to help more. Fabrivelas (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock violation of topic ban

I removed his edit, and have commented on his talk page. He'll probably remove it. Let the hammer fall. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a departure like that which proves he wasn't mature enough for this endeavor. I wonder if that's a natural consequence of belief in the Seth Material..... -- Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

He's still at it. Please semi-protect Talk:Seth Material. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Koov

Well there's a name I am sure you haven't heard in a while; neither have I, I must admit. But PakRom64 (talk · contribs) is most certainly another Koov sock...look at the edits to the Romanian topics template. They also took User:Russavia/Lesotho–Russia relations and placed it at Lesotho–Russia relations, without permission, thereby breaching the CC licencing. Can you look into this user. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching, but I don't see anything obvious yet. If past experience is any guide, he will get into some edit wars before long. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Warring?

I do not see any notice of the sort allegedly reported on the page listed and, thus, cannot reply there as directed. The (apparently) alleged "war" was a result of other editors, Merbabu and Bidgee, failing to read the comments regarding edits. Since the edits that were reverted were with respect to "unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material" (specifically to biased selective use of material for the listed sources), I thought the revert policy was not at issue. Reading it more closely it appears that the policy re: excluding revert restrictions may apply only regarding biographies of living people (and if all elements in the exclusion must apply, "libelous" certainly seems problematic with respect to demonyms). There was no intent to violate useful policies, as should have been abundantly clear to Bidgee from the comments on the page in question, Australia, prior to the alleged report (or at least substantially prior to your notice, since the report is not visible on the linked page). Based in the timing of your note on my talk page, it appears that Bidgee reported whatever s/he reported only after the issue was seemingly amicably resolved. Perhaps there was festering dissatisfaction on his/her part that Merbabu's disparagement of the initial edit didn't stick? Such selective reporting seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and, given the context and the clear discussion regarding addition of citations (using an online version of the same dictionary that Merbabu and Bidgee chose to cite) and Bidgee's subsequent disparagement of the readily accessible web version as a source, smacks of bias and attempted retaliation more than anything. It is possible that the report was rescinded since I cannot find it, but please review such alleged incidents more completely before threatening action against one individual. A cursory review may appear to indicate something that simply is not an accurate view of the events. Moretz (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

When I reviewed the case, my impression was that you had technically violated WP:3RR, but that a reasonable discussion was in progress, so there was no reason for an admin to do anything. If either one of my conclusions is wrong, please explain further. If you complain when things are resolved in your favor, what will you do in the other cases? :-) Your edits numbered 2, 3, 4 and 6 (in the original report) are all reverts, and they all happened within 24 hours. By my calculation, that breaks WP:3RR, so another admin would have been justified in blocking you. What am I missing? EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, I was unable to find the report either at the page listed or through a search of the archives (apparently searching for my username doesn't result in a hit), so I had no way of knowing anything regarding the resolution. I was informed that I might wish to respond to a report, so I attempted to do so in the only location available. Apologies if the response here caused any difficulty for you. I won't get into the "justifiable" issue here, as you don't seem to be missing anything :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moretz (talk • contribs) 10:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. If you go to WP:AN3, note there is a box at the upper right called 'Noticeboard Archives.' Click on one of the 'Search' buttons and you are taken to the page Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox/Search. In the box called 'Search 3RR archives' enter 'Moretz.' It gives this search result, which shows the report you were looking for. I didn't know that this worked :-). EdJohnston (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I see the report in that link, but when I click through the search link (just under the "Click here to add a new report" where it says "If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it."), I still get no results. It returns: "No matches found for: Moretz in enpedia - WP:3RR"

That link at the top may be a bad link, though. It redirects to [39] while the link you sent seems to be on the bottom of the page and redirects to [40]. Moretz (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your persistence! That link was indeed not working. I fixed the header of WP:AN3 so it points to the working search tool, not the old one. Another way to see if someone's name has been mentioned on noticeboards (which I use more often) is the 'Whatlinkshere' tool which can be seen on the left side of the screen if you are viewing the person's user page or user talk page. This Whatlinkshere can be restricted to the Wikipedia namespace and any appearance of that person on the noticeboards will show up in the list of results. EdJohnston (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. That "What links here" tool is pretty cool and quite useful. Moretz (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

lagged response

Hi Ed, I just now noticed this inquiry from weeks ago. I apologize for not recognizing and responding while it was relevant. If memory serves, the article in question was the target of an anonymous edit warrior or something -- I'd have to go dig some diffs to give a better answer. My concern was that I had accidentally violated 3RR during the vandal-fighting. I haven't looked at the article since, and assume it's all a moot point now. If I need to do some further investigating, just let me know. Thanks,and sorry again for the delay. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Shakurspeare

Hey could you Userfy the Shakurspeare article. I have a reliable third party source for the release date. I hope to work on the article to make it a good article. I want a userfyed copy of the deleated page just for anything i havent found or can't. I will check with you once i think it is good so it can be moved to the actule page. STAT- Verse 01:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakurspeare for the reasons why the article was deleted before. The problem is WP:CRYSTAL, since there is no convincing evidence that the release of this album will actually occur. All we have are rumors floating around. Do you have new reliable sources independent of the Born Busy record company that discuss the upcoming release? Blog mentions are unlikely to be convincing. At various times people have linked to http://bornbusyrecords.com and http://rapbasement.com, which are not enough. Since the album failed to be released in mid-2009, as predicted, we need to see better quality information. EdJohnston (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a link to HipHopDX article that says the album will be released on June 15th. And i am not asking it to be unprotected im asking for the copy of the Deleted page. STAT- Verse 23:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Heres the link STAT- Verse 23:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't know if hiphopdx.com did any reporting on this story. They might just be reprinting a date they got from a press release. So we don't know if this information is independent of the record company. There is so little info in the deleted version, anything new and reliable that you can find is very likely to be better. If you can find even one reliable source I'll userfy the old article for you. Google for 'Shakurspeare' and you'll see most of what was included in the deleted article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I will look for a relable source. About the release date it was most likly recently announced because they do a weekly release dates page updated and it was the first time Shakurspear had appeared there. STAT- Verse 00:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Born Busy Records has been promising this release for almost a year now. In my opinion, their credibility has suffered. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Dear EdJohnston, I am informing you that I recently reverted the removal of Urdu/Nastaliq scripts by 99.163.128.166 based on our agreement that no Urdu scripts could be added or removed until a consensus was reached at Talk:Bollywood; a discussion concerning this issue is currently going on now, with new users commenting. The articles in which the reverts were made include Saajan, Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...!, Mujhse Shaadi Karogi, and Maine Pyar Kiya. I would have done the same for Karan Arjun, but administrator User:YellowMonkey already undid the vandalism. I also wanted the note that in the reverts, I placed the Urdu/Nastaliq script within a template and corrected the present incorrect script in Maine Pyar Kiya. Thanks for taking the time to read this Mr. Johnston. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR dispute (Homunq / MarkusSchulze)

I responded to your comment on my talk page. The reason I'm commenting here is to ask approximately how long you expect it to be before you take some action on the 3RR? (I understand that my actions are under review too, of course.) It's not a matter of pressure, I just have to decide whether to stay logged in for another couple of hours now, or wait until tomorrow. If you feel that responding to such an inquiry would be inappropriate, I understand. Homunq (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. The only way that progress can occur (in my view) is for at least one of the participants (possibly you) to try to get a real discussion going, with more people. I see you've tried a few things, including WP:3O, but more can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cal Jam II "AGAIN"

Just thought you might want to have some input on This again. Just an FYI. Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 05:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanx for the simi, so I assume it's ok to revert ? Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 16:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is up to the regular editors to decide what to do with the article. If you believe the material is unsourced, and if nobody can make an argument for keeping it on the talk page, take it out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Seth Material

Verbal has now cut the Seth Material article down to one-quarter of its former size. I hope that makes you happy! You were so concerned that I had ownership issues. Well, thanks to you, Verbal now owns the article -- but the difference is that he wants to destroy it and I wanted to develop it. (You're such a hypocrite.)

