User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

User talk:Tolgaandsons

Judging from the two edits[1][2] made to the Armenian genocide article by User:Tolgaandsons, I believe this editor needs to be informed of restrictions regarding Armenian, Azerbaijani and Turkish articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you were the admin who denied the appeal, I thought you should be aware of this

The following sock investigation has taken place concerning NestleNW911 who, from what I can tell from the check user, has been circumventing a topic ban from Scientology related articles imposed according to ARBCOM sanctions. Since you were the Admin who informed Nestle that their appeal was denied I thought I should bring this to your attention. I am also informing Fluffernutter since they informed Nestle of the topic ban. Cheers. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks convincing. I've recommended some action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NestleNW911. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dot the i#Requested move

I was surprised by your "not moved" decision. At worst, I would have expected a "no consensus", but given that there should be a compelling argument in favour of WP:IAR (i.e. to ignore the guidelines and go with dot the i) in order not to move. I could see none, and the arguments in support of this were incredibly weak, based mostly on browser font, what the poster shows, etc. However, the arguments to follow the guidelines (WP:NCCAPS in particular, although many others apply) seemed strong. Ultimately, surely in the absence of a compelling argument for WP:IAR, we should default to the relevant guideline, in this case WP:NCCAPS (among others) and capitalise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The creator of the movie was trying to make some kind of visual pun using the typography of the title. WP is not always friendly to unpronounced decoration of title words. For example we don't go along with WAL*MART, though we accept Airplane!. Under the circumstances I believed it was fair to trust editors in the discussion. WP:NCCAPS has no mention of what to do with attempted typographic puns. You can view this as a 'No Consensus' outcome in the sense that there is no bar to reconsideration in the future. The actual vote was about 9:8 in favor of the move. It followed two months after a previous discussion with a nearly identical vote. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We can't be sure what the creator of the movie was intending, and it is not really relevant per the guidelines, which are clear at WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:NCCAPS. As WP:NCCAPS does not have a "mention of what to do with attempted typographic puns", but it does have clear instructions on how to handle composition titles, we should be following the guideline that does exist, not the one that doesn't. As far as the !vote is concerned, WP:NOTAVOTE states "processes [are] not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus." The WP:IAR !votes have some very weak arguments. I cannot see how you can have closed the discussion falling in their favour, against established guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That would imply that I share your view that the Oppose editors were using weak arguments. Over the years some article titles with unusual capitalization have become accepted, like k.d. lang and danah boyd. At any given time the guidelines may or may not be an exact statement of current practice. It seems that, in your opinion, guidelines never have exceptions and always win even if there are other concerns. The previous closer, Cuchullain, did not mention any problems with quality of arguments. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume there would be compelling arguments for making an exception to the guidelines for k.d. lang. Also, the previous closer closed with "no consensus", which I could have accepted in this case (although I can't see it myself). However, surely in a "no consensus" situation, we would revert to established guidelines, not the exception. I'll submit a request for a WP:Move review I think. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Dot the i

An editor has asked for a Move review of Dot the i. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a link to the discussion here at the move review. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Shifting Cassandra

Thanks to your recent tweak to range contributions for the Cassandra sock I've picked up occasional recent edits. I spotted one today that fell out of range though (in the usual topic area but apparently benign as it happens) and wondered if this provided an indication for a further tweak on the range contribs. I'd be most grateful if this provides info for an adjustment, otherwise no worries. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I see this diff about James IV of Scotland and this one on Talk:Wars of Scottish Independence Also the new one at Talk:Modern Scots that you mentioned. These are good enough reasons to put a sock tag on the IP's user page as I see you've done. For more from 92.5.8.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) see this range. It's unnecessary to renew any blocks unless this gets worse. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Yes the recent edits have largely not been destructive, though I'm still keeping an eye out as some hover around the same topic area. Not sure if they've mended their ways, are cooking up some new killer theory and readying to pounce or, I have pondered, maybe even having a rethink of their views. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Teramo

Ciao! I had a hyatus here, and of course the Teramo guy is keeping restoring is poorly formatted version of the article, putting years of reformatting, correcting, tweaking into the trash bin. Can you help? Thanks and good work. '''Attilios''' (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected due to the use of a fluctuating IP to continue the war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

3RR and ANI

Frankly, I'm not sure that any action is needed, and I added no commentary because I didn't have any strong opinions. I copied it there because I wanted others with more familiarity to be able to give input. My statement about allegations is purely a reference to some of the diffs and the text that Kodosbs made; I did no investigation than looking at the diffs. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Neil Thompson article

Ed,

I have posted a number of times on the talk section.

You give me the impression taht you believe seem to think that anyone can delete a contribution and not have to justify it.

If You think my contibutions are wrong you should condescend to a rational and substantial justification for it.

Otherwise when a self selected cabal thinks its not OK their wishes go otherwise its edit warring.

If you're intellectually serious about my contribituion respond adequately to the following

Godel's Theorems are not the pure stuff of mathematicians and it would not be surprising that a critique would be found in a philosophy journal. I wouldn't think its critical that you couldn't find in the MIT library.Its a new journal. Its paywalled but you can find it (unpaywalled) at http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/2/29/2012/2012022981760545.pdf . The first step is to try and read before taking down things without any acquaintance with them A year or more ago a couple of editors tried to include something similar and it was suggested that it was too early to do so. Apart from Russell and Wittgenstein who were unhappy with the Theorems and who didn't seem to be be able to put a finger on what was wrong this is the first real challenge to the Theorems. Whilst the Theorems mights sound OK their counterpart Lob's Theorem is certainly hard to accept. As Boolos says it offerss a way of proving that Santa Claus exists. I'm not trying to give an authoritative account of what Thompson says but the paper is very short and not hard for anyone competent in logic to understand. Its certainly easier than Godel's! A rough outline: In this context, a proof is a sequence of sentences using the standard rules of inferences and resulting in the conclusion which is also a sentence. Godel introduces the idea of arithematisation which translates a symbolic system into a system of numbers which serve an indexical function. His arithmetisation is intended to be isomorphic to the original system. He then introduces an arithmetic idea of proof which allows that any godel number of any formula is capable of proof including a single bracket. This is most odd and almost certainly wrong but doesn't matter that much. Boolos' text talks about sentences being proved. Boolos' text does not draw a distinction between open sentences which contain a free variable and closed sentences where all the variables are bound. This doesn't seem surprising to mathematicians who tend to be focussed on formulas rather than sentences but in normal English its like using a sentence contain a pronoun where the person who is talked about is never identified. Quine, America's greatest logician point out that open sentences are true of things but not true or false in themselves. Sentences, properly so called must be true or false and open sentences are neither. If you look at Godel's informal proof it quickly emerges that the sentence he talks about is an open sentence. As far as his formal proof is concerned arithmetic proof because it is intended to be isomorphic to ordinary proof can only be concerned with the proof of the godel numbers of closed sentences. His famous sentence starts with 'x is arithmetically unprovable' ; that formula has its own godel number; that godel number (which is the godel number of an open sentence) is then used to to create a new 'sentence' saying the godel number of the original open sentence is arithmetically unprovable. But its not a valid sentence if both proof (including arithmetic proof) is restricted to closed sentences. In theory, we could stick to Godel's idea of proof or something similar and allow open sentences into proof. But there's no good reason I can see for doing so. If Thompson is right a lot of people will find it shocking but is that so important? I am certainly sure there is nothing crazy about what he is saying and that a lot of logicians think that there is a problem here. Lets ask all the snipping editors to get together and show (within say 7 days: Thompson's thesis rests on some untenable assumption or mode of reasoning or say Godel's approach to proof of open sentences is right. This shouldn't be too hard given their convictions about these things.

Best wishes Fernandodelucia (talk)Fernando —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As per WP:BRD, the onus lies on the person who wants to add new information to open a discussion (perhaps lasting 7 days, maybe not). The discussion needs to link to reliable, non-primary sources and be policy-based along with recommended wording. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ani notice

Ani notice [[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Heads up.

Hello. I mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term_harrassment_by_User:Unscintillating. This is just a courtesy heads-up; I am not complaining about you there. Reyk _YO! 04:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Gold standard

Would you mind having a look at Gold standard? It may need another round of semi-protection as it appears the IP is at it again. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This was handled on May 15 by Mr. Stradivarius. See Talk:Gold standard#Likely same user who was blocked before. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Can I appeal the ban if I promise not to make controversial editions unless my other colleagues (all of them) approve it? Please I want to make positive contributions (add neutral information, undo vandalism, etc). Just tell me what editions are problematic and I'll revert them. For example, all my contributions in this article were deleted and I'll never restore them. I swear.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same than Arab-Israeli conflict? For example, I think this edit is neutral and I should be able to do it. I won't make controversial editions anymore--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who imposed the ban I have the option of lifting or modifying it, but I don't see the case for doing that right now. You have the option of one immediate appeal at WP:AE. Given the fact that nobody spoke in your defence at AN3 your chances don't appear great. It might be smart for you to wait a month or two if you want to use your AE appeal. If you can contribute in other areas, any evidence that you are able to add neutral content to articles would be in your favor. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I made an appeal--IranitGreenberg (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Courteous Warning

Thank you for your courteous warning. Please note that I cannot accept a judgement made hastily without an investigation and without questioning my side of the story. Yozer1 (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record

Not that it matters much, given that it's a done deal, but your wording in closing the TDA appeal seems exactly right to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

editing restrictions

Removed this note; the purpose of the log is provide a place for editors to find if an editor has a current restriction and making the page longer just makes the more difficult. NE Ent 20:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

But the page has a section for expired sanctions, and you're removing old ones from current but not moving them to expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The authority for WP:BLPSE is an Arbcom case, and it is normal to log the results of any *appeals* of arbitration enforcement actions in the relevant arb case log. The effect of NE Ent's position is that appeals won't be logged anywhere. If WP:RESTRICT is going to be the place where the BLPSE notes end up then the restriction log is more helpful if it links to the relevant discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I've restored both of the "historical" notes in the current sanctions section. Keeping track of these things is useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

BASC stated they processed 43 appeals first quarter this year. I'm not aware these are logged. Given that BLPSE instructions do not say to log declined appeals, how will the accuracy of the WP:BLPSE be maintained? NE Ent 20:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that BASC and BLPSE situations are directly parallel. BASC is internal to Arbcom and we don't get to see much rationale for what they do there. BLPSE is a subset of AE enforcement and those of us who work on regular AE are used to logging everything. Whenever you get a new appeal against an AE restriction, it would be normal to check the log to see if the person had appealed previously. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not everything: sanction, appeal NE Ent 11:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed this by making a log entry for JRHammond's appeal, which was closed on 9 September 2010. Let me know if you see any other omissions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't really the point; let me rephrase -- just because many admins are both aware of certain conventions and conscientious in following them doesn't mean all are. Therefore if it's important to an editor to identify all previous appeals they would be better off searching WP:AE archives and/or the user's talk page. Given that the record isn't reliable, to me it's just clutter on Editing Restrictions, which should as compact as list of possible of current sanctions. More of a phone book / directory / index than a log book. NE Ent 12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There may be a conflict between two logging systems. If you don't want appeals of BLPSE sanctions to go in WP:RESTRICT, should we then start a dual log in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions? This would go against Arbcom's own statement in that very case, which says "All actions taken under this provision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Biographies of living persons enforcement log." Is the appeal of a topic ban an 'action'? Surely a successful appeal leads to lifting the ban, which is an 'action.' You could always file a request for clarification with Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For your help regarding Bagh-e-Jinnah, Karachi‎ at requested moves. Thanks again! Faizan 15:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

You took part in Vučitrn → Vushtrri RM.[commented to Bob about this subject] Please see suggestion for follow up at MOSKOS RfC?. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied at WT:MOSKOS#Talk:Gdansk/Vote for WP:MOSKOS? The current language of WP:MOSKOS appears to contradict WP:PLACE. We don't go by which ethnic group lives in a place, we go by what name is most often used in English-language sources to refer to the place. EdJohnston (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Rotterdam Blitz

I've left my two cents on the page, and if you are looking to move the page you have my blessing to do so. I shut down the original move request only because I did not want to have accusations between the editors of where the article should be, but as I noted in my closing of the requested move it was done without prejudice to a move request in the future. If you need my two cents on this matter beyond the two cents I already put out then drop me a line, I'll be happy to say I'm all for revisiting the issue in any forum or request page you need me to say it. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is long since stale. In my opinion the initial request to review the close was made far too long after the close. There is no consensus that the close was out of order, so close the review.

However do not move the page. There are several reasons for this, but the most obvious is that the propose target page is a dab page (which did not exist at the start of the previous requested move). If a move is still desired then one of those who desires the page to be moved can place a new RM request for the move. -- PBS (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw you comment on User talk:TomStar81 "The comment at Talk:German bombing of Rotterdam/Archive 1#The title of this article is incorrect suggests that 'Blitz' refers to rapid movement of motorized troops and tanks, and that 'Rotterdam Blitz' is obsolete terminology left over from usage by the UK press early in the war."

I had presumed that the comment to which you linked was made by a foreigner who did not realise that there is a difference in English usage between the use of "blitz" and "Blitzkrieg" (the OED certainly makes the distinction "An attack or offensive launched suddenly with great violence with the object of reducing the defences immediately; spec. an air-raid or a series of them conducted in this way, esp. the series of air-raids made on London in 1940.") but if you are not British then perhaps it is an English dialect issue. The word blitz is still in use and is not an archaic word only used in World War II--See for example the dates on a Google book search for London Blitz. -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact I'm based in the USA. It seems to be a fact that 'London Blitz' is still in use, and we still have an article by that name. It's not up to me to tell the move proponents how to organize this material, so feel free to go further with this. I closed the move review as Decision Endorsed for the reasons given there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on the matter of moving, so if you want to move the page you've got my blessing, just be sure that you do this in such a way that it doesn't become a fiasco. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your response. I explored the possibility of reclosing the move with a new consensus. But the quirk that the proposed move target has become a DAB makes that unworkable. It's up to the interested editors to come up with a new plan if some of them still think that 'Rotterdam Blitz' is a poor title. As pointed out, the original move discussion is four months old so there is obvious no bar to opening up a new move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

GeForce 700 series talk

Thanks for your help with protecting the GeForce 700 Series article, unfortunately things are getting out of hand. Could also protect the article talk page and my own talk page? It seems like someone has decided to sabotage both, and I really need those talk pages if I am to do this job properly. EBusiness (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One week of semiprotection to both. You can also request help at WP:RFPP if I'm not around. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

H-H H RfC

Just as I think I understand how to set this up, with a link to the article page section, Carolmooredc comes in and re-re-re-re-?-reverts it. (I'm going batty!) I'll let the warriors hash this some more, maybe the TP and article will stablize. Then I'll try redoing the RfC. Thanks so very much! Maybe I can lower the level of my frustration later this evening. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Balkan monasteries

Yes, I saw earlier but avoided; No Such User's comments are entirely correct, both on a linguistic level and (which I have added) in relation to Balkan Orthodox Church naming practices, and even village churches in England. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Puzzled

I'm puzzled by your comment at AE, as it makes it look like thought the issue raised to AE was whether to take action towards me over that Wikiproject comment. The issue there was Doncram's disparagement of Nyttend in the context of his Arbcom-imposed general editor probation. I'm not subject to any Arbcom sanctions or remedies. Has Doncram managed to deflect attention away from himself and onto me by his assertion that my WikiProject comment was actually a contrived attack? (Also, I agree that the disparagement of Nyttend doesn't warrant a block. I was only hoping for someone to warn/admonish him about the behavior pattern, particularly because it's a behavior pattern we've seen many times before.) --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandman moves

Maintaining the integrity of the linkages and transclusions is important. Don't rush the process in any way that affects this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to get more feedback. If not, I think we should just move all the templates to the corresponding article space location. Thus I think there will only be a total of two moves. Moving Template:Sandman navbox is the main point of the moves.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for executing the move.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Island Units

Hi Ed

I would like to pick up on your closure of this Requested move. As you rightly observed, accusations of bullying were made against User:Kahastok and User:Wee Curry Monster by me. Wee Curry Monster has since earned himself an indefinite ban from Falkland Islands articles on account of his behaviour.