The two of you must be in cahoots. Verbal picks fights with editors who work on articles he doesn't like, then you side with Verbal (an obvious miscreant) and kick the editors off, and that leaves Verbal free to savage and delete the articles. You and Verbal and Brangifer and Guyonthesubway and 2over0 -- what a nice little band of deletionists you are! Having insinuated yourself into a position of authority, you vandalize Wikipedia from the inside.

With people like you in charge, Wikipedia can't be relied upon as a source of unbiased or accurate information. I'm now dedicated to shutting the site down. My next project: A new web site entitled "How to Vandalize Wikipedia".--ESB60 (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Koov?

Rohil1x (talk · contribs). The account was created a day after the last known sock of Koov (PakRom64 (talk · contribs)) was blocked, to edit the same article (Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens) in the same manner. The username is very similar to those of a number of old Koov's socks (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Koov). What we can see now is probably not enough to prove anything conclusively, but could you please watch it? By the way, I am not sure what is the point of blocking socks of tireless sockpuppeters, probably it would be better to publicize their existence so that the edits by their reincarnations could be easily reverted on sight without any restrictions. Colchicum (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

this diff is a dead giveaway -- look at the edit summary :) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Rohil1x based on Koov-like behavior and edit summaries. Also the sock name starting with 'R' fits into an existing series. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Koov. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Nipsonanomhmata

Hello EdJohnston, some time ago you blocked Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) for revert-warring over the early history of the Olympic Games, and warned him against further tendentious editing [41]. Unfortunately I have to report that he's back at it: same underlying POV issue (but also spawning related side-shows), currently revert-warring at Template:Summer Olympic stadia and Vélodrome de Vincennes, same old arguments, same display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Discussion at Template talk:Summer Olympic stadia. There's also a tangentially related thread at WP:AE (relevant insofar as his Athens Olympics campaign touches on a Balkan topic). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember the supposed Olympic forerunner games in the 19th century, of which he was the only advocate. I assume the consensus you are speaking of was found at Talk:Olympic Games#The Olympic Games Sponsored by Zappas and in the following talk section. Are you proposing that I warn him again under the edit-warring rules, or do you think that AE ought to impose some additional restriction? EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He was not a "supposed" Olympic forerunner. I have proved this time and time again with iron-clad references. But we aren't here to discuss content. Fut Perf's Lack of Good Faith has rubbed off on you too. The word Consensus is banded about when time and time again I have won the support of the consensus through excellent references and citations. I don't appreciate this "put together another lynch mob" approach adopted by Fut Perf. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, the only long-term solution that I personally see for dealing with him is to get him topic-banned. AE can only impose (or maintain) sanctions related to Balkan topics. That's an area that sort of overlaps with the Olympics topic but doesn't properly include it. Personally, I think the renewed edit-warring is disruptive enough to also warrant a renewed block for edit-warring (even below 3RR, based on the blatant tendentiousness), or a deferred block under condition of leaving the topic alone. But I'm a party here, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I permitted to say something here? Fur Perf has regularly demonstrated Lack of Good Faith as far as I am concerned and I have raised the issue for discussion. Fut Perf is overly zealous (so that I don't say aggressive) in following me around and making accusations at the drop of a hat. The usual accusations are mis-citing, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR. None, of which in my opinion are true. I have gone out of my way to provide iron-clad references. All of which are stomped on by Fut Perf. The lack of good faith rubs off on anybody else involved in the discussion and I am regularly faced by what looks and feels like a lynch mob. If anybody made any effort whatsoever to take a serious look at the citations then they might appreciate my contribution. But with Fut Perf's involvement I stand no chance. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to politely recommend. That in future you make the effort to check the track record of those that you "ride shot-gun" with. SeeTrack Record of Future Perfect at Sunrise. Inflaming innocent bystanders to demonstrate how the system is gamed is another of their specialities. And if you are genuinely interested in the history of the Olympics I recommend that you visit the Talk Page of WikiProject Olympics. From what I have seen so far there is nobody on Wikipedia, bar myself, with an adequate understanding of the early modern history of the Olympic Games (not even close). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Race and Intelligence

Hello. I looked at this WP:AN3 and noted that the blocked IP had reverted 5 times and Ramdrake only 4 times. I also reverted the IP once because, as I explained on the talk page, his edits were undue and used a dubious primary source. Captain Occam miscounted for both editors. I've left a more detailed description about this on AN3 with a clarification of the problematic 2nd message that the IP left on the talk page. It might give a further explanation of Ramdrake's reverts of the IP. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope that this case is now closed, so far as admins are concerned. If the IP returns from the block and edits against consensus, we'll cross that bridge then. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Need Semi-Protection

Hi, Ed! I know you remember SkagitRiverQueen (who could forget)? Well, she's resorted to socking, and is using them to edit two of her favorite (and most contended) articles, Charles Karel Bouley and Margaret Clark. I've got an SPI open, but I think both these pages should be protected in the meantime. Now someone calling themselves UrbanCowboy12 has chosen, for their very first article edit on WP, Margaret Clark. What are the odds? Thanks for your time! Doc9871 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected. I agree with you that UrbanCowboy12 looks fishy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed! You think I should add the "buckaroo" to the report? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on the 3RR Page

I have a retired notice as I have become rather fed up with wikipedia, among other things a certain lack of support when faced with troublesome editors. Yesterday was the first time in a while I'd done anything much in article space, immediately I had an IP editor undoing everything I was trying to do and not responding to an attempt to use the talk page, his only response being a series of bad faith attacks. I was trying to discuss the matter, so the presumption that because I clear my talk page I'm not amenable to discussion was bad faith on your part. I've tried to move on from a lot of personal problems and general grief and being truthful I really did not need such a response from you.

And I stopped the edit war by going to the talk page, I was completely unaware that the other editor had filed a frivolous complaint, whilst continuing to edit war. I appreciate admins on 3RR can be busy but please was that comment really necessary?

Its the first article I've had a go at and yet immediately I've had the images I uploaded deleted, co-incidentally the very same day they were uploaded on commons and any change I've made reverted by an IP editor who isn't engaging on the talk page and is making bad faith attacks. At the same time a series of articles on my watch list, all of a sudden a newly registered user makes a series of controversial POV edits, edit wars to impose those changes and makes personal attacks alleging racism and bias. Elsewhere I was subject to a long campaign of allegations of racism and bias until I finally snapped and was then censured for doing so. This has all the hallmarks of a campaign to intimidate an editor into leaving wikipedia altogether and once again it seems no support or help. Thanks. Justin talk 11:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the IP is a sock, you could file at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. I am afraid that continuing to edit with a 'retired' template does make you vulnerable to mockery, even if some other editors are not behaving well. Since I notice many reverts in your recent history, you should be prepared for a bit of turbulence. EdJohnston (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to review those reverts and if you have any concerns I would be happy to discuss them. There were a lot of vandalism issues yesterday, as I said it seems anything I touched there was an edit war with either an IP or a dormant account. I'm not sure an SPI would work as I note the IP was dynamic and given the recent arbcom case an SPI could be spun as harassment or fishing. Justin talk 12:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I did ask if you would review those reverts, do you have any concerns about them? I have held off from making further edits on those articles in the mean time. Justin talk 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please continue your work. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cher

Thanks for the semi-protection. It didn't occur to me to request page protection on this one, although I had wished for it. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I know you semi-protected this page because of the dynamic IP and his edits. The editor suddenly "discovered" he had a username on Wikipedia (VT-88 and went to WP:AN/I to compain about the unfairness of it. He made a token effort to d"iscuss the edits last night, but returned tonight and has resumed edit warring over the content. I wrote a rationale on the article talk page about the content he keeps removing and he continues to revert, without bothering to respond on the article talk page or even giving a valid rationale in the edit summary. I just posted a 3RR warning on his talk page and I thoroughly expect him to continue. He combines two separate recording contracts that Cher had for the US and the UK branches of Warner Bros., removes the Warner Bros. artist page link and her officially sanctioned fan club site. He has given no good rationale for doing so, though on the first revert, he put the misleading summary of "combined labels, removed odd links". The external links are valid links and the contracts are separate recording contracts, which means when he combines them, it creates a false entry that says she only worked for one company. Can you help here? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Vt-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked by another admin per WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive changes on Talk:Elvis Presley