In your summing up, you wrote "By placing it under MOS I assume that the hope is to raise the status of this Units page and give it more force as a precedent". This is not the case. I am trying to kill the page, but I cannot do so in its present location - I have tried using an AfD flag but this does not work because the article is in WP: space. If however it is moved into MOS-space, it can be "neutralised" by means of a {{historical}} flag. If you read the page itself, you will see that it is justified by text-book WP:SYN. Once the page is dead, the units of measure used in Falkland Island articles will follow the same rules as for any other British Overseas Territory.

Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read Template:Historical it seems to me that it could work on this page, even though this one is a WikiProject subpage. When the historical tag is applied to a project page it puts it into Category:Inactive project pages. It does not deprecate the entire project, just one page. Many examples that are similar to yours can be found in that category. Note the category's header statement:

This category contains Wikipedia project namespace pages that are currently inactive, and retained primarily for historical interest. This includes proposals that failed to gain consensus, pages related to processes that are no longer in use, or pages that are obsolete for some other reason.

Consider opening up a WP:RFC to decide whether to place the historical tag. If you do succeed in deprecating the page in some way, consider following up by nominating WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for deletion at WP:Redirects for discussion. Before opening an RFC, try asking other participants if they think this is a good way to proceed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed Martinvl (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't encourage Martin to carry on pushing his POV by gaming the system, Ed. We've spent four years trying to deal with this POV push - including eighteen months in which Martin managed to totally paralyse the entire topic by refusing to allow progress unless we accepted his POV on units. This way only leads to what Martin has previously described as "civil war".

It is perfectly clear from recent history, including this edit (with a misleading edit summary) that Martin is still intent on forcing his POV on to these articles over the current style, despite the fact that the current style is that favoured by WP:UNITS and by the standing local consensus documented at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. We know from years of bitter experience that without WP:FALKLANDSUNITS Martin will try to game WP:UNITS to favour his POV. Kahastok talk 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's past behavior, it is hard to see any problem with opening an RFC which is aimed at finding consensus. At first glance, why wouldn't we accept "Articles on the Falkland Islands should use measures in use locally, which can be assumed to be the same as those in use in the UK."? The need for a separate page on units for the Falkland Islands, adopted by a whopping 2-2 vote, is up to the editors to decide on. It is hard to follow this. From reading the talk page, Kahastok and Martinvl seem to agree on the underlying issue. If so, why are we here? EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you've been misled. Martin's 2-2 vote comment is not an accurate or fair description of the discussion at the time, or of subsequent developments. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was originally adopted in July 2010 with two in favour and one against, the opponent objecting on the grounds that he did not believe that the proponents would actually go through with the proposal in good faith and not because of any objection to the content. Martin did not express an opinion at that time. The discussion is here.

That WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was consensus has since been accepted by all involved, including Martin, who advised editors to follow it "to the letter". Even if he hadn't, it has been the standard applied in practice for nearly three years now, entirely unaltered other than when Martin tried to get rid of it under the radar last Autumn. That's plenty enough time to pass muster as consensus. It was and remains consensus.

What's the objection to RFC? WP:IDHT. Martin has made exactly the same demand on literally dozens of occasions. There comes a stage where it becomes disruptive to continue to repeat ourselves continually, and in this discussion we reached that point at some stage in 2009. The frequency has gone down but he's still bringing the point up. The last RFC did not back him in December. If, as you suggest, a new one does not back full metrication, then there will be another one in September and another one in January and another one next May and another one next September and another one next December and so on. Don't kid yourself. That's how this has happened before and if allowed, that's what will continue to happen.

You seem to think we both want the same thing - presumably to follow WP:UNITS. Again, I believe you've been misled by Martin's WP:GAMEs. They say "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". In my case, Martin's tried to fool me on dozens of occasions. What Martin wants is full metrication, and whether it's insisting that geography is a science and therefore that all geographical articles (such as Falkland Islands or Nebraska) theoretically have to be not just metric-first but aren't allowed to convert to non-metric units, or insisting that there is some inherent bias in non-metric units and that therefore all units have to be metric to pass WP:NPOV, he will come up with whatever imaginative reinterpretation of WP:UNITS is needed to get there. Kahastok talk 15:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked up the rules of what constitutes a village in respect of the "The Cricketer Village Cup". Under those rules, a village has fewer than 5000 inhabitants. This means that the Falkland Islands would qualify as a village. I do not see why an entire page (WP:FALKLANDSUNITS) should be dedicated to the units of measure used in a community the size of village when the units of measure used in the rest of the world rest of the world only occupy part of the page WP:MOSNUM. I have yet to get a credible answer from the principal author of that page. The best that he (User:Kahastok) came up with was on 7 December 2012 when he wrote

The major reason for having clear and unambiguous rules for units on Falklands articles - as supplied by FALKLANDSUNITS - is that they are difficult to game in ways such as these. Such tactics have been a continual feature of Michael and Martin's four-year campaign to force metrication on Falklands articles.

This raises the next question - what is wrong with the Wikipedia community at large commenting on this matter? If Kahastok does not trust the community at large, then the fault lies with the Wikipedia structure, not with me. Kahastok should be addressing that as obviously one of the pillars of Wikipedia, namely WP:Consensus is failing. Consensus does not and has never meant that one person has the right to appoint themselves as judge and jury in the manner that Kahastok has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs)

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has been the standard used in practice for nearly three years. Every involved party has explicitly accepted WP:FALKLANDSUNITS either at the time or since. Including you. When everyone concerned has agreed to a solution, and when it has been the practical standard for as long as it has, then that is consensus, whether you now like it or not. Your subsequent denial of that consensus is in and of itself disruptive.

The community has had its say lots and lots and lots of times already. You've made absolutely sure of that. Continually restarting the same RFC until you get the result you want is not the community at large commenting on the matter. It's forum shopping. It's refusing to get the point. It's gaming the system. It is disruptive to the encyclopædia because it moves focus away from actual genuine improvements that could be made.

We need a prescriptive and difficult-to-game standard on units on these articles. A prescriptive standard is the best way of resolving this sort of dispute because we can then go back to the standard and measure the articles against it, and be absolutely clear what units should be used. If the subject were less contentious then we would be able to manage with a less prescriptive standard. But it isn't - you've made sure of that - and we've seen the paralysis that results from our not having a prescriptive standard. When it comes down to it, if you think the topic is that insignificant, why are you so intent on forcing your POV on to it? Kahastok talk 20:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So, Kahastok believes that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is a bulwark against excessive metrication. On that theory, Martinvl wants to abolish FALKLANDSUNITS so he can more fully metricate the Falklands articles? The page at WP:UNITS already has a section on the UK which seems rather similar to what is now in FALKLANDSUNITS so I don't really appreciate the difference. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between UNITS and FALKLANDSUNITS in that UNITS distinguishes between scientific and non-scientific use. In other UK-related articles, editors have adopted a style that regards geographical articles as being mid-way between scientific and non-scientific by using metric quantities first with the equivalent imperial quantity in brackets – the wording of FALKLANDSUNITS overrides that compromise. A few months ago I did a survey of the use of metric and imperial units in other UK-based geographical articles.

I have checked the units of measure that came first in a number of similar "UK-related" Wikipedia articles. In order to avoid cherry-picking and also to keep the lists as short as possible, I chose sets of articles and looked at all articles in the set concerned. My findings were:

British Overseas Territories

• Akrotiri and Dhekelia - all metric
• Anguilla - all metric
• Bermuda - mainly metric
• British Antarctic Territory - partially metric
• British Indian Ocean Territory - all metric
• British Virgin Islands - all metric
• Cayman Islands - all metric
• Falkland Islands - all imperial
• Gibraltar - all metric
• Montserrat - mainly metric (aviation heights imperial)
• Pitcairn Islands - metric
• Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha - mainly metric
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - mainly metric
• Turks and Caicos Islands - metric

Islands off UK coast

• Jersey - metric
• Guernsey - metric
• Isle of Man - metric
• Hebrides - GA - metric
• Orkney - GA -metric
• Shetland - GA - metric
• Isles of Scilly - metric
• Isle of Arran - GA - metric
• Isle of Wight - mainly imperial

United Kingdom - mainly metric

• England - GA - metric
• Scotland - GA - metric
• Wales - GA - mainly metric
• Northern Ireland - GA - mainly metric

As can be seen, the Falkland Islands and the Isle of Wight are the two "odd men out". The general trend has been that in most of these articles, geographical measurements are quoted in metric units while in some articles, transportation measurements are given in metric units and in others, are given in imperial units.

I am of the opinion that the units of measure used in the article Falkland Islands should be consistent with all the other articles listed above and that by continuing to keep the page FALKLANDSUNITS as an active page we are creating unnecessary inconsistencies in Wikipedia.

Martinvl (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you've been mass-metricating other parts of Wikipedia as well? See, for example, here, where a MOSNUM regular fixed the article up to a MOSNUM-compliant standard and you reverted them. If many of those articles entirely fail to live up to the standards required by WP:UNITS, then they need to be brought up to that standard - and the fact that you revert people who try to do so says a lot.

Your contention that there is a consensus that considers geography to be scientific for the purposes of MOSNUM even if true (and I very much doubt it), would run directly counter to both the letter and spirit of MOSNUM, which lists - broadly and in more general terms - the same set of units as WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. They make it clear that such an interpretation in spurious: your argument is a matter of gaming the system once more. The fact that you try to WP:GAME MOSNUM in this way to push metrication on Falklands articles demonstrates why we need a prescriptive standard such as WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.

Your contention that the FI page - or indeed the rest of the FI topic, since WP:FALKLANDSUNITS applies to all of it - is "all imperial" is false. Given quite how many times we have gone through this with you, given that anyone can read Falkland Islands and see that it is false, and given you are well aware that the standard you agreed to at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS provides for metric units except in specific circumstances, there is no conceivable way that you do not know it to be false. I don't know whether WP:AGF requires me to believe that you lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia, or that your are deliberately trying to mislead other editors, but it's one or the other. Kahastok talk 08:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wild (Jessie J song)

Hi, could you protect this article from being created by IPs please. It hasn't charted and has no reviews, so it fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. It's a redirect at the moment, but people keep creating it with just an info box and release box.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected one month. This protection can be lifted if consensus is found, or by making a request to WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As soon as it charts or gets a fair amount of reviews it can be created as it will pass notability.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting semi-protection request

Thanks for accepting semi-protection request of the article Shah Waliullah :). You are right about the 'whole article deletion' case, but in most of the other cases there were lot of un-sourced additions and vandalism attempts by IP editors. Omer rajput (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines back at doling out ArbCom Sanction warnings to his opponents

Brief background

DS recently started a WP:RM at Talk:2002 Gujarat violence where he wanted to move the page to Anti- Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002 just after an editor initiated a RM at Godhra train burning to move the page to Godhra Train Massacre.

His RM saw opposes and the other one saw supports. Then seeing this, he unilaterally created Anti- Muslim pogroms in India (what's worse is he has acquired autopatrolled rights). It was immediately deleted. He must have been upset. BTW, The page was deleted mainly because of me and Dharmadhyaksha, both sanctioned by DS.

This was not the first time DS warned others unilaterally and immediately after a spat with him. DS doesn't have a clue what constitutes a COI. You warned him in past about this.

What happened

He, this time, unilaterally added 8 of his opponents (including an admin Nick) who supported me and/or disagreed with DS at various venues (not Sitush, not Faizan, not anybody else who were also involved) to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#List of editors placed on notice. There was no discussion to place eight well-meaning editors (who have not edit warred or in any way tried to patently disrupt the flow of wikipedia) on ArbCom notice, let alone giving an involved editor with potential conflict of interest the authority to dole out this Notice. You earlier wrote on CarrieVS's talk:

″Hello CarrieVS. I am a bit concerned about potentially-involved editors leaving Discretionary sanction notices that do not clearly specify the reason for leaving the warning. That is, the description of the bad behavior is not given either in the ARBIPA log or on the user's talk page. If Darkness Shines continues to leave notices, I suggest that a discussion at WP:Arbitration enforcement might be appropriate.″

Is this random now? And can anyone give it to anyone? Those of us who DS placed on sanction are deeply involved together in Multiple pages with Darkness Shines. This is big COI. There was no formal Discussion as to who needs the sanctions and who doesn't. You yourself said, "an admin who gave out such warnings for no easily visible reason would also be in trouble.[..] I don't see you as giving good rationales for the original warnings or having a plan in place to deal with disputes about the validity of the warnings. Someone who is already involved in a topic area (such as yourself) may not be in the best position to judge whether others need to be warned using the language of {{uw-sanctions}}."
Same is true here also. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[4] Per this ANI thread and Sal, as I indicated in the notifications it was a non admin warning & linked to the ANI thread & Sal has edited that page since I posated those names which he obviously saw no problam with and as Arbcom allows for non admin warnings there is no policy, or guideline broken here by myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Apparently, selective editors were also placed in some sort of checklist. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Getting your name on that checklist is not a good thing. It is generally for patently disruptive editors only.