Just a question. There was a request on the administrators' noticeboard concerning my allegedly disruptive editing on Elvis Presley. Now one of my opponents in this case, User:PL290, made massive changes on the Elvis talk page in order to support his personal opinion that Nichopoulos, Presley's main physician (the source I have used for my contribution), is not a reliable source. See [42], [43], [44], [45]. This means that important threads discussing the topic relating to the request and including opinions by users Baseball Bugs, Onefortyone, meco and Colonel Warden are no longer part of Talk:Elvis Presley. I do not think that this is in line with Wikipedia policy. Onefortyone (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked on what 141 is specifically referring to... but there's that word "opponent" again. He still thinks this website is Duke Nukem or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This remark by user Baseball Bugs is very interesting, especially in view of the fact that PL290 and Baseball Bugs are the users who made false accusations against me on the administrators' noticeboard. It seems as if they are playing a false game in order to harass me. It should be noted that, in the arbitration cases of 2005 and 2006, there were similar activities against me by some users, among them a sockpuppet of a hardbanned user. In the very first case, the arbcom was not aware of this (that's why I am on probation since 2005), but later the arbcom more carefully analyzed the case and related subsequent cases. Consequently, my opponents were banned from Wikipedia. Onefortyone (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet again with that "opponents" stuff, as well as vague accusations with no diffs provided. I don't care if you get indef'd or not. Others might, though. That choice is in your hands. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of a talk page is supposed to require consensus. If it appears that several people object to the change, then an WP:RFC or a regular discussion could be opened to see if the refactoring is appropriate. I've looked at the ANI thread also. It appears that some of the editors at Talk:Elvis Presley became annoyed at Onefortyone because of the death-by-constipation argument and the allegations about Elvis being homosexual. Something like an RFC could be conducted to decide that such matters could be put on ice for a while. For a precedent, look at the top of Talk:Evolution. It includes a FAQ section where the settled outcomes of some past controversies are listed, so they will not be constantly reopened on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with 141 is that as soon as he thinks things are quiet, he re-inserts that same nonsense into the article, thus reviving the edit war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs for that? EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The article page history reveals it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the ANI thread is that it's full of 'atmospherics'. If you want admin action, it helps if you can document a serious, recent problem (e.g. since April 1) with actual quotes of the statements on Talk that you think are inappropriate or POV-pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I raised the issue at ANI to seek advice on what's to be done. 141 has been relentlessly pushing these fringe/tabloid theories for 5 years now. They were pretty close to issuing a topic-ban, and then it stopped dead in the water, so apparently no one much cares. I don't have a particularly strong stake in that article. He accused us of being members of "Elvis fan clubs", which is too silly to take seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

141, along with his apparently naive new buddy Meco, have raised the false claim that part of the megillah on the talk page has been censored or deleted or something. No, it's simply been collapsed, as it's basically an endless loop. 141 was told 5 years ago, over and over, and via an arbcom decision, that the Elvis-was-gay stuff is not appropriate for the article. Despite that, he's still beating that drum, as recently as yesterday. That's trolling. He may be sincere, but it still amounts to trolling. As with the banned user Pioneercourthouse, who fought for several years trying to post a single (and inappropriate) sentence into an article. The one thing I'll give 141 is that he's not producing hundreds of socks the way PCH did, other than occasionally editing while logged out (his second IP address node is 141, so that pretty well gives it away), but it's not really socking, as he makes it clear who he is. But his continual use of the term "opponents" is also a giveaway of how he views wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor who has actually looked at the book says the ex-doctor in fact does not make the claims that 141 keeps citing him on. If so, then this megillah should soon be over and done with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dougieb

So you warned him about his former edits, and here is his response at 1946, and then four min later. I don't actually know what to do, I am trying my best to remain civil while being told that the article that I have had to defend from Sharron Angle supporters is drivel, crap, complete crap, called an idiot in so many words.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This editor is on thin ice at present. Note that an admin did question an earlier version of the article on grounds of WP:UNDUE, which is why I'm cautious about sanctions. If D. reveals through further actions that he can't edit this article neutrally, consequences may folllow. Your own effort to remain civil is worthwhile. If the article becomes overwhelmed by POV-pushing, an extended period of full protection may be considered, with all changes needing consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag

Seems to me the user has developed a personal grudge against me, since you are the other administrator that has had some involment in the matter i would like to have him out of future discussions since he seems to be interested in just banning me, he's way to involved to be imparcial.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to find some references that support your view at Talk:Dorgon. Surely some noted historians have gone on record as to whether Dorgon (1612-1650) should be referred to as an emperor or not. The Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes his role thus:

...prince of the Manchu people of Manchuria (present-day Northeast China) who played a major part in founding the Qing (Manchu) dynasty in China. He was the first regent for the first Qing emperor, Shunzhi... [46]

In other words, they do not refer to Dorgon as Emperor. Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if agreement cannot be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Which unblock template to use

Did I use the wrong one? Regardless of the situation, I want to give B9HH the proper information for getting unblocked, & I'll readily admit I'm not always letter-perfect on these notices. Do you want to change it or should I? -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now! The text of the {{unblock reviewed}} tells the person that their unblock is declined, so we don't want to start him off that way. When responding, the admin changes one template into the other (if he is declining), or adds a {{request accepted}} if he is granting the unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew there was a specific template to use, but I didn't know the name. IMHO, what would tremendously help Wikipedia is a tool to help users find specific templates. (And since there's a lot of them I use so seldom, I can spend 15-20 minutes looking for the correct one -- & still not find it.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of anonymous sockpuppetry

I'm sorry to bother you yet again. The same user, Corticopia, is again abusing anonymous IP to prevent being effectively blocked for disrupting the article Newly industrialized country. I urge you to semi-protect the page. This is again out of control. Thank you in advance for you kind response. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've semiprotected the page. I hope that all parties will make more extensive use of the talk page. Seeing the reasons for the changes would make it easier to see which edits are in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I just want to point out the fact that while Corticopia was in "vacations" nobody disrupted the article. He's kinda biased about the idea of Turkey not being geopolitically an European country, so he objects the table in the article. Just take a look at Corticopia's edit pattern and you will see he had been involved in uncivility and edit wars in articles about Turkey and Cyprus, and Mexico. Also, he did the same edit war in the same article weeks ago. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)

Hi Ed,

I recall last year you helped deal with a disruptive editor over the Diplomatic Missions of Taiwan article. Since you know a bit about these articles perhaps you could provide me with your opinion. Another editor - well meaning, but a bit stubborn - is claiming that the SADR has "General Delegations" in several countries, where I know no such representation exists. The references he provides appear suspicious (including one page my browser states is an attack page), and he has even later said he wasn't sure they were General Delegations but acted as if the terminology was unimportant. For the integrity of these pages, particularly for largely unrecognised states like the SADR, such terminology carries significant weight. Anyhow, if you could review the edit war that is going on in this article, as well as discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HCPUNXKID, and give some guideance to both our views and conduct. Thanks! Kransky (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You've taken some reasonable steps. I would have thought that a content WP:RFC would be the obvious beginning, but you've launched a WP:RFC/U already. Notice that the RFC/U may be deleted unless User:Aquintero82 attempts to resolve the dispute himself by contacting HCPUNXKID. EdJohnston (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I pledge for some type of arbitration in this issue, I try to reach a consensus with Kransky, but it seems imposible. I can't believe in good faith when there are two sizes for two articles who both are in the same category (unrecognized countries). That's not balanced or fair. The attitude of that user deleting information instead of requiring citations (but only in that page, not in others) seems to be clarifying to me from the beginning. For him, what it's accepted on one page it's reverted in the other (that's not a personal opinion, it's an ascertainable fact.). So, I can only ask for an neutral arbitration in this matter. I apologize if the tone seems aggressive, but I'm a bit fed up of this attitude. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't know that the link I provide Kransky was an "attack page", but it's clearly the official SADR page (www.rasdstate.info, in Arabic) as the old page (www.rasd-state.ws) has been hacked by some Moroccans and now links to the CORCAS.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your name in the history of the article's talk page. (I see that someone else copied your comments from elsewhere). Feel free to present your arguments there. WP:Dispute resolution offers a number of ways to advertise the problem so that more editors can express an opinion. Even if Kransky still won't agree with you, you'll have a chance to persuade others of your position. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Australisian

Looks like he went ahead and broke 3RR. Will you be blocking him? And/or should I file a 3RR on him? Or is article protection the sole result this time? Yworo (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you only semi-protected the article against IP edits. I'll go ahead and file a 3RR report on Australisian. Yworo (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I now see that Australisian proceeded to do a fourth revert at Economy of the United Kingdom *after* I had warned him that he'd only made a narrow escape from sanctions. He is blocked 24 hours as well. A word to the wise is not always sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth! Yworo (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bauman Moscow State Technical University

I have not broken 3RR, I reverted only three times. The other party, on the other hand, not only brought here an edit war from other project, but reverted me four times ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period."). Removing a tag without any good reason for it is also a form of vandalism. RafaAzevedo ^msg 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I just had a quick look at this, and am not involved in any way. User:RafaAzevedo is correct - the article is not referenced, and hence adding {{unreferenced}} is quite legitimate. If you look at the article history, it is obvious that interwiki stalking and harrassment is occurring here, and what User:RafaAzevedo has done is reverting the actions of what can only be called vandalism on the part of the other party - it is NOT POV that the article is unreferenced! It is in fact not unreferenced. I think a warning, and perhaps a short block, to the other editor involved is warranted. WP:STALK can not be tolerated. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I remain convinced that counting the reverts is the right thing to do. Adding a tag to an article that deserves one is not listed as one of the exceptions to 3RR in WP:3RR. (Whoever breaks 3RR by changing a tag is vulnerable to sanctions, whether the tag is right or wrong). The term 'vandalism' does not apply here. If there is some kind of vendetta going on, you are welcome to collect diffs to show that. In this case, finding sources for the article can probably be done in 15 minutes, so admins are unlikely to treat this as an important grievance that needs a lot of analysis by us. (I already suggested a reference here at User talk:RafaAzevedo). EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What good would diffs in Portuguese from ptwiki would do for users who don't understand the language? It is obvious the editor only did that because I 'dared' to include the tag in "his" translation of the article in ptwiki; I actually included one diff of the edit war he was waging on the same article in ptwiki in the request, you must have missed it. RafaAzevedo ^msg 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As for your suggestion to "check WP:Vandalism if you believe that the vandalism policy gives carte blanche to restoration of tags", I did and indeed found the following passage over there: "Abuse of tags: This includes removal of extremely-long-standing 'policy' and related tags without forming consensus on such a change first." RafaAzevedo ^msg 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that mention in WP:VANDAL. But MachoCarioca's removal of an {{unsourced}} tag that you placed only two minutes earlier is not removing an 'extremely-long-standing tag.' Whether the tag should remain or not is a matter for editor consensus, which is normally formed on the article's talk page. Since finding references should be simple, I am not sure why people are continuing to fight this one, instead of just doing the work. Neither of you has been blocked recently on enwiki and it should be to your advantage to show yourself to be constructive here. My limited research on the Portuguese wiki shows lots of blocks of MachoCarioca and that you yourself are up to five blocks in 2010. So I'm not interested in pursuing a cross-wiki stalking case. The phrase "Guerra de edições improdutiva" used by the Portuguese admin does sound apt for this case. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the maintenance of an {{unsourced}} on an article with 0 (zero) souces is obviously not something to be "determined by consensus", it is something merely dictated by common sense. If an article doesn't have any sources, it is by definition unsourced, simple as that.

As for the source you pointed out in my talk page, I am also not sure why you didn't put it there in the first place, instead of merely "pasting" its link in my page. RafaAzevedo ^msg 22:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

EdJohnston - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Administrator EdJohnston for his tireless work in keeping Wikipedia a fair, safe site to spread knowledge. Your hard work is recognized not only by me, but by all those you have supported. Thank you. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And, observe the disruption caused by this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.124.5 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Documenting the WP:ENGVAR vandalism

Hi, almost all of the IPs I noted are listed in the two ANI reports[47]. Also this project page history[48] associated with the editor lists a large number of IP's, almost all were (and are still[49]) doing WP:ENGVAR edits. The last editor post here[50] list some more IPs. I will probably post a WP:SPI soon if someone else doesn't beat me to it. MrFloatingIP (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars continue at Tablo

The user:Rohmann, whom you cautioned about repeated reverting and edit warring, is still at it. He once again removed the documented citation that Tablo went to Stanford. He reverted it at 20:15, 8 June 2010, within minutes of my posting it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I Pakapshem: Block evasion

If you still remember him, his block period recently expired and now he is creating a number of problems on Albanian related articles. I've noticed that he evaded his block here during his 6 months block, editing with his ip adress.Alexikoua (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I fixed a link in your post. The ANI thread will provide a chance for you to raise any new concerns about I Pakapshem's behavior. Though his past behavior gives little reason for optimism, we may need more time to see if can follow our policies now that his block has expired. I have not been following the Albanian/Greek disputes lately, but I assume that WP:AE is one place where long-term behavior issues in that area can be taken if an abusive pattern is seen. EdJohnston (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. However, it seems that things are going too fast according to him. He filled an endless report at wp:ani Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_about_Athenean, creating another mess.Alexikoua (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am worried by the new WP:ANI, which suggests continued WP:BATTLE thinking by I Pakapshem. I'm still convinced that the best place to sort this out is WP:AE, since it is relatively immune to the piling-on of involved editors. Also the admins who make decisions there are experienced in handling ethnic wars. With his latest behavior I Pakapshem is shooting himself in the foot, but people with a strong enough grievance usually don't care. The IP edits that you mention above don't seem to be a big deal. We don't know the reasoning for why Moreschi only imposed a 6-month block on I Pakapshem, and not an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed you seem to thinking that I am showing battle mentality yet you kind seem to not notice the fact that Alexikoua is doing the same thing, by reporting me here and at WPI:ANI, by "politely" warning me about making perfectly legal edits, by making uncivil and disruptive comments at my WP:ANI report about Athenean and in general exhibiting the same arrogant, disruptive, and uncivil behavior that Athenean exhibits. I suggest that you investigate things like this further, before making comments that are clearly biased. Both Alexikoua and Athenean are on 1rr restrictions, and Athenean just as recently as 3 month ago was unblocked by "agreement" to tread more carefully. --I Pakapshem (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What is concerning is why should the Greek editor, Alexikoua, be worried that the Albanian related articles are being edited by an Albanian, when no Albanian is complaining about it. That statement seems to assume that Albanians can't probably touch Albanian articles.
I think it is a good report and I supported it. Far from sanctioning the complaining party, an admin should look at the report first. I am not sure about the sanction asked, that has to be decided by an admin, but I do support the report. User:Athenean has made many disruptions to the Balkans through inappropriate comments, through baiting Albanian newbies, several times unjustly reporting them, harassing them continuously, and getting them out of Wikipedia. I have been one of his preferred victims in the past. I don't even know why I am still around with what I have had to deal with. It is not normal that the Albanian wikiproject has so few members and so many Albanian articles seem to have initially been edited exclusively by users that have been subsequently banned. I need to work on too many articles now, because a Wikiproject with 3000 articles has only 2-3 active wikipedians, and its maintenance and improvement is very unlikely if we have the Greeks continuously touching Albanian articles and writing exclusively on the ancient Greece history part of it and have all southern Albania settlements written in Greek characters right in the lead when there is no Greek there. And using bad references. If I Pakapshem has spent his 6 months collecting evidence on what Athenean has done that means he really wants to improve this project by trying to avoid that other Albanians have his own fate. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 23:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I Pakapshem would be more credible if he would actually improve articles, using sourced content. When he returns to the same old ethnic war after six months, bringing a truckload of fresh ammunition, it is hard to see his participation as a benefit to the encyclopedia. Is it of vital importance that the Greek names of some Albanian towns should be removed? Can't he find anything more constructive to do? It seems to me that you, Sulmues, offered him some advice on topics that he might work on, in a recent message on his talk. Perhaps he'd consider taking some of that advice. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What fresh amunition are you talking about? I am just editing things that are not verifiable that greek editors have put there. I am not doing anything illegal. What's constructive and what's not is very subjective. Greek editors seem to be extremely discontent with the fact that I am editing their tendentious unverifiable edits, so they report me about some useful edit I made two months ago hoping that through technicalities they can get me banned once again, so they can be free to edit the articles as they wish. How am I supposed to respond to this? Who really is showing the battle mentality here? It is Athenean and Alexikoua that reported me first.--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(after 2 edit conflicts)I'll try to collaborate with him in writing a couple of new articles if he wants to. The question of why I Pakapshem's editing is particularly focused on alternative names provides insight to the issue, but an equal question would be this: why are the Greek editors also focused so much on adding Greek names in Albanian cities? It takes two to edit-war and "battle" EdJohnston not just one, one user can't edit-war against himself obviously. It's a two-way thing:maybe some consider I Pakapshem's report unconstructive, but is it that unconstructive? There are too many difs in that report (so far I've just checked about 1/4 of them) to be ignored without any consideration at all. Would it it be constructive to consider it as such without even reviewing its content? Heated and provocative comments wherever they originate from aren't constructive, so we should examine that report as any other report and someone uninvolved should make a decision. I decided not to make any further comments on it in order to make the task of the admin who will review it easier.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm sorry but I don't thing that a 2 days experienced user can have a good picture of all this mess. The case is clear: Pakapshem is an EMBARASSMENT in this community. Already two administrator wonder (Fut. Perf. above and Edjohnston [[115]]) why he has not received his indef ban yet.Alexikoua (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)" I hope you won't be taking anything that somebody like Alexikoua who insults people blatantly in capital letters in an ANI, seriously Ed. --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (June 2010)