@DS:you're pointing to ANI thread, you've got to be kidding me!! Last time I checked, that ANI thread was still open, and was primarily about an IP sock of User:Maunus. It was started for a completely different purpose. No one formally asked or authorised Darkness Shines to warn anybody, let alone selectively dole out sanctions to well-meaning editors, that too on top of the fact that you're quite deeply involved against some of them on multiple threads. This is not done. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you stupid? I cannot and have not doled out "sanctions" I have notified editors that the article falls under discretionary sanctions. What part of this do you not understand? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, when an editor makes edits such as this (obviously nothing to do with terrorism) and claims that a source is OK for abuses commited against Hindus but the same source if used for Muslims are accusations, hyperbole and speculations they obviously have POV issues and need to be notified, regardless of the ANI thread. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I encourage anybody and everybody to triple-check every accusation Darkness Shines is hurling against me. The same page which DS is referring to (i.e. 2002 Gujarat violence) previously had Saffron terror in its "see also" section, so I was actually trying to balance it out, but DS saw it fit to selectively delete only Islamic terrorism, not Saffron terror which was just above the Islamic terrorism entry (even though he himself has just admitted that the article had "obviously nothing to do with terrorism"), and re-add a non-existent entry Anti- Muslim pogroms in India. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

DS is a master of filibustering and knows how to convolute straightforward issues real good. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sal has stated that I have done nothing wrong, see here. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong! Sal has not stated, "What Darkness Shines did was exactly right." Sal doesn't even take into consideration the intricacies behind the whole idea of registering people's name in that check-list. He says, these warnings are a pure formality. I disagree. Warning in itself presupposes something which needs to be resisted. Without any clarification of the misconduct, that warning itself is banality. I am aware (in that sense warning me twice was unnecessary from the very beginning), but even if he (DS) wanted to remind/inform me about that again, he could have done it informally in a less condescending tone. There is a reason why we call them "warning", no? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: "nothing wrong" this time. In the past, Darkness Shines used this same tactic and made it appear that the banner he had placed on my page was put there by an admin. Note that "nothing wrong" has nothing to do with the impressions it creates or the unnecessary drama it produces! Crtew (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the language is also stern and has a chilling effect - "If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban." - What misconduct is he referring to? what is this? Why would I need to be "warned" because of my dissent to begin with and that too by an involved editor with neutrality and civility issues? While warning me DS left out the signature, how convenient!
This says: "warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend his/her ways". He didn't do any of that! I don't think Salvio is aware of all the pertinent facts from past. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The warning template is clear and unambiguous, it has a link to the decision, a link was given to the ANI thread, do I really need to tell you to stop POV pushing? And how not to do that? You keep saying you are an experienced editor, then you should not need me to tell you how to edit correctly. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I have given you advise recently when you violated 3RR on an article which falls under these sanctions [5][6] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Stop digressing. It is not clear nor is it unambiguous. 3RR has nothing to do with sanctions. Everybody was reverting everybody, no one was keeping counts then, I reverted undiscussed removals of legitimate, sourced content which were reverted based on arbitrary rationales. That's a little more complicated than how you put it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

@DS: I gave the link of ANI on all talk pages. You didn’t! Also i don’t know why Kondi was notified. He was last active on 12th. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Same about Yogesh, he has not been very active since many days and DS felt that Yogesh should be warned. I think it was because Maunus listed those names at ANI .-sarvajna (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Only the so-called-anti-muslim-hindu-nationalist-SPAs have been slapped with this template. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

EdJ response to Mrt3366 and others

Hello Mrt3366. Though I have warned DS in the past about possible misuse of case logs, I have checked what he did in this case and I don't have a problem with it. See the log of WP:ARBIPA for what this is about. He states that the names he added were all mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Maunus is using IPs. Unless some other admin wants to tweak these entries I would leave them alone. I see there is another discussion going on at RegentsPark's talk page and I recommend that you continue there. Salvio giuliano has already participated on RegentsPark's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Golden Cage (2013 film)

 Done Also, notice the page is located where the RM wants to be moved, so as an admin, you should try to fix it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We can wait till the move discussion finishes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical move of milia (disambiguation) over redirect

I'm not so sure that your technical move of the milia (disambiguation) to milia was appropriate. The editor who made the technical move request was correct when saying "(Milia redirects to Milia (disambiguation))". However, it was not pointed out that this had only been true for a few hours. Prior to that time, milia was a long-standing redirect to milium (disease), and I have not found any record of a discussion leading to a consensus that the cysts are not the primary topic for the term. Also, the move caused many incoming links to become ambiguous. That appears to me like something that should have gone through the ordinary move request process rather than being treated as a technical move. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My statement saying that "the move caused many incoming links to become ambiguous" seems to be incorrect. I based that remark by looking at "what links here", but it seems to show some incorrect results that may disappear when its database is updated. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to open a requested move. Technical moves are routinely done in the absence of any recent move discussions. They don't preclude a formal move request by anyone who thinks the matter important. It is unclear that there is a primary topic, so the use of the name milia for a DAB is at least plausible. The page at milium (disease) gets 25,000 hits a month while milia itself only gets 3,000. People looking for the disease seem to find it by seeking out 'milium.' EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions

Regarding "Both general restrictions and revert restrictions are currently mentioned in the Type column", I'm not seeing that.

• "General restrictions" is indeed mentioned in the "Type" column, but since the definition of "General restrictions" was (before my removal of this text) "Administrators may impose one or more specific restrictions (as listed in each individual case) on editors", I don't see any content of value being removed - the actual restrictions in each case still are on the page.
• 'The phrase 'Revert restrictions" doesn't appear in the "Type" column. What does appear is "1RR". I've converted that text (wherever it appears, including outside of the "Type" column) to a wikilink, which I think was the primary value of the text related to "Revert restrictions" - that was the only place on the page, before the changes I just made, with that wikilink.

More generally, I don't think that what I removed gave admins any useful guidance as to what restrictions were possible: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions lists six types]], and I doubt that admins considering various restrictions in a particular case come to the General sanctions page for guidance (as opposed, say, to experienced admins offering specific suggestions, and see what the response is like).

So, to change the focus a bit (assuming the above explanation is satisfactory): I'm not seeing a clear difference in usage between the word "sanction" and "restriction". My first thought was that "sanctions" applied to topics (or to all editors of those topics) and "restrictions" to specific editors, but that isn't true - articles are sanctioned, only, but specific editors can be either restricted or sanctioned. ["the user receiving sanctions " and "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits ..." are two examples of the latter.] Do you have a better sense of the difference between the two words? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are probably on the right track. For best results you should discuss with an Arbcom clerk, because some of this material originates from Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

mail

Ed, I've sent you an email. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, only just checked my mail. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg

Hi Ed, I have a question for you. IranitGreeberg was topic banned at ANI not via an ArbCom. So why then is an enforcement being heard at Arbitration Enforcement? What am I missing here? Thanks for your help in expanding my understanding of how dispute resolution and topic bans work. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg was topic banned per a complaint at WP:AN3. I took the action as a single-admin decision under the discretionary sanctions permitted by WP:ARBPIA. IG then appealed at WP:AE but the appeal was not successful. If IG had been banned per a community action at ANI then the route of appeal would have been different. The new filing that you see at WP:AE#IranitGreenberg is a complaint that IG is not following her I/P topic ban. That request is still open. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, the missing link for me was that IG was banned under DS for ARBPIA. That's the part that I was not aware of and that makes all the difference. Thanks for taking the time to explain the sequence to me. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

See Talk:London_Millennium_Funicular#To_answer_the_closer.27s_question PamD 14:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

New user making personal threats

Hi Ed, User:Losbellos has been editing warring the insertion of unsourced inflammatory content on two biographies. Losbellos has been reverted multiple times and warned by multiple editors on their talk page over the past 24-48 hrs. Now Losbellos is making real life threats against me. I fear this person is mentally unstable and something needs to be done. Can you help? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've blocked them indefinitely for making legal threats. De728631 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking speedy action on this. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are several posts archived from User talk:EdJohnston/Anontalk

Three posts copied here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Lost years of Jesus

Look, I do not hide myself behind other names. I fight for freedom of editing Wikipedia without exaggerated blocks. You and others instead edit facts and be editors make fun hunting on others. It is for you no matter if the proposals a reasonable, if you favourite dialog is unreasonable. You just block new editions on supposition he is somebody who has infinite block. Last time you block even the talk page since you favourite History2007 does not like prove his edition need to be change in future. You forgot that valuable editions are more imported than some vengeance on imaginary sock person. In this way you can block many innocend people and block important improovments. Although I feel waste of time when report I will do it persistently until people like you will be prevented from play sheriff. Unfortunately you not only no editor you also does not have knowledge to answer to the question on what exactly section of rules of Wikipedia you act. This is what I will report on you if you will not remove the block on talk page. Take for consideration I inform you what I have against you personally in gentlemen way. Be reasonable!--Sok-not2 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The above user did not tell me what his complaint is about, or what article he is discussing. I put up a section heading based on a guess. He has made no edits except to this talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I did behave. He didn't. I'm moving on, I could care less about proving i'm right. I'm staying away from those who start trouble and get away with it. You both are wrong about what i was doing and are blaming me on what "Walter" did. But whatever, I've got better things to do with my life. I just know to avoid articles he edits. Kind of sad how this works, but if i wanted to i could take it further as principal. But i don't need validation from Wiki. I know what i know and that's enough for me. BYE 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. I won't return to this page, so you can remove it. No need replying, I won't read it. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kim_Jones_at_About.com_on_Christian_music 99.129.112.89 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't return here, but after I got support from someone who actually "listened" today and did some research, and since things have seemingly "slowed/calmed down", I felt it important to leave you a message per the "noticeboard edit war" page on my talk page: 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Good work, you idiotic moron

Good work, you idiotic moron. Please continue to make Wikipedia uneditable and remove good sources of info like the GeForce 700 page, IDIOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.187.249.236 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Indian_Hindi_television_serial_paid_editing.2C_COI_investigation_request.
Message added 17:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (contact) 17:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ansei

Thank you for finally making that clarification. However, should I raise the issue of his continued annoying editing habits as well as his lack of clarity on his identity in another venue or do you think it would not be necessary? It's clear that his response to you on his talk page that he has not changed his habits of linking to actual articles (one that it seems he created himself at that) to convey his point.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should linking to actual articles be a concern? If you are annoyed by his editing habits you might consider an WP:RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the behaviors that was listed as a finding of fact in both arbitration cases he was in and the previous RFC. it's still obviously a problem when he writes his comment and links to Loaded language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Straw man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or his own authored Learning the hard way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as if he were linking to some Wikipedia project space essay or guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you see User:Ansei causing further trouble in some topic area that is Senkaku-related or Japan-related it is possible that some action might be taken at AE. But specific details would be needed. For example, evidence that he is causing unnecessary disputes that interfere with developing article content. And it should be based on his future behavior, not what he has done up till now. See the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei#Statement of the dispute. If that continues in the future, you might consider asking for admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

He's also currently not sticking to one account anymore after I put up a few poorly made dictdef pages up for AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

He is trying to change his name back from Ansei to Tenmei through the bureaucrats, but he doesn't seem to understand that the edits of the two accounts can't be merged. I left my latest notice to him at User talk:Tenmei since he appears to be editing with that one. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also he's posted the same content to every AFD that was made today on an idiom article he created after I found a few that were of questionable quality and now everyone's saying Bueller 007 and I are making WP:POINT violations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Though you may find the idiom articles annoying, they don't have much to do with the AE matter and there isn't much use in keeping me in the loop on those. 'Creates silly articles' is not in the same league as 'Disrupts Senkaku discussions' even assuming that both are true. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

True, but these articles are used as part of his I'm going to link to things to make my argument appear more important behavior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Move review#Sanjeev Nanda

Can you close this review? Right now, someone made a new request to revert it back to the prior name; that would be Anthony Appleyard. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have closed both the move review and the new move discussion (apparently moot, since everyone agrees) and hope that I didn't make too big a mess. Thanks for your message. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wikipedia:COIN#Indian_Hindi_television_serial_paid_editing.2C_COI_investigation_request.
Message added 00:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 00:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Replied on my talk. -- Director (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei → Enkyo

If you have time, please notice the reasons for a username change here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple name change was done here --User:Enkyo2 (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Anon disruptions on Stepan Bandera

Could you please warn and/or place a semi-protect on Stepan Bandera? Some anon has been adding unreferenced controversial stuff into the article's lead and elsewhere (see here: [7] with no discussion.Faustian (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!Faustian (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

TenMuses

Thanks Ed. re the message TenMuses. Presumably you noticed tech restore requests, I probably should have used db6, but I fundamentally disagree with the lack of transparency of the db6 mechanism. Any advice?
Also, FYI I left a notice with Cuchullain since he is familiar with history of mass Vietnam title moves and redirect locks which arose as a side issue from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that on any talk page I check, I am likely to find IIO denouncing me for something or other? Kauffner (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent move

Can you move German Occupation of Norway to German occupation of Norway as per the move request? Thanks. Srnec (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hi EdJohnson. I'm an italian user of wikipedia and I apologize for my bad english. I wanted to ask you a question about the following notification:

"EdJohnston ti ha menzionato su Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. "→‎User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: ): What to do"

What does this mean?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Direktor (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not clear on why you received a notice. The person named in the report was User:DIREKTOR (all caps) but you are User:Direktor. I suggest you ignore the message, since it is not about you. Sorry for the false alarm. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou edit restrictions

• Filioque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An administrator is reading your wording of Esoglou's restrictions to mean that Esoglou can add and edit under and in Orthodox article content as long as Esoglou sources the content. [8]. LoveMonkey 19:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be hard to observe the restrictions when these issues are intermixed. I would advise more use of the Talk page. Esoglou did add some 'citation needed' tags to text inserted by LoveMonkey. The stuff that he tagged did look like LM's personal opinion. It would be better for LM to find sources for this kind of material, since it seemed like it was expressing vague charges against the Western church, about their use of the doctrine of papal supremacy. LM should not be making statements about the Western church unless he is quoting actual books by Easterners. There's nothing wrong with Esoglou adding the statements of Karl Barth and Yves Congar to this section, since they are both Western theologians. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So Esoglou can edit Orthodox theology content. That's not the agreement. LoveMonkey 22:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou can add the sourced opinions of Roman Catholic scholars on Orthodox matters. Such additions must be attributed to those making them, and stated to be opinion. That language has been in WP:RESTRICT for a long time. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am hopping that one day Esoglou will let me write that Christmas is on December 25. Now he's got it as, "generally on December 25." I guess you never really know until it happens. Kauffner (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

IP anon at it again

On another article here: [9], insertion of unreferenced claims about propaganda. I've cleaned it up here: [10] but given this IPs persistent pattern this may be more trouble. Here is the IP: [11]. He is also acting disruptively here: [12] just blanking an entire section.Faustian (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)(UTC)

The POV stated was demonstrably false by reference to the 1931 Polish census. If you can do the math, you will recognize the propaganda at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There were no statements about propaganda etc. in the source. You're just adding false statements and making edits without discussion first.Faustian (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There is discussion about the Ukrainian bias, which you have not addressed, and of the work so far and very specific comments in discussion about putting the numbers cited in a meaningful context which citing the census as I did does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Education There is also discussion about Ukrainian bias of the work in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Reorganization.3F Specifically, "There is a large Ukrainian bias in this work so far which repeats Soviet style antipolonism without sources." This is exactly what you are doing here and elsewhere. the person being disruptive here is you. You refuse to engage in discussion. Jan Gross supports what I wrote and I can cite it, and I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You made all changes without discussing them first. Good that finally you have started writing on the talk pages before making changes.Faustian (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle

Ed, if you feel like commenting in this discussion, please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for taking an interest. Frequently, those of us concerned with a general cleanup of articles of that nature find ourselves without any assistance. To avoid a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing, I'll cut it short and say thanks again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Neelix (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wild (Jessie J song)

Can you remove the protection template please? It has charted on 3 charts now. Thanks for protecting it up until now.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 19:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Stéphane Sansoni move request

Hi, Ed. You closed a move request at Talk:Stéphane Sansoni. In your closing statement, you say: "It is widely known that certain tennis bodies routinely strip diacritics, as pointed out by User:Bobrayner." But you seem to use it as evidence against removing the diacritic. If reliable English sources such as these "certain tennis bodies" remove them, then so should we? Isn't that the basic advice of WP:AT, which overrides WP:FRMOS? Powers ^T 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Some English-language newspapers and some sports organizations never print accents. It is unwise to accept a tennis organization as a reliable source for *spelling* of a player's name if we know they censor the accents. We need to find out how third party sources (that do allow accents) refer to the player in English text in actual practice. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But that's assuming your conclusion. You're assuming that accents are appropriate if you only look at sources that include them. Powers ^T 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that official tennis organizations are a reliable source, you could post at WP:RSN and see what they think. An organization that systematically removes accents as a matter of policy is probably not a good one to ask whether the player normally has accents in their name. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any way an official tennis organization would not be considered a reliable source. I mean come on -- if not them, then who? And again, you're assuming the conclusion: you're assuming that an org that doesn't use diacritics must be wrong, therefore unreliable. This is the exact same circular reasoning used in the discussion, and it's still flawed. Powers ^T 11:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to ask this question at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have done so, since you insist. Powers ^T 20:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice re Mhazard9

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I have filed a block evasion complaint against Mhazard9, who you blocked yesterday on a 3RR complaint. You may wish to comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fan user

Hi, over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah Carey's fourteenth studio album, there is a user called User talk:Hashtag beautiful who is just an obsessed fan who is trying to say that an article he has created, a recreation under a different name, should stay over the original, and is being personal toward me, saying that I have an "agenda" against Mariah and that for that reason my vote doesn't count. To the contrary, I love Mariah and have edited several of her articles. But I can see that what he is doing is wrong. I have explained further on the AfD. Can you do/say something to this user please.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest letting the AfD run for at least 24 hours and then ask at WP:ANI for a speedy close. You left a message for User:AuburnPilot who did the last protection and he may have an idea of what to do. The article doesn't appear to qualify for WP:CSD#G6 speedy deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

YourHumanRights

YourHumanRights (talk · contribs) was recently topic-banned from everything related to abortion, at WP:AE ([13]). He's already been blocked once for violating his topic ban ([14]). Since that block has expired, he's immediately resumed violating his topic ban at Talk:Preterm birth ([15]). He's obviously got no intention of respecting his topic ban, and rather than go through another filing in triplicate at WP:AE I thought I'd notify you to ask whether you'd be willing to enforce the sanction for this unambiguous repeat violation. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much for the quick response. MastCell ^Talk 05:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Decision at AN3

Hi. I am seeking clarification regarding your decision at AN3 here [16]. Based on the diffs provided, it should not be unclear what is going on in this situation. The user who filed this AN3 report was acting in response to his original block. If admins are not going to hold editors accountable for making spurious reports complete with misleading information, then they will continue to abuse Wikipedia processes and other editors. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 01:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We are used to a high percentage of spurious reports. People misunderstand the rules all the time. It is likely that the complaining editor is going to be in trouble soon, but an unclear report is not the best place to be taking action. It was noteworthy that there was little or no talk page discussion about the disputed points. Surely this is something you would have time to do. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Communication is challenging in this case: I got a snarky response from him [17] to a talk page comment in which I was supporting an edit he made. When editors disagree with him, things like this Wikiproject talk thread happen. But your points are well taken. Thank you for the quick reply. Regards Taroaldo ✉ 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sông Công RM

RMs are supposed to be closed based on discussion and guidelines rather then the agenda you had when you came in. The RfC you linked to was closed as "no consensus". The "mass moves" argument is just a lot of hand waving. Most diacritic titles on Wiki are where they are because at some point someone "mass moved" them there. Nobody has even put forward an argument in favor of putting Sa Dec at Sa Đéc town. This was part of a set of bad faith "mass moves" that were made back in September.[18] Kauffner (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The 'brand new editor' User:TenMuses was reponsible for the mass moves, so there was an argument for undoing them as a straight admin action. Regarding the merits of diacritics (or not), there seems to be a recent trend among move discussions, and not just for Vietnam. It takes time to find and link to all of them, but if you think I missed some recent ones that went the other way, let me know. Those within the last twelve months are most relevant. If you think there is a case to be made for Sa Dec, why don't you open a new RM just for that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You have could taken "a straight admin action," but you didn't. The voting on this issue has always been very close, so I am not seeing any "consensus". Britannica and National Geographic use diacritics for many languages, but make an exception for Vietnamese. The English-language Vietnamese media once used these marks, but no longer does so. Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't recommend any more unilateral mass changes to add or remove accents. Given the state of the controversy, any mass changes with no usage of RM would be seen as edit warring. User:TenMuses does not seem to have continued their campaign; otherwise a block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't worry about that kind of thing. If my Wiki-stalker is busy with this issue, he's not attacking my articles. Kauffner (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Decision at VPP

Your decision at VPP appears to not have been fully informed[19]. I request that you rescind your decision accordingly. My objection is explained in further detail here:

• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Objection

Your attention to this matter is appreciated. Thanks. --B2C 00:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We make progress through discussions. My closure was intended to reflect the views expressed in the original thread at WP:VPP. Possibly you just want this reversed. If instead you are open to a revision, it would help if you propose your own wording change for WP:DAB in the thread you have opened. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

How to best add/not add this news report

Hi Ed, you have in the past blocked me from editing, and I feel you are an impartial person to ask for help. Is there anything wrong with this news article:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php

I can't seem to add it to the Falun Gong wiki. Please help. If you agree with the other editors this is not relevant or notable to the wiki I will not insist on adding it.

Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's up to the other editors at Falun Gong as to whether this material belongs. You're proposing to add to our article a statement that Margaret Singer made to a newspaper in the year 2000. In my personal opinion this is a stretch. If you read the Margaret Singer article you'll see that she had some problems convincing her professional colleagues that her judgment on cults was valid. She used to give expert testimony in court cases, but at a certain point the courts stopped being receptive to her theories about cult brainwashing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: La jaula de oro

Close it, this shouldn't be treated as a different RM (I can open a new one in some days anyway). The real reason why these targets are like this is that the film page was created in a red link page and the album page was incomplety moved. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, someone else has closed the RM. How often does that happen? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House

Hey Ed. The proposed 'Odds of Winning' section has been up on the Talk page for a week and I think was supported by Bilbo. Regarding the changes I made, he said "I'm fine with that" but never gave me explicit permission to move it into article-space. Thought you might have some input on the best way to proceed, as I'm not sure it's quite non-controversial enough for me to make the edit without more direct permission. It's about two-thirds of the way down this string. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Oda Mari's talk page.
Message added 10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oda Mari (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Hey man, I noticed that you also supported deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith regarding the use of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad. Two other editors have suggested that since there are about a dozen articles on individual Hadith regarding the same topic, we scavenge what we can from them and simply merge everything into one place. The idea sounds like it has some promise and since you showed interest, I would like your feedback on the idea. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Move

FYI your move here was reverted. The edit summary is incorrect, since although this article, like 7-800 other db6 (admins Edgar131 and Graeme Bartlett's count) was indeed moved by placing db6 uncontroversial move templates, there still remain some Vietnamese rulers who have not been moved. The SPI Checkuser has concluded a possible match, but no admin has yet commented on action. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Indian Hindi television hoax information

Namaste, EdJohnston. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito☸Dutta 10:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
Message added 12:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  12:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi! I filed a request at WP:AE. I hope I filed it correctly, but if there's something wrong, please let me know. I'd like to correct it. Or should I ask for an Arbcom clerk to correct? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

deadmaus/deadmau5

I would like to ask you to please reconsider your decision to close the Deadmaus/Deadmau5 case. Ke$ha and Se7en can be validly renamed Kesha and Seven because they also go by those names. People use the name Kesha, and people use the name Seven to refer to the film. They weren't exclusively Ke$ha or Se7en. The reality is that Deadmaus is not a word. It was invented by wikipedians and this is a great example for why wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source - because wikipedians can create and publish total nonsense. Deadmaus is not a word. I understand the argument against Deadmau5, but Deadmaus is absolutely NOT a viable alternative. This is quite frankly embarrassing to wikipedia. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

From the discussion, it seems people could not agree whether '5' was part of the spelling of the artist's name or was an 'unpronounced decorative character.' Note that my closure at Wikipedia:MRV#Deadmaus (closed) linked to an RfC which is trying to change the MOS in this area. An effort to change the MOS would focus people's energies better than a continued struggle over 'Deadmau5'. My personal opinion would be to keep the '5', but it is hard to construct a stable policy rationale for that. There is an article called Kuro5hin (pronounced 'corrosion') which has been there since 2005! It has miraculously escaped any criticism of the title. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think using WP:COMMONSENSE should go without saying, and if you need a policy, WP:IGNOREALLRULES. I am trying make wikipedia as high quality of a source as possible, and this guideline is hindering that. That's what WP:IAR was designed for. Note that at the top of WP:MOSTM it says:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Some people would see the advice to ignore all rules as saying 'Ignore MOS:TM whenever it is convenient to do so.' How should discussion closers proceed when they see this kind of argument? 'Vote for my side even though it's against the guideline, because I personally think IAR applies?' If you want Deadmau5 to become legal, you will probably have to let in Ke$ha and a bunch of other stuff. That's fair, if consensus can be found to change the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

But Kesha is actually a more popular name than Ke$ha. Deadmaus is not a name at all. I agree that Deadmau5 is not an ideal title, but Deadmaus is wiki-created nonsense and it's an utter embarrassment to wikipedia! MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, as an admin, may I suggest that you temporarily change the article's title to "Joel Zimmerman" for the time being? Once we come to a consensus on the Deadmaus/Deadmau5 dispute, then it could be changed back, but Joel Zimmerman is accurate and uncontroversial in my opinion. It certainly isn't his WP:COMMONNAME, but then again neither is Deadmaus. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I support the above. Ed, see my message at BDD's talk page. It's shows some problems with comparing it to the Ke$ha move requests. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't continue the discussion here unless you see a flaw in my WP:MRV closure. I have no authority to move the article any more, since the MRV has closed. Under our rules User:BDD has more discretion and you can address reasonable questions to him. Still, if you just want to refight the original debate it may not be very helpful. The RfC is one avenue you might consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Can I start another proposal on the Deadmaus talk page to move the page? Are you basically saying that if there are no "flaws" in the move review, then this name is final? And we can't propose another move on the talk page? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you try to start another move request it may be summarily closed, like RM #2. You are better off participating in the RfC, or offering some brand-new option to BDD. The point of the RM and MRV process is to give some finality to disputes that would otherwise be endless. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• There would be nothing wrong with a Joel Zimmerman RM. While multiple RMs in short succession with the same target will generally be reviewed as disruptive/WP:IDHT, there's nothing wrong with discussing an alternative. I can think of a few pages offhand where things like that have happened recently. Any editor closing such a discussion would be pretty clearly wrong, and I won't hesitate to tell that to him or her. If you're hell-bent on getting rid of Deadmaus, this is probably your best option, followed by the RfC to modify MOS:TM. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the support BDD. Yes, getting rid of Deadmaus is on the top of my list. As I said, I agree that Deadmau5 is not an ideal name, but Deadmaus is not a viable option. Wikipedians should report events, not manufacture them. That's all there is to it. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry BDD, I must say I disagree with your note above "there's nothing wrong with discussing an alternative". As you can see, the new RM is quickly becoming an RM to move back to Deadmau5 - as with all RMs, any new names can be proposed, and in this case, it would be silly to !vote for Zimmerman when one could vote for Deadmau5. Thus, it effectively becomes a 3rd RM on the same subject. I wish you would not have encouraged this, and I hope you'll reconsider and shut that discussion down early.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intend for it to become an RM about Deadmau5. I wanted to discuss Joel Zimmerman. Maybe a better option would be to make it clear to the other editors, as an admin, that Joel Zimmerman is the only other alternative besides the current title of course. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize that, but it doesn't matter. It's impossible to constrain an RM discussion, at least, I haven't seen it done, and it's rather silly, and the participants would revolt anyway. So you either let it run (which IMHO is disruptive), or you kill it early, gather your forces, and come back in a few months. Life will go on either way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Teramo

Ciao! Unfortunately, the Teramo guy returned. Is there anyway to have him stop forever restoring his very poorly formatted version, losing all the improvements of years? Ciao and sorry for harming you again with this sad story. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm really bored with this matter at Teramo. He's an unreasoning guy who likes only Teramo, and likes only the Teramo version that, whatever he wrote in, is a mess not respecting many of the rules we are used to follow here (POV, wrong dates, bulleted lists everywhere, not to speak the poor English clearly from an Italian writer - even if in this case it's my same situation, although I always welcomed help for my language; etc). In my opinion, he never looked at the others' work here at all, or nearly, not to speaking of Wikipedia editing guides, despite (at least initially) I gently invited him to do that. He's a frenzy tornado who cannot live the next day knowing the poor Teramo page is not AS HE LIKES, with no perception this is (hope you agree) a collaborative work where, sometimes, it can happen that more experienced editors revert what you did in good faith (and it happened sometimes you did that with me). But I think you got also bored of this matter. Hope you can help us by just looking at the state of the two versions, look at the work (one article) and I (29th overall for bytes added in Wikipedia history, a lot of barnstars etc... did I boast too much? Ehm... :D) did here in the past years, and take a decision, perhaps involving somebody else. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A Favour

Hi Ed, I'm sorry in advance for asking this becuase it is a bit onerous. I was wondering if you could review my decision to Topic Ban[20] User:HighKing. The probation under which he was sanctioned is The British Isles probation, this is his second ban (I'm terming this a reimposition of the ban as it was indef last time). The first ban with a discussion of its context is here[21] from August 2011. He asked for the ban to be lifted after 6 months but had breached its terms[22][23]. He successfully appealed 6 months later[24] and I lifted the ban. For additional background a) see the block log for edit-warring blocks from 2008 to 2010[25]. Can you give me a sanity check here and if you think I'm going overboard let me know--Cailil ^talk 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The series of June 9th edits at Races and factions of Warcraft beginning at [26] are clearly a 3RR violation, regarding deletion of the term British Isles from an article. Even if the claim in the Warcraft article is actually unsourced, there is no exception from 3RR for removing stuff that you think is unsourced. The sanction at WP:GS/BI has a specific clause about edit wars over addition and removal. The spirit of the GS/BI sanction is to discourage a long term pattern of edits focused on occurrence of the phrase 'British Isles', and HighKing is still following a pattern of such edits. So I agree that your reimposition of the topic ban is justified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a known block-evading banned editor is generally acceptable and doesn't count towards 3RR. IP blocked and filter set up here --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

HighKing, since you linked to the SPI report I've struck out the comment about the edit war at Races and factions of Warcraft. But your history with and without the topic ban presents many concerns. This kind of a topic ban should not present much of an obstacle to ordinary good-faith editing. Your situation is totally unlike those seen in nationalist disputes where a topic ban might prevent a user from writing anything about their home country. This GS/BI ban should be harmless for editors that haven't taken a specific interest in the terminology about certain British islands. Striking that off the list of areas where you work on Wikipedia should not be a hardship. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from on this and thanks for striking the comment. I am a good-faith editor too, and it has been widely acknowledged that the vast majority of my edits on British Isles are good, and accurate. I don't edit war - although I'm being stalked by a sock and I have on occasion reverted twice before reporting. There's an insinuation in your comment that a "good-faith" editor doesn't pursue a gnomish editing habit relating to a single topic - in my case "British Isles". My response is that my editing is not disruptive, the articles are improved and more accurate, and over the past 6 months has only led to disruption when my stalker sock got involved - you can see the history on the SPI. --HighKing (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Ed--Cailil ^talk 14:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Problem with the proposed RfC

Hello admin EdJohnston,

Thank you for your message in my talk page. First I want to clarify that that one "Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV?" in the Talk:Senkaku Islands#Name change suggestion is NOT an RfC, as I said it is "an old discussion with a table may also be worth being reviwed", and for discussion. Although user Qwyrxian is an admin, but he has been so deeply involved in this topic that he can only act as a regular user in this topic area. This has been clear even before that Arbtration started. His comment in Talk:Senkaku Islands#Name change suggestion([27]) and in WP:AE#Senkaku Islands[28] seemed mistreating the discussion mentioned above as an RfC. The RfC I have suggested is this one User:Lvhis/xI RfC. There has been a misleading concept or definition based on Original Research that "Senkaku" is not the Japanese name but the English name, and this misleading is not helpful to fairly get real consensus on the naming issue. I am not pushing to start this RfC right now. I will be very thankful if you can give me more advice including the format.