I did not engage in any edit warring. The editor who reported me is a vandal who likes to make false accusations with no basis in reality because he wants to control all the articles on Wikipedia. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Thank spam!

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

CSK refers to a popular brand of Chennai Super KIngs

Ive been constantly trying to redirect CSK to Chennai Super Kings because the IPL franchise is abbrievated as such.The Indian Premier League has been very popular throughout world wherehas the CSK Group is'nt.Iv been also trying to lead the page directly to its Diambiguation page but unsuccessful in my attempts.Try to understand my point of view and please advice me if you are'nt satisfied with it.

You are right about me not using the discussion forum and thanks to your suggestion.

The Chennai Super Kings has a longer article and is relatively more foccused by its abbrieviation.Please lead the page directly to its disambiguation if you feel like

--A.arvind.arasu (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection - List of diplomatic missions of the SADR

I request the unproctection of the article, on basis that all the rest of DMBC of unrecognized countries articles contains representation offices (see [[51]],[[52]],[[53]] & [[54]]). As they are entities on the same status (unrecognized countries), I can't see the reason for making a difference between this article and the rest. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the matter remains unresolved.

HCPUNXID is wanting to list a handful of Polisario Front representatives as "diplomatic missions" of the Sahawari Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). The sources for this information are not entirely reliable, and for those representatives whose bona fides can be confirmed, they appear to be individuals representing political movements rather than more established entities representing states.

In contrast, the "representative offices" of Taiwan, TRNC and Palestine are, for all intents and purposes, diplomatic missions of states. For political reasons they are not described as embassies or consulates, but rather use less officious monkiers.

I have explained this reasoning to HCPUNXKID on many occasions. He does not accept this line of reasoning. As a compromise solution I have recommended that he list Polisario Front representatives in a separate article. He is yet to accept this.

I am reluctant to support a change in policy to how diplomatic mission by country articles are managed. I doubt there would be sufficient consensus for the idea of equating the representative network of a country of 23 million (Taiwan), or a state with a strong international profile (Palestine) to that a small insurgency group.

Kransky (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That "small insurgency group" as you refer to them (showing clearly your partisan & biased view) mainteins the 2nd most recognized "unrecognized state", only below Palestine, & above the rest: Taiwan, Kosovo, TRCN, etc... You say "..they appear to be individuals representing political movements rather than states". Why do you say that?. Because they are members of Polisario Front?. Well, tell me how many Palestinian representatives are not members of the PLO, please. I bet no one. Also, categorizing the official SADR web as a "not entirely reliable" is funny. I suppose that for that same reasons the TRCN, Kosovo, Nagorno-Kharabaj, etc... webs are not reliable sources. It's curious also that you mention that other countries have that name (representative office) instead of consulate of embassy because of political reasons. Reading you, it seems that the SADR is an exception to that, when it's a clear example. If you see the representative offices of the SADR , the vast majority are based on European countries that doesn't recognize the SADR. Why?. Mostly because of political pressures from Morocco and allies (Remember that Morocco is economically & politically the Maghreb country closest to the EU). Also, the only two non-European countries with representations are Lybia (first backer of the Polisario, now important political & economical relations with Morocco, Maghreb country) & Syria (Arab country, Arab League has always supported Morocco against SADR). If that's not political reasons...

As I said before, I haven't been told with a logic reason for making that difference between one "unrecognized country" and the rest, being the only expection of the group. After all this, I can only see the position of user:Kransky as a blocking for avoiding the inclusion of that information on the article, for obscure reasons (I could understand it if your attitude was equal on the other articles, wich is not the case). The last line you wrote shows clearly your intentions, as you talk about demographics (what do have to do with this issue?) and try to belittle Polisario/SADR. After all that I have to believe that you are neutral? If this wasn't a serious issue, I would laugh. As I said before, if rules are for all, as long as they're on the same category, they must be applied to all, not only for some, according to someone beliefs.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the following reference in the List of diplomatic missions of Nagorno-Karabakh article: "Nagorno-Karabakh Travel Guide". If you can find references of the same quality for the offices of the SADR, showing that they issue visas for example, that would be persuasive. I notice another example: http://www.sre.gob.mx/acreditadas/embajadas/sah.htm, which shows the host government (Mexico) acknowledging a local representative office of the SADR. This also seems convincing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out List of diplomatic missions of Nagorno-Karabakh. I did not know it existed, and I will seek to have it deleted.

A general policy we use is that we only have DMBC articles for countries that are recognised by at least one other universally-recognised country. Otherwise we would end up with all sorts of microstates and other odd entities that do not fit the description of a Montevideo Convention country included. I have no problems with the SADR being included on the list because it does enjoy some recognition; my problem is the listing of representative offices of the Polisario front as "diplomatic missions". Kransky (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruption policy question

Thanks for the advisement at the 3RR noticeboard. The advice does raise some questions for me, however. (But, I'll understand if you're too busy to advise any further!)