One more question may I ask: that WP:AE#Senkaku Islands now has been seemed straying from the subject after Qwyrxian's comments. User:Oda Mari complained user Shrigley and me. I listed the evidence and pointed User:Oda Mari violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Final decision and should be topic banned. My statement was like a counter-complaint. But no comment and response on that. Should I open a new AE? I was just passively dragged in there.

Thank you again for your message and advice. --Lvhis (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The complaint filed by Oda Mari offers many confusing issues. The most likely result of WP:AE#Senkaku Islands is that a series of warnings may be issued, and possibly some advice will be given about starting an RfC. If you want to make a request in your section of the AE complaint please do so, but be very concise. Your attempt at an RfC will probably go nowhere because it is not in the expected form for RfCs. You can look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All to see some typical RfCs. It seems this is not the first time you've been told that your draft RfC is improper and the AE admins may not have a lot of patience. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Some party previously saying "Senkaku is the English name" now seemed having admitted it is a Japanese name. I am not taking any further step now. --Lvhis (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Taikun2013

Hm, see [29] - clearly an anti-Semitic comment. Sock? Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And, ironically in light of your removal of his AN3 submission, now at 3RR! Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for handling the Kauffner SPI, I know it was unnecessarily tedious. I was thinking of proposing move sanctions, but hopefully the block will be a wake-up call for him to quit disrupting the process.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Aleksd's talk page.
Message added 09:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

To summarize my feelings after reading the talk page of Aleksd: *sigh* The Banner talk 20:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC) And I keep sitting on my hands.

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Aleksd's talk page.
Message added --Aleksd (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello

Hi EdJohnston,

Is it really neccasry?[30], if I should leave here I'm O.K. with that just tell, tell me right here, you as uninvolved admin tell me KhabarNegar you should go & I will, promise! I will go, Its not a big deal... What is this behavior? I said I have good faith, and if I accept the topic ban it was only to show that I have good faith. Don't remove me, If you think you better ask me to leave I will do that right now, not a big deal really, I was here for good. I want to ask you if you want to think like that & you feel bad about me, please just inform me so I be able to just leave. I think all reliable users have trust in me. Honesty ask me to go, but don't behave like that. Thank you, last word I will leave if you want,KhabarNegar ^Talk 16:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You can still edit anything not related to politics or medicine. If you have agreed to the restriction you should follow it. In the future, if you show through your behavior that you can use negotiation to resolve disagreements, the restriction could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ed, correction, the edit restriction was only related to politics. KN is welcome to do more medical editing, under the guidance Doc James has offered regarding sourcing and avoiding copy/paste issues. Zad68 17:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on another user

About a year ago, you advised User:Baboon43 on how to deal with editing disputes. A year on and there are still some community concerns about the user's conduct. A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43. I'm letting you know in case you would like to weigh in on these concerns, as well as Baboon43's and any potential responses of his. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of Gulab Jamun for you

		A bowl of Gulab jamun for you
		Here is a bowl of Gulab jamun for you. Gulab jamun is a popular cheese-based dessert, similar to a dumpling, popular in countries of the Indian Subcontinent such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. Thank you. Tito☸Dutta 17:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Sounds delicious! EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

RJ Harris (politician)

The man's name is RichardJason, not Richard Jason. It was incorrect for you to move the page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, your talk page comment suggests press reports are more reliable than official documents. Do you stand by this assertion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Article titles: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." I think that my move closure summarized the policy that applies. None of the secondary sources call him 'RichardJason.' EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That actually comes before what I posted above. "R. J. Harris" as used in secondary sources is inaccurate based on the primary FEC source and personal website. WP:AT references reliable, not just "secondary" sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The policy on WP:Reliable sources indicates that they must be third-party. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." What you call the primary FEC source is a scan of a page filled in by the subject in his own handwriting. This has no value in showing whether this is a name that is actually used by others when they want to refer to him in print. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What comes from him should outweigh any thing a reporter posts. A man is a more reliable source for his own name than any reporter. That is common sense. Nevertheless, here is a court document clearly stating his name is RichardJason. Why must you perpetuate the inaccuracy of the secondary sources, when WP:AT clearly states "inaccurate names...are often avoided."?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I must also question your understanding of WP:RS. An RS is not defined as a third party source. It only states that articles must be based on third party sources. Context matters. A primary source "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations." And self-published material "may be used as [a] source[] of information" in articles about that subject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Preventive blocks not allowed, but ...

... perhaps it could be worth to do something about this. Invite the guy to request a block for his own second account? The Banner talk 15:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So long as he isn't using the old account we probably wouldn't do anything. The user's main account is editing in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. The Banner talk 20:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz edit warring again

I know that you reviewed my complaint about edit warring in the Ted Cruz article. As soon as you closed the complaint with a warning to both me and just one of the two IP editors another IP editor reverted my edit in the exact same manner as the first two IP editors. Now this third IP editor stated explicitly to me that he had warned me before and he referred back directly to the edits of the other IP editors to justify his reversal. I wanted to call your attention to this clear thumbing of his nose at your warning. Also, please note that I have not reverted the new IP editor. This third IP editor is the same person as IP editor one and IP editor two. He is using a socking to go around your warning--just as I originally claimed. I'm glad that he made my case very, very clear. Please have a look at the new 3RR complaint that I have filed here: 2nd 3RR complaint. Also, please take notice of my sock puppetry complaint here: Sockpuppet complaint against IP editors.--Galvan666 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback|User talk:ItsAlwaysLupus}} ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

Hi EdJohnston

I see you protected Aishwarya Rai Bachchan because of edit warring (I couldn't see the request, the link goes to the general request page). Being a curious being and always wanting to see who are the idiots who spoil it for everybody else, I looked up those involved in the edit war and see that the editor causing (starting) all the trouble is actually a [puppet]. Looks like he was outed a day after you protected the page. Unfortunately, I am sure 'he' will be back under another name. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Isaacsirup is now blocked as a sock of User:Mangoeater1000. This suggests that the edit war may be resolved. So I have lifted the protection, and we'll see what happens. Thanks for your note, EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Kamrup region

Bhaskarbhagawati has begun editing the lead again without resolving the dispute (Talk:Kamrup_region#Lede_dispute_--_A_summary and the following section, where you have arbitrated). Could you please help in this instance? The latest editis are related to a POV he is pushing on two other pages: Kamarupa Pithas and Kamapitha, where he is resisting a insertions of references and texts that do not support his POV. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What should I do next? BB has shut down all discussion with a wikibreak notice, but is continuing his reverts. Chaipau (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent edit-warring without 3RR breach but with BLP policy breach

Hi! I am so sorry to trouble you with this, but I am not sure what to do. Guilherme Styles has been edit-warring for weeks now. Several users, including me, have tried to contact him, but he ignores everyone and hasn't left a single edit summary. It can be seen from his contributions, but I'll provide diffs if necessary. Edit-warring is not the only problem; a much bigger one is blatant BLP policy breach (such as claiming that minor private citizens are part of a royal family, despite the monarchy's express statement that they are not). See, for example, his edits at Monegasque Princely Family. I was thinking about posting this at AN/Edit-warring (which is where I saw your name), but it then occurred to me that the user probably did not break the rule itself. He nevertheless engages in very disruptive behaviour despite several warnings and attempts to discuss the matter with him. What should I do? Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Since he never communicates and people have warned him that he is making factual errors in BLP articles there is a case for admin intervention. I've left a final warning at User talk:Guilherme Styles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am afraid that it did not helped.[31] Surtsicna (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor who will not discuss or even comment

Hello! This is not constructive, as it should have been discussed. I don't want to go to war about it. What can be done? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor is now blocked. Let's hope this leads to some negotiations. See a section higher up on this page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question

Ed, this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Final_decision

has been placed on my talk page by Tom Reedy with your name next to it. However I can't find any mention on your talk page.

Could you explain why you have been notified?

The problem as I see it is that certain pages are dominated by Stratfordians who wish to portray the SAQ as being a fringe issue, outside the mainstream, when in fact one of the most noted Stratfordian scholars has been reported by a reliable source in April this year as being concerned that it has 'entered the mainstream' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22206151. I don't have any issue with anyone saying that most academics do not accept this but if this is supported only by sources which say that ALL competent scholars reject the theory this should be qualified by referring to this source which suggests that it has entered the mainstream and a small number of scholars do think it is a valid line of enquiry. There are now university courses on this subject at Brunel, London and Concordia, Oregon. I'm not trying to argue that the topic be given a lot of space but I don't think Wikipedia should give the impression of complete and total rejection by all academics. I don't think that such a position was ever viable since the Brunel course was set up in 2007, now there are two such courses and as of April this year this reliable source acknowledging it has 'entered the mainstream'. I have very much the impression that certain Stratfordian editors are trying to suppress all reference to this quote, which is substantiated by the existence of the two course. That is surely wrong, a small amount of weight should be given to what is a minority view

I've never been involved in dispute resolution before. The dispute has centred on a particular passage in the Shakespeare authorship section in the article on the seventeenth Earl of Oxford.. and I think it would be good to have the views of editors who are not so committed to a particular position. I'm not committed to any position on this except fairness and balance. I intend to edit the passage shortly to give what I think would be a satisfactory and balanced wording, and will label it as such for any arbitrators/dispute resolvers who my take a look. I expect it to be reverted and am not going to get into endless re-reverts. I'll appreciate any response you can make. Thanks in advance Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the dispute between you and Tom Reedy since I have Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford on my watchlist. If it seems that you are edit warring to impose your point of view on this article you risk being sanctioned under WP:ARBSAQ. Your best option is to try to persuade the other editors on the article's talk page that your changes are justified. As an admin, I won't try to dispute the issues myself; I just observe whether changes are being made with consensus. Your claim that the theory 'has entered the mainstream' sounds like a journalistic throwaway line. To get the article changed you probably need to show that scholarly opinion has shifted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I only just saw this response. Repeat I wasn't simply reverting an edit, I was inserting disputed material in a different location. I've no intention of spending my time on that page. I have been trying to say that questioning the authorship isn't just a fringe thing, it is a small but significant minority view and deserves to be acknowledged as such. But it seems that recent arbitration has excluded from the page anyone who has sympathy for that point of view so that there is now a consensus of editors who will make any excuse for excluding it altogether. I was in fact trying to add a reference to the two already there so the three references together brought the sources in line with the text. I have to state it again, what goes on on that page and related articles looks like appalling bullying from far and away the rudest and most aggressive editor I have ever come across. I appreciate that wikipedia is democratic and also that it may not have sufficient administrators to intervene in such cases (I'm not going to put myself forward BTW)and maybe this sort of thing is the price which we have to pay for Wikipedia. However if it's allowed it may drive away existing editors and stop new ones joining. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"I have been trying to say that questioning the authorship isn't just a fringe thing, it is a small but significant minority view and deserves to be acknowledged as such." The consensus of schoarship is against you on that, and the consensus of editors here is also against you. It is fringe. It has been repeatedly judged to be fringe by experts since 1857. We have gone over and over this for many years. Its representation within academia is at the margins of the margins. Oh, and regarding Tom, see [32].Paul B (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

I think Tom's too polite to respond to the nth provocation from the usual quarters, so I'll presume I have the duty to defend his integrity.

I have to state it again, what goes on on that page and related articles looks like appalling bullying from far and away the rudest and most aggressive editor I have ever come across.

That can't be Tom Reedy, though he is the only editor you mention (and you remarked on the other page that 'Tom Reedy is constantly flouting one of the main pillars 'civility' and I don't quite understand why this is allowed.') Tom Reedy nearly wasted two years of his life trying to get a despondent, pathetically messy and laughable hodgepodge of an article out of the hands of its reigning dominus, in order to rewrite it according to the strictest criteria of both wikipedia, and of academic discourse. He succeeded: and the wikipedia community passed his handiwork for FA status. It's not often, further, that several of the leading scholars in an academic field come out in public to acknowledge their esteem for an editor of a wikipedia article. Stanley Wells, James Shapiro and others are on the record as expressing their deep gratitude for what he accomplished ('an unsung hero' is not idle praise) and his knowledge of their subject. That recognition not only honours Tom, who's an equable gentleman both off and on wikipedia, but wikipedia itself, esp. since for too long the professoriat, with some justification, had a reputation for warning their students not to use anything from this virtual encyclopedia. In articles like this, that caution against wiki's reliability has been dropped. Those who have edited with Tom will find your assessment incomprehensible, your acute bitterness over a triviality absurd, and your resentment unseemly. I suggest you desist from forum shopping for air a grievance that appears to pre-exist your interest in that page.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, I can assure you I don't feel actute bitterness and am not aware of any pre-existing grievance. I am appalled by the way some Straffordian academics speak of those who question the authorship, though none of this has ever affected me personally because I have never tried to publish anything on the subject. It's all rather amusing. I've no great axe to grind in this matter. What I've seen in the Shakespeare articles is generally very good, it just needs to lighten up around the edges, to represent the fact that a small number of academics do take SAQ seriously. Well of course Stanley Wells and James Shapiro would praise Tom, because he makes the article represent their own viewpoint and the viewpoint of the great majority. Nonetheless Wells is reported by a reliable source as being concerned that the SAQ has' entered the academic mainstream' - I'm not too familiar with BBC practice and do not know whether he would have had the chance to read the article first but in the context it would seem absolutely fair reflection of his views. I'll try to send this to Stanley through his website and invite him to comment, if he thinks the BBC have misrepresented him he is entitled to complain to them and should.Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As tweeted "@stanley_wells Can you confirm that you consider that doubts about the bard's authorship have started to 'enter the mainstream' BBC 23/4/13". I sent a message via http://bloggingshakespeare.com/contact#wpcf7-f4323-p3-o1 to inform Prof. Wells as to the background to this question on Wikipedia. I have also tried to inform Oxfordians generally through a contact (I have trouble downloading some emails at present). Perhaps this could revert back to the SAQ page, the reason I left it was I was getting notifications on other topics. I didn't realise this discuission had some way to run. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored SAQ talk to my watchlist so feel free to continue there.Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I made an analysis of the data in the 2013 book recently, and you never responded. It emerged that there was only one Shakespearean scholar of 415 academics who were listed as sceptical, Leahy. You never replied, but kept roaming wikipedia pages complaining that the gang on the SAQ page should say this is not fringe, but entering the mainstream. You have a reading problem assessing evidence if one means mainstream. I think the discussion ends there. At least it does for me. Nishidani (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of receiving such an analysis from you, can you show me that I should have received this? Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Try Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, where all this should be. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt topic ban

Continued from Smatprt's talk page

Ed, I had absolutely no way of knowing that Smatprt was under a topic ban. There should be a standard message which people who are under a topic ban can post on their webpage if someone tries to raise the subject there. Maybe the fact of there being a topic ban should also be posted there to stop someone like me posting. Or are you suggesting that before posting anything in this area I'm supposed to read thousands of rules. I undersytand that the proliferation of rules is one reason why Jimmy Wales is concerned about the decline in the number of editors. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested course of action

Thanks for your assistance at AN/3RR. Because Dimensionaut is such an obscure article, I was wondering if consensus building in the traditional sense is the right course of action, since few are likely to care or even see the request for consensus. I don't want to canvass, of course. Would an RFC be the right thing to do? Or possibly Third Opinion? In his 3RR report and the article talk page, Vuzor insisted another editor (User:Spanglej) gave consensus opinion about the synth and OR content he kept inserting, however, Spanglej never voiced her opinion one way or the other, save for the edit summary. So, I don't think her revert days ago would constitute a third opinion (making this case ineligible for the actual Third Opinion process). Your advice and thoughts would be appreciated on which way to go at this point. On the article content and use of synth and OR, as well. Thanks for your advice. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Asking which course of action to take or asking their opinion on the disputed content? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ask them if the issue has ever come up before. That is, if it is common to include mention of a concert tour in an article on an album. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. And thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

After starting a discussion that would hopefully lead to consensus building, editor User:Spanglej decided to revert the unreferenced and unverified content in dispute at Dimensionaut back into the article. I have reported this incident to AN/I here [33]. I am letting you know because your name is mentioned in my initial report. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Replies

For first matter it is accidently reverted and i have corrected it immediately by reverting myself. For second objection, i can give you link of DRN where they ask for omitting Gait as references. I like to clear it that user Chaipau is very expert at convincing admins of his partisan statements. I can also complain about him in dozen of matters including removal references but i am not interested in that. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC) I am only user in wikipedia who writes about Kamrup and Kamrupi, and i know very well that any edit even with references applicable in context or not. My past experience with user Chaipau is that he is not interested in Kamrup articles or reach any consensus through talk but create controversies and disputes including adding information which will give erroneous picture of subject. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC) I have asked for any issues relating Kamrup to discuss to avoid creating confusing articles. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak

BB is misleading. I have tried extensively to come to a consensus on Talk:Assam/Archive_2, Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_1, and on Talk:Kamrup_region#Lede_dispute_--_A_summary. BB has used references to make false claims on Kamapitha (My note) which he then used to change the lead of Kamrup region. The lead was the compromise text which was offered on the talk page so we could come to a conclusion (Talk:Kamrup_region#Compromise). BB ignored the compromise text and did not participate in the exercise to come to a compromise, and instead went ahead with his edits (diff), despite reminder on edit summaries to work on the the compromise text (diff). Dealing with BB is exasperating. Chaipau (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BB has since reverted my edits on Kamapitha (diff) Chaipau (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And BB has removed referenced texts again (diff), despite a warning (diff). Chaipau (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BB is continuing his resistance to WP:VERIFY. (diff). Chaipau (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitary break 1 - Replies

When we had consensus regarding Assam in RSN then why is your pov still there, why your pov is there in Kamrupi when high quality sources not agree, why you removed triple references in Kamrup article and again put your pov there. Regarding Kamapitha its an clear cut case but still creating dispute even then i asked to talk to create standard article over confusing one. What you are complaining about Kamrup. It was created for ancient Kamrup but keep insist to make it a pov fork of undivided Kamrup district which its till now as per your wish. And now want my right to even edit that article to be barred. Why are you putting all wrong medieval things just because your own history starts from medieval and that what your primary subject. Why misguiding unsuspecting admin to push your pov in every Kamrup article. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC) I ask admin to check edit summaries of that articles where reason are provide for reversal and i wonder does user Chaipau has right to complain about when we see his many unexplained revert.User Chaipau has nothing to do with Kamrup and Kamrupi and he should leave this articles to Kamrupi people and to avoid such long unwanted disputes which hampers article development. Currently i am only one who writes about Kamrup and Kamrupi subject. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Lastly as removal of references was issue brought in, summary is gait is unreliable source as per RSN and there high quality sources like Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti to contradict blunt statement by foreign author Urban. Thanks ! भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am ready to restore referenced edits by Chaipau but lets explore the issue little bit. There are three references:

(i)Though traditional accounts brand the kings of Assam as Indo-Aryan, modern scholarship accept them as native rulers who have been gradually Aryanized.<ref>"Virtually all of Assam’s kings, from the fourth-century Varmans down to the eighteenth-century Ahoms, came from non-Aryan tribes that were only gradually Sanskritised." {{harv|Urban|2011|p=234}}</ref> This is a blunt statement by Urban. Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti, an exclusive body for research on ancient Kamrup studies in its journal "Readings in the history & culture of Assam" in page number 179 says "The Varman dynasty, which was probably the first Indo-Aryan dynasty in Assam was overthrown by Salastambha, a man of Mleccha or non-Aryan (Mongolian) origin". So if there any update on this theory, they are to report it first.

(ii)Aryanization (or Sanskritization), was a process that occurred simultaneously with "deshification" (or localization, or tribalization) in Assam.<ref>"Here I will follow the lead of Wendy Doniger, who suggests that the development of Hinduism as a whole in South Asia was not simply a process of Sanskritisation, that is, the absorption of non-Hindu traditions into the brahminic system; rather, it also involved a process of ‘Deshification’, that is, the influence of local (deshi) and indigenous cultures on brahmaic religion and the mutual interaction between Sanskritic and deshi traditions." {{harv|Urban|2011|p=233}}</ref> This another statement from same book. His statement is correct for North, Central India but not Kamarupa because Hinduism spread here much later i.e in developed stage.

(iii)In return, the Indo-Aryan languages in the region acquired linguistic features of the native speakers.<ref>"Large scale diffusion of linguistic innovations has been taking place between Asamiya, the Sino-Tibetan languages and Khasi in this area for a very long time {{harv|Moral|1997|p=44}} </ref> This maybe better presented in Assamese language article because Kamrupi Apabhramsa does not show this feature. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(i) Most of your claims are untenable.

• Kamrup Anusandhan Samiti (KAS) is an organization that brings out a few issues of a journal to which people contribute. The contributors need not be members of this organization. The English name of the organization is "Assam Research Society". So, Kamrup and Assam is used synonymously here.
• You seem to suggest that Urban (2011) is proposing a new theory. This is not true. Chaterji (1974) has held the Varmans were tribals who converted to Hinduism ([34]) which precedes the KAS article (1984). That the KAS article is speculating is very clear from the use of the word "probably": "The Varman dynasty, which was probably the first Indo-Aryan dynasty in Assam".

(ii) You may not agree with Urban and that is your POV. Resisting Urban here is POV pushing.

(iii) Again, your claims are original research. Writers like M M Sarma (1978) have shown that the features of Assamese had developed during the Kamarupi Prakrit stage itself. He lists 17 Prakritisms, and states "The above noted features are mostly seen in the Assamese language also." (p-XXVII). There is a relationship between Kamarupi Prakrit and Assamese language, and you have no basis for your claim.

Chaipau (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably used by KAS is due to that fact that Naraka dynasty was also aryan though some considers as part of mythology of Kamarupa. There is no high quality source topping KAS. Kamrupi Apbhramsa is oldest form of Assamese i.e newly arrived Indo Aryan language. So there no question of tribal language influence. What are your other doubts ? भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have provided direct quotes for so call fakes which you refused to provide for Kamrupi when requested by me and one admin in near past. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Help

Hello!

You don't know me, but since you are the first administrator I saw on the noticeboard concerning edit wars, I figured I would ask for your help. A user by the name of RolandR has started a complaint against me regarding a dispute we had on the Socialism page. I have agreed to stop my edits to the page as to avoid further conflict, however, RolandR has not agreed to withdraw his complaint. Can you please take a look at the case and render a decision so that we can move on? I'm busy with a number of tasks and being in limbo waiting on whether or not I will be blocked is a distraction. I don't think I deserve a block, as I have agreed to stop the editing, but I would like a quick decision. All help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 23:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was actually going to make a comment on WP:AN/3RR, but it's apparent that you don't understand the definition of a revert. From WP:EW: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." ...based on your comment at AM/3RR, you oddly don't seem to think you were edit-warring. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Bwilkins for the apt response. See WP:AN3#User:EnglishEfternamn reported by User:RolandR (Result:Not blocked) for the report in question. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

Regarding the templating thing, I know it is a judgement call, and mine of course has been called into question so I thought I ought to ask you about this one. If an editor reverts content, which shall we say puts a certain group into a favourable light, even though that editor had been told on the article talk page that one of the sources failed on primary and the second which was highly partisan was not RS, and then on another article changed "Attacks against women" to "Allegations of attacks against women" when it is well documented that these atrocities had in fact happened, see Being Muslim and Working for Peace: Ambivalence and Ambiguity in Gujarat The Deadly Embrace: Religion, Politics and Violence in India and Pakistan 1947-2002 The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India Does such a violation of WP:NPOV deserve a warning? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please give a link to wherever this dispute is. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was wrong mate, it was another editor who reverted, they had not taken part in the talk page discussion. Sorry to have wasted your time. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Alcastilloru - repeated edit warring

Hello EdJohnston,

last week you gave Alcastilloru a final warning for edit warring. Still, he/she continued to edit war at A New Era and Justice First. I have not yet reverted the other edits (although I think I should, given that they are unsourced as usual), because I do not want to fuel the edit war across several articles. Do you think that some action would be appropriate? Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Alcastilloru. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

user:Bhaskarbhagawati

Bhaskarbhagawati is ignoring your warning (diff) to restore well-sourced information, and continuing to revert (diff). Chaipau (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am at a loss on what to do now. BB's modus operandi is---insert controversial POV and then discuss ad infinitum, while resisting changes. You have seen this happen on Kamarup region diff, where he inserted a poorly sourced assertion, and holding out against any change even as he wants to pick and choose a boundary of Kamapitha against a mass of confusing evidence Talk:Kamapitha. This pattern of enforcing his POV is now at work in yet another article: Etymology of Assam, where he is WP:BLANK-ing sections. Please let me know if there is a remedy for this type of disruptive behavior, which leaves no room for others. Chaipau (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Page: Template:Syrian civil war infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]

Diff of similar revert (linking Kurds with Syrian rebels despite consensus against it on the talk page):

1. [41]

He's been reverted by 3 editors and misrepresents sources too. He has been warned by another admin ([42]. I contacted you because you left a message on his talk page about related content. Pass a Method talk 08:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Call for research participants

Dear EdJohnston, we are a Croatian team of researchers who are looking at the editing dynamics on different language Wikipedias and are focusing specifically on the topic of Kosovo. We are looking for users who have edited, discussed, or acted in accordance with administrative rights on articles about this topic, and who would be willing to be interviewed for the purpose of this research project. This is a project approved by the Wikimedia Foundations´ Research Committee and you can find more information on this meta-wiki page. Research results will be published under an open access license and your participation would be much appreciated. If you would like to participate you can reach us at our talk page or directly at interwikiresearch@gmail.com and we will set up an interview in a way that best suits your needs. Pbilic (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PDAB

Hi, in recent days you closed the discussion at WP:VPP about WP:PDAB. In it just 13 people participated and the final discussion ended 7-5. I know this is not a poll but I've seen discussion like AFDs, RMs, FACs, etc. that end with similar participants and closed as "a no consensus to...". In my opinion, and some others people, this discussion was incorrect in many ways, first why it is relevant for WP:DAB and not WP:AT, because this is an AT issue (see the relevant discussion at WT:D), second, it still being ambiguous, because "Paris" is a PDAB in the strict sense, and third, why PRIMARYTOPICOFX, like PRIMARYALBUM, cannot be created instead, for example at Revolver (album) which redirects at the Beatles album and should be inversed first of all per WP:PRECISION (currently taken to VRM(?)). Anyway, I'd like to take this new subsection to revision, but first I don't know where this can be done, second, what is needed to say about why it should be revisited, third, if people can be invited to participate, especially those who have participated in similar discussions, and fourth, the reason why you decided to close the discussion as a consensus to be applied elsewhere. Also, I don't have internet at home so I can't reply you or open a discussion immediately, but I'd like to know all the possible information. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Some prior discussions happened at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Partially disambiguated page names and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 107#Partially disambiguated titles.