A problem I have encountered of late is that there seems to be a much lower burden of proof to delete material, than there is needed to initially include material. I suppose this problem has really only reached a level of becoming contentious because multiple RfC's and noticeboards have failed to attract much outside attention to these particular articles; and thus, there has generally been a failure to build any respectable consensus. The problem is not so much that cited information is being deleted, but rather that cited information is being deleted with no real objection other than "I DONT LIKE IT" and "I agree with the other editor who said 'I DONT LIKE IT'". Perhaps you can review my (now-closed) request for advice and opine as to what steps could have been pursued when the talk page failed to establish consensus and RfC's have largely been ineffective at attracting outside attention? Thanks if you can help me out with a few specific pointers, but please don't feel obligated. BigK HeX (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins can't force people to participate in RfCs. But unless discussion winds up happening somehow there is no basis for deciding what should remain in the article. If people keep reverting without discussion then long-term full protection has been known to work. I.e., no change can be made without using {{editprotect}} to request it, and a passing admin will make whatever change has consensus. Another option is to place the article concerned under a WP:1RR, which can be done at a noticeboard if there is constant warring taking place, and not enough talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightenment! BigK HeX (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... a perfect case-in-point about what I referred to as a "lower burden of proof." How does one deal with edits such as this one, when the editor is persistent? This edit did not come with a talk page comment and certainly no consensus, and really seems to be a disruptive "I DON'T LIKE IT" more than anything else. I'd guess he's slightly outnumbered by editors who would prefer the cited information to stay intact, but outside of reversions, it seems that there has to be some mechanism to deal with edits that are potentially problematic, such as this one (without resorting to wider-ranging solutions, such as page protection). Assuming that this edit does boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is there a specific course of action that could lead to admonishment for a specific editor in this type of situation? BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

IPL Redirect

Dear Ed,

Its the second time im writing to you on a related topic as well.Let me inform you that the Indian Premier League is the biggest cricketing event throughout the world.Within 3 leagues of commencement it has surpassed the Cricket World Cup itself.Its destined to be the world's premier sporting event and its often abbrievated as the IPL.So,should'nt this tournament which has massive popularity over the other abbrievations.

If you keenly read on the articles that are presided within the article you get to realise its significance and potential.I strongly feel that just the way Champions league redirects to UEFA Champions League, NBA to National Basketball Association, IPL must be also redirected to Indian Premier League.

My strong opinion is that, IPL be automatically redirected to the Indian Premier League, and to make amends you may create a otheruses section within the page itself.

Indian Premier League is a sporting event watched by over billions fans throughout India and quite popular worldwide.However Its well known by its abbrievation rather than its official term.There are thousands who try to visit the page and gather information while the disambiguation page just confuses them.Ive been one of the victims myself.

Plz understand things from the neutral point and with acknowledgement to your abilities and experience do put the league as the first preference and the rest below.Im quite new to wikipedia and might have commited mistkes unknowingly or without experience.But i know what im doing and try to give my best!So dont report me for blocking everytime you find something wrong!Instead write to me and discuss for the purpose of my contribution.Ive been contributing geniunely to some articles that many find use of!Everyone makes mistakes and so do i!I have my sincere regrets for them.

--A.arvind.arasu (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to persuade others that Indian Premier League is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The safest way to do this is to open a WP:Requested move and see if others agree. An admin can assist with whatever decision is reached. I urge you to not try to implement any change yourself, due to the number of recent mistakes which have occurred. Inexperience cannot be an excuse forever. EdJohnston (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NEXTBIGTHING. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mail

You have a bit. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

3O, not RFC

Thanks again for giving me advice. The editor who thought he had grounds for accusing me of something with regard to one article (grounds that, as I expected, were judged to be non-existent) has since found his attention with regard to that article taken up not by me but by another who is working very capably on it, so I have had no occasion to make a Request for Comment, as you suggested. But a dispute about reversions has arisen between him and me on another page. For this I think your suggestion would be to ask for a Third Opinion, and I have done so. Just for your information and with renewed thanks for your interest. Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the large reverts that you and LoveMonkey are doing at East-West Schism. It is doubtful that either of you can claim any consensus for your changes with a straight face. If this continues, an admin might decide to place the article under full protection. It's good that you requested a WP:3O, but the section is not titled in a neutral way. The section title where you are asking for a 3O is Talk:East–West_Schism#After more mistakes Lima.2FEsoglou continues to edit war. Can I suggest that you temporarily withdraw your 3O request? Try starting over by creating a new section on the talk page, that does not refer to anyone's behavior in the section title. Ask the question in a less puzzling manner. For instance 'Should Cassian's teaching be referred to as Semipelagianism?' if that's what's really in dispute. Then do a new 3O pointing to the new talk section. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for commenting about my 3rr suggestion. I hope you understand it was made in good faith, even if we disagree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Off2riob

He can't see a violation, apparently. I'm uninvolved and just happened to stumble across this issue, but I'd just block him already. Textbook 3RR violation, refusal to accept it, Twinkle abuse etc... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You blocked me

But you don't allow e-mail to discuss. So I have had to go to a friend's and use their computer to explain that I didn't break WP:3RR. I edited the article in question. I have stopped editing the article because I was afarid of continuing a nonsensicle edit war. Others are now making their points. Please lift the block as I have a few edits I need to make this evening after the USSF D2 games have finished. -- Walter Görlitz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.138.34 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please lift the block as I have a few edits I need to make this evening after the USSF D2 games have finished." Seriously, dude? Metallurgist (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Görlitz update

It appears he is using an IP now. Updated info. Metallurgist (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Koov

Rohilbx (talk · contribs) Colchicum (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. I waited to see what he was up to, but then I saw him create a copvio article at Palestine–People's Republic of China relations. Not a good sign. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback without template

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Truthinwiki2010 has been blocked indef by another admin for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear ED

On the page MVDDS dispute Mr Kirpatrick ad again false informations, i have add some links to the right pages from sources FCC USA and lawyers and abouit the right Hypercable story.

If you need to know the right story please see my reverted changes and our pages: http://www.hypercable.fr/ and the full story on reliable sources : http://www.hypercable.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=12&lang=fr

Best Regards Jean-claude Ducasse jcducasse@hypercable.fr

Please Take note that the user JeanClauduc is not me but my renegade son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.190.10 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Who are we?

SARL M / M / D / S Hypercable, founded in 1985, operates from 1986 to 2007, through companies licensed its patent for the concept and brand Hypercable.

These patents filed in 1987 by the inventor of this system of Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) system, called "Satellite Horizontal" better known by the acronym MVDDS are in compliance with all standards evolving around the standard DVB-S / S2 / HS ETSI EN 300-748.

Hypercable late 2007, developer, systems integrator and operator radio communications, electric, reclaimed its exploitation of its trademarks and patents and has mainly focused and dedicated to the creation of meshed Ethernet networks for Very High Speed setting up innovative applications of video-Protection Multi-Videoconferencing and Mobile Video Security Radio.

Operator and cooperative dedicated to the Ministry of Interior and local communities in order to establish IP networks to Very High-speed, highly secure, Hypercable endeavored to deploy systems consistent with sustainable development and qualified green radio because of their virtually no impact on theelectro.

These performances are the result of intelligent integration of OEM robust and tough, associated with concepts of antennas "stealth" armor (Stealth) and specific interfaces designed by Hypercable.

M/M/D/S Hypercable a systems developer of broadband wireless solutions at very high speed, scalable, hybrid, very large capacity, is also an operator atypical, whose activities are mainly focused in the following areas:

   *
     Cooperative Technical Operator of your radio frequency bands, manager of radio licenses WiMax-BLR-FH for community and institutional stakeholders in a cooperative mode, sharing and spreading the costs of operating on a territorial boundary between user customers.
   *
   *
     Operator said ARCEP public networks in all ranges ISM open for this purpose. (WiFi & Hyperlan) in technical standards tightened.
   *
   *
     Operator said ARCEP networks in the ISM lines open for that purpose, but still in use and reserved exclusively for government organizations and say this in the right-Technical and secure these organizations. (Wirake - Mobirake).

   *
     Operator said ARCEP networks in the frequency bands subject to licensing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.190.10 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC) 

About the ANI discussion

Thanks for your message. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your words, and if so I apologise, but with edits such as this I was writing with a mind more to the original topic of the discussion, i.e. the unsupported hostile comments about other editors which remain on Zlykinskyja's talk page, not the proposal to adjust her general sanctions or protect the page. The current discussion appears to be the latest in a long line of debates concerning this user's actions, which I have not participated in and which are of less importance to me than the immediate issue of the unsupported comments.