It's probably not helpful just to keep rerunning the discussion until you get the answer you like. The underlying issue of disambiguation is susceptible to progress. Consensus can change, especially when there are new ideas or new arguments that were not presented the first time around. You might contact User:Neelix who opened the thread at VPP and ask him for his suggestions on how to get the guideline reviewed or further improved. The idea that there is primary *album* called 'Revolver' which is different from the primary topic of 'Revolver' has its own difficulties. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Antinoos69 and edit warring on a BLP Robert A. J. Gagnon

Hello EdJohnston,

This editor continues edit warring even after being blocked previously for edit warring on the same article and being warned repeatedly. They added their content against consensus even after being reported to WP:3RR, and they then left a hostile, confrontational message on the article's talk page, showing zero understanding of or willingness to comply with our policies. Quite a few experienced editors have tried for a month, without success, to explain policy and our behavioral norms. We need help from an administrator. Will level headed editors have to suffer abuse for not blowing our stacks? Will you use your toolkit? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See my warning to this editor at User talk:Antinoos69. He has not edited Wikipedia since I left the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw your warning, which is why I am here. Based on previous behavior, I consider the likelihood of future tendentious editing to be very high. If you are watching and poised for action, then I am reassured. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Central Europe

Recently an editor added an external link which is simply a Google search. This is not allowed by WP:ELNO, point #9, and I recommend that it be removed. And, is it possible that the three Dragon* accounts named User:Dragonstudents, User:Dragonerstudents and User:Dragonsstudents are all operated by the same person? Please see WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, it is not a simple "google web search" as you called it. It is from the google books, the World's largest digital library of printed books from the earliest to the newest books.--Dragonsstudents (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)--Dragonsstudents (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It doesn't matter if it was a search in Google books or Google web. Arbitrary search results are not considered reliable sources and are not allowed as external links either. If you would like to reference a statement, you should present single book results with author, title, and preferably a page number. These references may each contain direct links to a single online preview from Google Books, but please don't present a search link with multiple results. De728631 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Case study

Hi Ed. I was wondering if you'd be interested in doing a postmortem of sorts on IranitGreenberg. As you may be aware, this editor, after being blocked, used sockpuppets and will probably never be returning to being a legitimate editor. I think there's an interesting case study to be had here regarding how new pro-Israel editors are bullied and trolled until they make a mistake or two and are then blocked. Please let me know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Prior to anyone seeking administrative action, Iranitgreenberg was warned on 5 separate occasions about edit warring by three separate editors and an Admin, he was also warned for inappropriate canvassing and given the standard IP arbitration notice prior to anyone seeking sanctions. There comes a point when it becomes clear that new editors are not listening to warnings they are receiving from experienced editors and admins. IG's first block was for 24 hours (for edit warring). Following the block he carried on exactly as he had done before being warned again by multiple editors. There is also the point that NMMNG acknowledges by describing him as a "new pro-Israel editor": He was here to WP:ADVOCATE a position, not objectively write an encyclopaedia in line with Wikipedia policies and principles. Dlv999 (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The editor had a POV, just like you have a POV. I'd just as easily describe you as an anti-Israel editor. That in and of itself doesn't disqualify people from editing. But how about you let me talk to Ed and join in if and when he decides he wants to have this discussion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a good person for this. I have no good memories of the IG situation. They started out on the wrong foot since their earliest edits. Actually the reverse does sometimes occur -- where someone starts out badly in the I/P area, may even be topic banned for a while, but eventually settles down and becomes a normal editor. Anyway IG is only blocked for three months and may return to editing in September. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The 3 month block is for socking. The topic ban is indefinite. If you don't want to do it, that's fine, but lack of memory shouldn't be the reason. I approached you both because you're the one who topic banned them and because I find you to be a reasonable admin, not because I expected you to remember all the details. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I query your choice of IG as an example of 'a new, pro-Israel editor' who, except for bullies and trolls, might have gone straight. Check the first two edits at Special:Contributions/IranitGreenberg and tell me if this doesn't suggest a person who had a previous account. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Because they edited their user page? I honestly don't know. Nobody said anything about socking at any stage (other than the customary "did you have previous accounts" all new editors get) up until this editor was blocked, so that wasn't the reason he was treated badly. But I'm getting the impression you don't want to deal with this. Could you recommend someone else? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what, scratch that. I'll just take some of these guys to AE. There are many more examples beyond IG. Sorry to have bothered you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As of July 4 User:IranitGreenberg has been indef blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring complaint

As it seems that the matter at AN3 has been resolved in my absence, I will not stir up any further storms there. But since you asked, that comment was indeed directed at Sopher.

Some background: the third column was recently (finally) added after months of fierce and bitter talkpage disputes. Sopher (who isn't exactly shy about where his passions lie in this conflict) long opposed the moving of Kurdish groups into a new column. When consensus was clearly against him, he moved to throw a marginal Kurdish party in under the rebels on shaky sourcing with no consensus. When I removed it, it would seem that he lost his cool and ripped out the third column outright—a Reichstag-climbing stunt in my eyes.

The Syrian civil war topic area is rife with problems, and I fear that it will end up at ArbCom before long. I won't be the one to bring it there, as I generally prefer to solve problems in-house as much as possible, but I am bracing for that real possibility. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Bamler

Hi EdJohnston, I'm of the opinion that Bamler is trolling. He seems to be aware of how careless editing is disruptive, but ignores his own problematic edits, and accuses other people of disruption for following guidelines. Bamler complains that being handicapped limits his abilities, but he expends effort to submit comments such as: "In the Doritos article, the [bot] removed a valid edit and committed vandalism. It should be punished" Or to accuse others of racism for the use of the word "former" to describe a police officer who was fired from his job (before murdering four people): "look at Chester arthur, does not read that he was a former president. please no racism" Or for his little April Fool's joke (which he immediately reverted). Or with a combative attitude that had already materialized within his first five days of editing. My two cents, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your comment at User talk:Bamler2. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nairi and Ararat arev

There's been long term IP Armenian nationalist editing at this article by IPs that link to Ararat arev (who edited it heavily before he was blocked). You tagged User:75.51.172.205 as a sock of an Ararat arev sock (User:Frost778}. It's been semi-protected in the past, I think it's time for protection again (you were also the first editor to protect it). I've warned 2 IP addresses for 3RR in the last couple of days and asked for them to discuss on the talk page but they haven't, simply replacing the text that matches the sources(that say it is a region) with text not in the sources (it is the name of a tribe}. SP would obviously allow them to respond to me on the talk page where I've left quite a bit on what the sources actually say. What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you seem to be away. In your absence I've done this, but I'd like you to review it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Nairi#Semi-protected. This looks to be an obvious match with User:Ararat arev. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM

Ed, you mentioned my doing some of these. Based on this thread, I did my first one. When you have a moment, could you take a look at it and let me know whether I handled it reasonably. I don't mind doing more, but if I'm making mistakes, I'd rather not repeat them. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. I just fixed one of the templates where Paul Chapman is one of the entries. In general I'd be more concerned about double redirects and leave the rest alone, unless I had some spare time. Perhaps somebody will respond to your AN comment and we will learn something. When an admin closes a RM I think the main priority is to filter out moves that are silly or make no sense. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So you'd do the opposite of what I did and focus on the double redirects (I checked the image, the sort key, etc.)? There were a lot of double redirects; won't the bots take care of them? I can understand fixing that template. I'll wait to see if anyone responds. My guess is the way admins handle these isn't uniform. Thanks for looking at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You get extra credit for looking at the image and the sort key! When someone requests a move it is unclear whether the admin is totally responsible for all cleanup. Once I overlooked that the target page had a history, so it should have had a histmerge. Except for that I don't get much feedback on the technical side of moves, as to whether I'm doing it right. Of course, people may disagree on whether the consensus of the move discussion was correctly inferred, but that's a whole different thing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Violation

A user who has been topic banned under WP:ARBAA2 has violated the ban here and here and has created an article about the conflict (See: Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War) Even though the user appealed for an appeal and has been permitted to edit only Azerbaijani sports articles, he/she continues to violate his/her ban by editing articles about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Notifying User:NovaSkola. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Violating a topic ban results in a block. Not a mere notification or warning. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to look into the matter here, you are expected to notify him. A report in which you don't even mention the editor's name is not super-helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I remember, I didn't violate as I didn't wrote in any political related topics. I've just wrote article on list of Azerbaijanis and wrote a book, without touching any political consent. Furthermore, that book is well established in western media and written by well known journalist. I've created just a article about book, which doesn't violate my ban as it is not politically related. I also hope false allegations by Proudbolshoyeye needs to be reviewed as he keeps attacking others users without having constructive evidence. --NovaSkola (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You created an article on Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. This is a book about the AA conflict. Writing this article violates your ban. If you have such a poor understanding of your ban, a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I have to second EdJohnston that this book is about the AA-conflict and politics. The Banner talk 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I wrote and created article in consent that this is book, not due political conflict. I am outraged that Wikipedia violates rights of established users, who contributed and takes side of false allegation users, who is just watches you so they can ban you.

If this is how things done here, I want to retire. But remember, you can lose battle, but win the war. Goodbye--NovaSkola (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Making a runner and returning under a new identity will make you loose your war straight away. The Banner talk 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the user has already been blocked for violating the topic ban (See: block log. Clearly, he/she knows the rules and regulations and has faced its repercussions. I do not understand the point of a topic ban if the user is going to keep on editing articles he/she is banned from. Even worse, the user came to your talk page with WP:Battlefield like threats by unleashing some sort of war against Wikipedia. How does this not merit a block? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI: begging for a block for another editor can be regarded as a PA and disruptive editing. Both are blockable offences... The Banner talk 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Understandable. My question as to how does it not merit a block was sincere. I will do this more formally and open up an AE per Sandstein's pending opinion on his talk paghe. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see in any of Proudbolsahye's comments any "begging" to block the other editor. In no way his factual statements may be construed as PAs or disruptive editing. Your warning is completely unwarranted. Actually warning an editor for bringing valid complaints about arbitration enforcement to administrators and fairly arguing about them is counterproductive and can have a chilling effect allowing blatant violators to remain unchecked. And make no mistake here. The editor concerned is a repeat and continuing violator of AE restrictions. It is unwise to talk about PAs and worse, disruptive editing, for pointing out the obvious. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, in reply to your question on my talk page, I have of course no objection to you directly taking any enforcement action that you deem appropriate. But this sloppy, scattershot, admin-shopping approach to AE that often provides incomplete information, no notification etc. is why I personally prefer to tell people to just write up a proper report at WP:AE in most cases.  Sandstein  19:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided, I've gone ahead with a one-month block of User:NovaSkola for violating his ban. If the editor would like a wider review, he can use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:EN Madrid dispute

I think it better if it is shut as no consensus, and that your proposal is introduced in a new talk page section. To understand the reason for the RfC debate one has to look at the earlier discussion. I suggested Berlin and Warsaw as two example (and put them in to the article) but reverted back to the original wording because it was the last stable version and the intermediate edits were starting to take on the familiar destabilisation of a revert war.

Therefore although I would not object to that wording you suggest (although I think it adds verbosity for no appreciable gain), I think it more important to close this RfC.

Then if you wish to propose your new wording in a new section we can see if there are any objections from other editors before it is implemented. -- PBS (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Death of Ishrat Jahan

Hi EdJ. I don't think this was a good move. Though the incident has Ms. Jahan's name on it, it involved the death of four people, not just Ms. Jahan and it is about the encounter, not her death. Calling it "Death of Ishrat Jahan" is completely at odds with what the article is about. Moving it to "Ishrat Jahan Encounter case" would be a lot better though, in reality, we should be sticking to the original title because of its preponderance in reliable sources. (What I'm trying to say, perhaps badly, is that the article is not about her death but rather about the encounter by which she and four others were killed.) --regentspark (comment) 12:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors are welcome to continue discussing the best title, but 'encounter case' seems to be asserting in Wikipedia's voice that the police were guilty. 'Alleged encounter case' would be awkward. Also this usage of encounter is a regional word that won't be understood by people in other English-speaking countries. If you want to review examples of how other such deaths are titled (when confirmed) you could look at Category:Extrajudicial killings. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess you don't intend to reconsider so this is probably pointless. I'll resort to plan B (another move request I suppose) in a bit. Thanks for your time. --regentspark (comment) 13:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hollywood#Requested_move

Hello. It seems to me that you closed the discussion before anybody could respond to the new point I raised. Also, you closed it before anybody from the Southern California Task Force could come in from the notice I posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California/Southern_California_task_force#Hollywood.2C_Los_Angeles. I would really like you to reopen the discussion. It is an important matter and one not to be lightly discarded. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you're the person who opened the move request, it would be reasonable to expect you to figure out the case for your proposal and to invite any needed WikiProjects up front. Your idea was not lightly discarded since the discussion was open for the regulation amount of time. In actuality, nobody but you preferred 'Hollywood, Los Angeles' was opposed by a wide margin. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. User:LtPowers also supported the move. In any event, don't you think it would be fair to keep the discussion open until more people can comment? Couldn't hurt. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Are you reconsidering? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not reconsidering. You have the option of a move review, but should give some thought why so few people supported your change. Can you think of a better argument to persuade them? It is more useful for you to try persuading the other editors than to persuade the closing admin to extend the discussion yet again. In the past, there has been opposition to arbitrary disambiguation for well-known places. It is possible that some of the people who opposed Hollywood, Los Angeles had this kind of thing in mind. For example, our article on Detroit is called Detroit and not Detroit, Michigan. WP:USPLACE summarizes a bit of this. See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Naming convention for a recent discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I think that you, like others, miss the point entirely, that "Hollywood" is sometimes just a state of mind, but that is an argument I can make elsewhere. Also I feel that you closed the discussion much too early for the community to consider that point. I appreciate your reply. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked for a review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_July GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

AE report

Hello EdJohnston,

DragonTiger23's AE report has been archived. I am wondering if it can be reinstated as part of the main project page of AE or facilitate a result at least? Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When I have some time, I'll unarchive this request and try to close it. Ping me again if this isn't done in 24 hours. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ping! :D Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Now closed at WP:AE#DragonTiger23. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt topic ban scope

I'm having a disagreement with Smatprt at his talk page on whether his WP:ARBSAQ topic ban applies to uncontroversial sections of articles on Shakespeare's individual plays. Your opinion would be appreciated. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt's latest ban is by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and you can see his ban message here. It is best to contact FP and see what he wants to do. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Help please!