The fact is that no reverts have been performed to remove this offensive content — instead, the remarks (which also disparage others) are being left to stand. This user finds the time to revert reasonable requests from named parties, such as can be seen here, but not her own unreasonable attacks on other users to whom she objects. As a number of commentators have affirmed, an uninvolved editor will have to excise such content, and the thread is currently marked "Unresolved" to this end. Frankly, the talk page appears to be more a theatre for WikiWar than a venue for collegial discussion, and the omnipresence and immutability of all the bile within means that the situation is becoming more and more ridiculous as long as the page remains untouched. SuperMarioMan 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

People may differ as to which comments they consider to be attacks. Do you want to make a draft of what you would allow to remain on User talk:Zlykinskyja? EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, where to start? The current talk page includes 24 sections. Sections number 1 and 22 include blatant soapboxing and (in the case of the latter) unfounded allegations regarding other users. To use your advice, I won't attempt to list what fellow editors individually regard as attacks, but personally I find this statement outrageously short-sighted: "Yet someone apparently [SuperMario], went behind my back and deleted my post/notice, so that the closing administrator never knew about the proposed substitution." This concerns a recent AfD discussion on the subject of Amanda Knox, which concluded with the redirection of the separate Knox article back into Murder of Meredith Kercher. I removed a "notice" posted by Zlykinskyja which was utterly irrelevant to the debate and unfounded in its accusations, an action that was remembered (but with an rather short and inaccurate memory) in the above statement from her talk page. As I clarified in a short-lived explanation, I pulled the notice for good reason, and without any sort of "cloak and dagger" approach despite her insistences of impropriety.

I feel that the sections linked above should be blanked, along with 3 (in which User:Wikid77, a now topic-banned editor, appears to equate editors who object to Zlykinskyja's actions regarding the Kercher/Knoc topic as psychopaths and Nazi children, among other charming allusions) 7 (hysteria about a fictional "Pro-Guilt/Anti-Knox Group", a shining example of how the talk page is being used as a battleground) and 23 (which needlessly duplicates the content of a sockpuppet investigation page, and with a sensationalist title that rings of a similar "there's-a-conspiracy" tone with regard to another user). I fail to see how there can be justification for the continued existence of these sections, some of which contain egregious lies (e.g. claims that I go behind other people's backs) about other editors. That a user is allotted a talk page is not a licence for that user to post blatant untruths, as can be seen in abundance on this particular page.

I want to see this talk page nonsense brought to an end because, judging from the history, it appears to have gone on long enough (and affected enough outside editors) already. To me, it seems to be a case of blanking the worst sections and leaving the parts which do not descend into personalisation unchanged. I can't speak for all concerned, however. SuperMarioMan 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is plausible. Maybe you can persuade either User:Black Kite or User:WereSpielChequers to support your idea. They are the only other admins who I see participating in the Zlykinskyja thread. You could invite them to express their opinion here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with this user; I cannot however take any action due to being involved. Otherwise, I would've seriously trimmed this talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that this is dragging on and on, and that it is permeating your talk page, EdJohnston, but are there any implications from Zlykinskyja's efforts to bring the Wikimedia Foundation (and specifically, Mike Godwin) into all this (see the introduction to the "Memorandum" towards the end of this section)? Does the potential involvement of a legal counsel inhibit the power of uninvolved administrator to remove objectionable content from a talk page? SuperMarioMan 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My own inclination would be to archive Zlykinskyja's entire talk page, and advise them that any more militancy in favor of various causes should be put on hold until the block expires. (Any admin who did so should be prepared to disable their talk page access if the advice was not taken). I don't see that admins have taken much interest in the ANI thread so far, and I am reluctant to act outside of a general consensus. Mention of the WMF by Zlykinskyja has no special significance regarding this decision, one way or another. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

With the matter now settled, sincere thanks for all your help regarding this discussion. SuperMarioMan 17:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Probation violation

Hi Ed. Remember how you requested that I and User:StoneProphet make no controversial changes between June 28 and August 1? Well, that editor has already violated your directive. He has gone ahead and added some of the very material that this dispute is over, and again without ever having obtained consensus or seriously sought it. It's clear by now that he has no regard for any Wikipedia rules or regulations. As you said, if one person accepts and the other doesn't, it is logical to block the person who doesn't. Middayexpress (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. The editor has characterized his edits as "uncontroversial", probably in reference to my comment on the article's discussion page to the effect that the Health section could use expansion. I suppose he could have misinterpreted that to mean "I endorse your edits" or something like that, which I of course never said. At any rate, thought I'd let you know that I've just built on what he himself has characterized as "non-controversial", so there shouldn't be a problem there. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be an issue with the verbiage "controversial edit." This is pretty subjective: "controversial" according to the person making the edit, or to the person observing it? I wonder if a better idea might be no edits to the article until August 1. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else works, full protection might be considered. I think it's within the power of these two editors to work together better. I believe they have failed to discover obvious compromises that would probably satisfy both of them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your topic ban idea

Great idea. It should have been done a long time ago. Take a look at just how long this has been going on for, and you'll see what I mean. I've replied to your comment here: [55] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello...

User:IANVS has already broken the three revert rule twice and no comment has been made but acknowledgement has been made. Thank you.

--HelpingHandTalk 08:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing that. Please say what page you are talking about, and provide diffs showing that this editor has made four reverts within 24 hours. Read WP:3RR to learn the specifics of the rule. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: 1RR

Regarding the (alleged) violation of 1RR restriction let me point out the following: Firstly, 1RR states that "If you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time." I modified the stable version that means that I made a change, not revert (it addition, I removed just a part of the text inserted previously). Secondly, two different removals of different, quite unrelated edits by no mean constitute double revert. Thirdly, I asked the administrator who applied 1RR to clarify his position on this account (and am am still waiting for his response).
Let me also point out that per WP:BURDEN, which by contrast to 1RR is a policy, the burden of proof lies on those who adds/restores material, not removes it. Nevertheless, I provided a rationale on the talk page, explaining that the cited source cannot be used as a support of the statement removed by me, whereas the user who reverted my change limited himself with just a very brief edit summary. Based on all said above, I believe it is premature to speak about any sanctions against me. Moreover, if such sanctions will follow I will be forced to raise a question about modification of the 1RR rule because it comes in contradiction with WP policy (WP:BURDEN).
Sincerely,--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to raise any question about the wisdom of the policy. The policy WP:BURDEN is quite wise, and I have absolutely no problem with it. By contrast, WP:1RR is not a part of WP policy, but just "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors", and the problem is that your and my interpretation of this advise differ. That is why the most reasonable way would be to wait for the comment from the administrator who applied the restriction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. Apparently, NW, the administrator who applied 1RR has already responded on his talk page. [56]--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:86.146.153.231

Hi EdJohnston. I was looking at your block of User:86.146.153.231 and I'm a little puzzled by it. The AN3 report wasn't very clear. Also, normally when blocking an IP that is a sockpuppet of a user, it's best to block the IP anon-only; in this case, you've also effectively blocked the account for a month, which seems rather excessive to me. Can you please take a moment to explain exactly what's going on? Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection if you want to reduce it to anon-only. The user disregarded my advice that he should not use an IP sock, yet this IP has been editing alongside him on a number of pages. At AN3 the IP edited a message by Thehelpinghand as though he was correcting his own previous comment. I suppose it would be more straightforward to reason with Thehelpinghand directly, but he seems very resistant to advice, and I doubt that anyone could block him for merely having a bad attitude. If the hardblock stops the editing of his registered account, that might be a means for getting his attention. There are innocent ways that a registered user could employ an IP, but editing controversial articles such as Social populism is not one of them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that his editing from the IP is problematic, however a fair portion of it does appear to be accidental. I've reduced the block to anon-only, and I've made it quite clear to him that he's not to edit while logged out. Thank you very much for your help. --Deskana (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Reply on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

They have released one single, and your reference shows that it's in rotation at CFOX-FM 99.3 in Vancouver. Can you show WP:BAND #11, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network?" EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There's this radio station in Winnipeg which played it twice yesterday [[57]] change the date to 8th in drop down. There's this station (in Ottawa) that played in 4 times yesterday again change the date for 8th. I'm finding more at the moment. Not that it'll make a difference since I proved my point.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cfox is a major radio network. So are the ones I gave.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

semi-protected

I just semi-protected your talkpage in the hopes that that vandal will get bored and wander off soon. If you would prefer that it not be, please just let me know or fix it yourself. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have lifted the semi-protections I set last night (yes, I know that I set them to three days, but WP:BEANS, this particular vandal has been known to read protection logs). Also, thank you everything you do for this project. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Novak_Djokovic#Proposition_about_parents

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Novak_Djokovic#Proposition_about_parents. Tadija^speaks 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) --Tadija^speaks 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bollywood Talk Page

Dear EdJohnston, I hope you are doing well. I am writing to you to inform you that User:Shshshsh recently removed several comments on the Bollywood talk page, claiming personal attacks as a reason. While the user behind the removed comments may have had some inappropriateness in his comments, the rest of his comments are valuable as they address the topic of discussion. I reverted User:Shshshsh and since you are an administrator, I am requesting you to judge whether these comments should be kept or removed. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed only the comments in which there were personal attacks against me. Before reverting I consulted RegentsPark (who blocked the user once for personal attacks) and he approved of deleting these comments (See here). He once again posted his approval of the removal on the Bollywood talk page now (See here) As for Anupam, not only did he revert me and restore personal attacks of another user on me, he also removed some of my modifications of MY messages, which is totally inappropriate. This user has long attacked me personally and he was reverted several times by RegentsPark and as I said blocked for his attacks (See here). I will never agree to messages in which I'm referred to as 'Ms Shahida Kumari' or a 'bigoted' or a 'person without any intellectual capabilities' staying there. I suppose Anupam does not care, but I would not tolerate such a behaviour even if it was directed to him. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force and suitability for pending/reviewing protection

Hi Ed, Back in March we had a discussion about this article which led to it being fully protected for three months. At that time I said what would be most desirable would be if the pending/reviewing mechanism were brought in and the page were placed under that. While the main disruptive activity has been from the JIDF sock and meat puppet farm, the most recent disruption has been from an anon making disruptive, disparaging and presumably libellous comments on their founder's lifestyle. Would you be willing to set it indefinitely to protection level Pending changes (level 2: reviewer only)?.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Jewish Internet Defense Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the last protection expired (June 15) I don't see a resumption of the earlier campaign of POV-pushing. There has been *one* IP vandal edit. Previous discussion was at this sock case. Not enough disruption to take action on yet. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I expect that the puppets will show up when I try to fix a couple of things in that article, but I'm not in a hurry to do so.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see it has now been semi-protected again. I'm not entirely convinced by the grounds given of vandalism. Instead I see edit-warring largely by accounts that don't meet the reviewer threshold.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes protection is not much use for an article troubled by POV-pushing. Regular editors still have to go in and revert each bad change individually. Otherwise the main line of the article is not freed up for further improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Restriction notices, article 1RR et al.

If notices are inserted without a timestamp, will those automatically be skipped on archiving? It's more important to have a notice which acquires permanency than to have it time-stamped, if that's an issue. One can always go through edit history to find the original diff for the insertion of the notice. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

MiszaBot looks at all the well-formed timestamps in a given thread, and archives based on the timestamp of the latest date. I think what I did ought to work. What I was trying to do was create a thread with no timestamp, but then someone else added a well-formed reply. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Range blocks

In early April, you performed a series of rangeblocks I requested on ANI. The vandal responsible is back.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jakezing

Replied on my talkpage; similarly pessimistic. Worth bringing up at AN? Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I have declined the unblock at User talk:Jakezing#July 2010. So far there is no believable assurance of better behavior. If something more is forthcoming, it might be worth taking this to WP:AN. I have suggested he try contributing to another Wikimedia project for a while, to establish a positive record. If you think the case already deserves to be discussed at a noticeboard, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I;ve seen worse users reformed. I am of a mind that this could be brought up at ANI for further review. I am officially neutral, but a reblock is cheap. He's MORE than met the Wikipedia:Standard offer from my mind, so I don't see why another chance could not be discussed. No real reason not to let the community decide here. --Jayron32 05:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've offered this for review at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Message

Thank you very much for your kind consideration. Thanks again, TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Octavia Nasr

Hi, the editor who was warned twice then blocked for disruptive editing has come off his block and reverted all the contentious edits[58], no Talk participation. Can you have a look please? [59] Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 03:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider filing a new 3RR report. Also, if you can explain on the talk page what the issues are it would be useful. Even if you are the only one willing to discuss, this helps to show admins who is being cooperative and who is not. On an article like this one it may seem that the choice of which commentators to quote is somewhat arbitrary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

Dear EdJohnston, I hope you are doing well. In light of your administrative decision which stated that Urdu scripts cannot be added or removed from Bollywood related film articles, I have reverted vandalism by 203.125.115.98. I thought I would let you know. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 00:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Tbma

I think its very unfair to compare my edits with those of Tbma/YMB29, first i have been the main contributor to this article, i have seeked the sources/ disscused in discusion all in line to improve this article, this is not the case with Tbma/YMB29 who just last week consider the whole article a hoax, also today i really displined myself not doing any of the previuslly acts of misconduct, so i think your crttisism of me is utterlly unfair.Posse72 (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs)

The edit warring policy applies to all editors, no matter who is right. You are expected to work to persuade others on the article's talk page, and not fight to get your changes into the article by reverting. There is an entire project, WP:MILHIST, devoted to military history, and you can often get opinions from the members of that project. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the discusion has been long, and User:Tbma dosent take any notice from any kind of argument, and now he uses 3 grade sources, for ex the book Kantakoski, Pekka (1998). Punaiset panssarit - Puna-armeijan panssarijoukot 1918-1945 (Red tanks - the Red Army's armoured forces 1918-1945)is an exelent book on Red army tank units, but it dont cover Battle for Tali-Ihantal more than a cuple of phrases and its both old and inaccurate on the Soviet OOB, newer and better resershed and on a deeper scale is the work of proffesor Otho Manninen who studied Russian archives and Koskimaa, this sources is not even considerd by Tbma.Posse72 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources I have added are almost all pretty recent (past 2000). And even Kantakoski book is from 1999, so it's all published past any Soviet times. Instead of just to agree that the matter is still debatable, last time you started edit war over "Disputed" and "POV" tags on the article. And it is "Disputed" and more editors will question the article as I did (and editors before me). That is why you misidentified me with the previous editor. --Tbma (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And this thing with just 60000 redarmy servicemen is also revisionism at its hight, as previsuslly stated in battle of Tali-Ihantala discusion during the time 28 june-1 july Koskimaa and Manninen stated that there where 13 redarmy division in the battle 10 ordinary rifle divsion 6500x10 =65000 men + 3 Guards (9500 men) division thats 29000 more this excludes independent units as armoured, artilery etc. that well over 100000 men. Tbma uses trick: "but an ordinary Soviet army had only 60000 men", hidding the fact that 21 army was a special army reinforced with 21 division and lots of armoured units to complet its task.Posse72 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

AND dont forget, idid not do any 3rr violation as Tbma!

First you claimed that some sources are "old BS", now you are claiming that it's "revisionism" (btw, your edits are mostly based on a book from 1993). Don't provide me with your own numbers and your own original research - please argue with authors. Most of those authors agree that all those divisions were not at full strength - so the simple multiplying will not work. --Tbma (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See the last statement from Tbma, he accuses Proffesor Otho Manniens work who is uterlly and trough for exampel its based on Russian archives to be MY OWN ORGINAL RESEARCH, this is the problem with Tbma editing in the article.Posse72 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a lots of books on this battle many russians books aswell, the first time i have read such a low figure for the Soviet army as 60000 men is from TbMA editing, I think that an good exampel of"own orginal research" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be better for you two to stop arguing back and forth here, and just wait for Ed to come to a decision.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)