Need some advice and possibly help. The article Nancy Miracle has been on my radar since noticing a hinky edit while on recent changes patrol. The article, in my estimation, may not even meet notability guidelines. Since it was created, the article subject, Nancy Miracle, who claims to be the daughter of Marilyn Monroe and has only been working under an IP here, has edited it in a WP:SPA and POV manner beginning with this edit [43]. She then edited with another IP beginning with this edit here [44]; and now the most recent IP began editing here [45]. It was clear to me that she was probably Nancy Miracle because of the style of edits. I asked if she was Nancy Miracle here [46] at the article talk page and she answered int he affirmative. After doing some research online, I discovered that all references included in the article were essentially self-published and that Ms. Miracle (not her real name, by the way) has been creating her own self-published references around the web for quite some time. Her claims of being Marilyn Monroe's daughter have all been debunked by actual Monroe historians, and the facts just don't add up. The only book supporting her claims is a self-published book, written by her. I direct you to a review of the book from a Monroe historian that pretty much sums up what seems to be the truth regarding Ms. Miracle's book, claims, and the source of her motives: [47]. I think it needs to be determined if Miracle should be allowed to continue to edit the article, especially in the manner she has been doing so. I left a message on her IP talk page here that expressed my concerns, leaving it open for those more clued in on this type of issue to decide whether she will be able to edit any further and/or any restrictions. The link to that diff is here:[48]. As I stated at another editor's talk page a couple of days ago (he had also been reverting Miracle's edits), I'm not really sure where to go here or if I'm even handling this situation correctly (diff:[49]). It seems to be time for an administrator to step in, as I pretty much feel out of my element and don't want to do or say the wrong thing. Sorry this is so darn long, my hope is that you will not invoke WP:TLDR! I appreciate any assistance or advice you can provide. One more thing: if you aren't interested in taking this on, just let me know. And if you do decline this request, could you maybe give me an idea of where to take this or another administrator to take this to? Thanks! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right but an admin can't act on this unilaterally. My suggestion is to take this to take this to the WP:Conflict of interest/noticeboard. Most likely the editors there will advise you to nominate the article at WP:AfD. The benefit of starting out with a report at WP:COIN is that this will get attention to the problem, so that if an AfD is opened up it will not be ignored. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Guilherme Styles

Hi! I am afraid that Guilherme Styles does not intend to respond to anyone (or write anything whatsoever). Instead, he keeps reverting despite being told that his edits are very detrimental. Would it be possible to block that user for good? Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I issued the last block of this editor, you should try reporting this at WP:AN3. Try to summarize the history as well as you can. Last time around, there was a claim that he was inserting wrong information in royalty articles. This needs to be documented properly, that he is adding info that is contrary to sources. If you can show that all he does here is add information to articles that is often wrong and is never sourced he might deserve a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew there must be a procedure to follow. WP:AN/I might be a better place because, despite obvious edit-warring and refusal to discuss his edits, he does not seem to have broken the 3RR. Surtsicna (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House

Hi Ed. I would be interested in your input here if you have time to comment. CorporateM (Talk) 04:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment at Talk:Publishers Clearing House. I don't know if RSN is the best place to consider this. Most people would surely accept that a state attorney general is a good source for whether the state agreed to a legal settlement. The real question is if the data went through a reporter's mind in the effort to give a balanced account, one that included material both for and against the accused party. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That was along the lines of the feedback I got at RSN, though the comments were also adequate to make progress. I started a similar string here to discuss the use of the Attorney General's press release to add a complete list of the agreements made in bullet-form. I feel this is a substantial weight issue for a lawsuit only covered in blurbs. Naturally, I also understand that other, much larger and more notable lawsuits, will be covered in greater depth. CorporateM (Talk) 23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for all your participation on the PCH article. I noticed you've handled a couple of the Request Edits and was wondering if you would do the honors here. CorporateM (Talk) 14:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Kopex

Hi, EdJohnston I of course don't want to violate any of the Wikipedia rules. I'm quite new here. I would like to create article about Kopex that is just plain information about company. I don't want to create ad of any kind. Can You give my some guidelines what to change in my article to apply to Wikipedia rules. I would like to find some solution in creating Kopex article. It is a notable Company but there aren't much sources about that Company yet. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grzegorz kopex (talk • contribs) 05:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your initial attempt at creating an article resulted in a copyright violation. Please see Wikipedia:AN#Request to salt : Kopex and respond in that discussion. If you want to write an article here, it needs to be in your own words. it can't be copied from some other website or publication. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Bamler2's talk page.
Message added 22:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just to let you know, I clarified what the content was on his user page that was deleted and what article he was edit warring over a photograph at. ...William 22:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I edited User talk:Bamler2 to move your comments into their own section. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to know...

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Obitauri undoing redirect to unsourced article. You commented on a previous 3RR report concerning this editor — see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216#User:Obitauri reported by User:DVdm (Result: Protected). I thought you might be interested. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Kamapitha -- need help

Hi EdJohnston,

We are at an impasse at Talk:Kamapitha---could you please help resolve the discussion? I have created a table with evidence here (Talk:Kamapitha#Summary_of_boundaries) for easy reading. Chaipau (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:Kamapitha#Kamapitha. My guess is that you have the better case here, but as an admin I can't act unilaterally when there's no explicit 3RR violation or vandalism. My suggestion is to create a very simple WP:Request for comment, for example, asking whether a direct quote from a certain author about the boundary ought to be left in the article. You're claiming that the other party insists on removing the quoted material. If you present a simple RfC that is easy for outsiders to understand, you might get some people who are new to the problem to chime in. Another problem with the overall dispute is there are no maps, so it's not easy for people unfamiliar with Indian geography to see what you are talking about. If you need any help in setting up an RfC, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, thats a great help. I really would like your help in setting up an RfC. I have added an animated GIF map to show the different boundaries in the sources (Talk:Kamapitha#Summary_of_boundaries). Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I read through the sections at WP:RfC and thought I understood the process. I have listed submitted an RfC (Talk:Kamapitha#RfC:_Should_one_definition_of_the_boundary_override_all_others.3F). I assume your scrutiny of the discussion and RfC recommendation amounts to WP:3O. I shall still look forward to inputs from you, if you deem them necessary. Chaipau (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dragon23: Topic ban evasion

Seems that DragonTiger23 clearly violated his topic ban multiple times recently, [[50]] [[51]], and this happens just 10 days after it was imposed.Alexikoua (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Although he had been informed to refrain [[52]], it seems that this wasn't enough to conveince him. Unfortunately he still continues to violate his restriction. Not to mention aggresive responses [[53]], revealing an extreme edit-warring nature Alexikoua (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. I asked you about this in the past and suggested me to discuss it with Neelix, but considering this was discussed in the last weeks in the project itself I boldy created the RFC. You can participate or give ideas if you want to. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra sock; sporadic but still persisting

Hi Ed, since I last contacted you about the so-called "Cassandra" sock at the end of April (here), the activity has been fairly slow but persistent and moving clearly back to their pattern of forum posts of their own OR theses. They don't seem to have mended their ways. Some examples are:

This, which I initially responded to but then removed it as the section was just a forum post on Cassandra's personal OR observations.

This exchange superficially might seem more reasonable but is really an attempt to concoct evidence for a similar theory.

There's also: this and this. This may well be correct but is unsupported speculation. This is OR stated as fact.

There are also a few others possibly less inappropriate but that do not really seem to be focused on improving the article such as this and several others.

The IP range contribs you gave me were [54] and [55] (no recent significant activity in the latter) but I think I came across the odd one that is out of these ranges too.

Do you think another time-limited block of the IP range would be appropriate? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This problem has gone on long enough that it's best if you file this at WP:SPI. Let me know if you need assistance with filing it. Since the user doesn't appear to have a registered account, you could open the SPI under the name 'Cassandra.' If you do so I can add my own comment to the sockpuppet report. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Ed, I'll get on the case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Sorry Ed, but tis the templating thing again, now IMO this post warrants a notification, based not only the removal of an image of a girl who had been attacked, and the the rather poor defense of that removal, but this "Nothing is said about aggressive Christian missionary activities to convert Hindus especially in rural village" This strikes me as a man on a mission, and one who ought to be let known of the Ds in the topc area, your thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:AE for an admin warning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:TheShadowCrow

Ed, before TSC drives me compleletely bananas, how does an AE appeal get closed? Does it have to be closed by someone other than the uninvolved admins who expressed an opinion on the block, or can it be closed by any uninvolved admin? Me, for example. It seems to me like there's a consensus for lifting the block, although it's not clear what the consensus is for collateral issues. I'm also not crazy about your saying that whoever closes the appeal becomes the new owner of the ban. Now there's a disincentive for any admin who's thinking about closing it. :-) Anyway, TSC is being a pest (among other things), and I don't really know how to answer that specific question.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

See my new comment at AE. Feel free to do the close if you want. At present there is no rule that the closer can not have expressed an opinion, but it is expected the the closer will try to read the consensus. The person who imposed the sanction being reviewed should not close, otherwise they are reviewing themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I closed it and took ownership of the ban, which is why I'm back here. What does that mean exactly? You stated that with an ownerless ban, any modifications would have to be brought back to AE. That implies that when a ban has an owner, the procedure to modify the ban is different. What is it? For example, at the tail end Gatoclass suggested adding categories to the ban. As you can see, I closed the appeal without adding categories because there was no consensus for doing so. However, how could the ban be modified to add cats?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding a restriction such as cats doesn't need consensus. I may respond more when I'm back at my regular computer. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I returned from being off-wiki, which cleared my head, just to write this down. I think the word "owner" threw me. It's simpler than I thought. Any uninvolved admin may impose arbitration sanctions on an editor. When that happens, the sanctions can only be lifted by the admin who imposed them or by a consensus at AE. The Blade imposed the topic ban sanction. He could lift it. Because he's not around, TSC's only recourse is to go to AE. As I have replaced The Blade, I can lift the sanction. I'm fairly confident that's all correct, but I'm still left with one question. User:CT Cooper extended "my" topic ban from its original length to indefinite. If I were to remove the ban, it would necessarily undo CT Cooper's extension (my ban would have expired at the end of six months otherwise). Do I have to consult with CT Cooper if I wished to remove the ban? Or, put another way, is he co-owner of the sanction?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering TSC has twice failed having the sanctions lifted at AN, we're well past the phase where any individual admin could lift them, unfortunately - even the "owner" ... and you're really the "owner-by-proxy" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

CTC made a bit of a pig's ear Bbb23, he did it in good faith but when it happens with ArbCom sanctions it gets messy. CTC didn't extend a ban - he became the new banning sysop. That indefinite ban was in fact a new and separate ban from TBoNL's original sanction. CTC then altered his sanction without telling anyone else. (Hence the mess). Your ban is a new one and is distinct from all other actions. You can lift it. You can also refuse to. Or you can defer lifting to AE (and you can see that there is zero appetite for that there). In line with Bwilkins I think lifting the ban now would raise eyebrows, BUT technically you could do so. "Owning" the ban is a very functional position and is covered by WP:AC/DS since WP:AA2 is subject to standard discretionary sanctions. I'll point out though that there is a logical paradox in TSC's requesting removal of a ban after an AE thread extended it. My advice: tell him to behave well else where for six months and review it then--Cailil ^talk 12:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CT Cooper issued an indefinite AA ban on his own initiative in the fall of 2012 while The Blade's original six-month ban (imposed on 2 July 2012) was still running. Most likely the protocol was for CTC to check with Blade first, or open an AE thread. Hopefully we are now sorted. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I want to narrow this down because we can't apply policy unless we agree on the facts. The sports exemption, which I assume, Cailil, is the change you're referring to, is gone. All we have is the original six-month ban imposed by The Blade and the indefinite extension imposed by CTC. I don't believe there are any community-based bans currently in effect (expired on 7/11/13), so I don't think your comment about AN, BWilkins, is relevant as AN cannot lift the arbitration-imposed ban. So, without deciding whether I can lift the ban, whether only CTC can lift the ban, or whether it requires both of us to lift the ban (irrespective of AE), what "new one" are you referring to, Cailil? I accepted ownership of The Blade's ban. I'm unaware of any other sanction I "own".

Another wrinkle to this whole affair is what is/was the authority for me to become owner of The Blade's ban? Has this been done before? If we agree that CTC's ban superseded The Blade's and only CTC can unilaterally lift the ban, my question becomes moot. But if I have any special privileges here, I'd like to understand where my authority derives. I'm sympathetic to BWilkins's comment about me being an owner-by-proxy.

And, finally, to assauge anyone's concerns, I'm not about to act precipitously in this. Until I'm more sure of what the rules are, I don't intend to act at all. And even if I thought I could lift the ban, I see no basis for doing so at this point. Although I have not reviewed TSC's editing history, I have reviewed his block history. He was blocked for 3 months until mid-March of this year for socking to avoid the sanctions. He had about 3.5 months of editing before he was blocked, unblocked, reblocked, and unblocked. Regardless of the merits of the last two blocks, the only evidence we would have of his editing would be during the 3.5 months because he's been blocked most of the time since June 29. Moreover, until mid-July, he also had community-based sanctions, which limited his editing. Additionally, my sense is that both recent blocks were lifted, at least in part, on hypertechnicalities, which may be correct in Wikilegal-based decisions but don't militate in favor of lifting the block now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As my edit summary noted, I edit-conflicted with Ed's comment. As admirable as is Ed's concision, I guess, bottom line, is I'm not "sorted". Would that I were.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sorry if I was unclear - this is a bit of a tangled web of actions. What will need to happen is that whoever takes "ownership" is in fact imposing a new ban, one that supersedes ALL other sanctions on TSC, so that it is absolutely clear to him and to the rest of the community what the conditions are and under whose discretion it was imposed. In practical terms that means exactly what you say above an indef AA2 broadly construed ban without exemptions. But technically and procedurally it is a new ban under your or whoever's discretion. This means a new entry is put on TSC's talk page and on the WP:AA2 log saying you or whoever is "banning TSC indefinitely etc etc ... on foot of this AE thread [add link]". Once that happens it means you or whoever CAN lift or change the ban at your discretion (as long as you log changes), you can refuse to lift/change it or send any application for change to AE (and you would need to make a statement at any appeals made by TSC to ArbCom directly or AE). That is the full extent of your responsibility for an AE ban. The ban that comes out of the AE thread will not need CTC's input and he wont be able to lift/change it - AE's authority is being invoked to supersede that sanction in whole and total. So if you take ownership you don't need CTC's or TBoNL or anyone else's input to do something. You can always call on it (and I'd recommend doing so if you have any queries) but any decisions will be under your sovereign discretion & within the wording of WP:AC/DS--Cailil ^talk 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On the question whether Bbb23 can unilaterally lift TSC's ban, I suggest that this not be done. Go to AE instead. User:CT Cooper has announced that he is going to be inactive on Wikipedia, so I doubt that he needs to be consulted for any further steps. The ban imposed by The Blade would have expired on 2 January 2013 so I doubt that he has to be consulted. It is still reasonable for TSC to ask Bbb23 if he has any questions about the status of his ban. As a practical matter, there is unlikely to be much enthusiasm for lifting TSC's ban unless he can surprise all of us by creating a good editing record from now on. His recent comments on his own talk page don't inspire confidence. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to be very rule-oriented, particularly when I have not had a lot of practical experience in a given area at Wikipedia. My sense is there are no rules that specifically address some of the issues here, although varying inferences could be drawn from the rules. Absent some disagreement, I'm going to interpret my role here as fairly limited, which is the way I believe Ed describes it. TSC can use me as the focal point for questions and/or requests, but if he wants the indefinite ban lifted or reduced, he will have to go to AE. Obviously, nothing prevents an uninvolved admin from imposing additional sanctions if they deem it warranted. I'm going to wait before responding to TSC's request on my talk page in case anyone has more to say that might affect my answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for Bbb23 to take over responsibility for the ban from now on, since I am not currently active, although I may continue to monitor the situation. I have never seriously considered lifted the ban due to THC's behaviour, but nevertheless I did still conclude that it had gone past the point in which unilateral lifting would be appropriate - so I proceeded with the assumption that any lifting of the ban would be done by ArbCom directly or by clear community consensus at AE. I disagree with the analysis that I imposed a whole new ban - while that might technically be the case in the world of ArbCom bureaucracy, in practice I had simply re-issued the ban which was originally imposed with identical wording except for the end point, which was now indefinite, thereby superseding the original ban. In hindsight, I now realise I should have notified the The Blade and made clear my interpretation of the orginal ban and so have kept everyone on the same page. That said, I think the main point about the sports exception and the reason I rescinded it is still being missed here - it wasn't supposed to be amendment. My interpretation of the ban, which was not entirely unreasonable, was that it covered political, cultural and ethnic content involving Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. Sports content purely about sport, where the subject so happened to be from Armenia, wasn't covered in my view. All I did was communicate this view to TSC. I have now gone along with the apparent majority view that this interpretation was incorrect and I accept I probably should have logged what I said regardless of whether I thought it was an amendment or clarification. However, the sports exemption was arguably irrelevant anyway as TSC had arguably violated the ban under all interpretations, as the content in question did concern a political/cultural issue. CT Cooper · talk 15:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see disagreement among those here as to the rules and procedures in this particular case. Although in some areas of Wikipedia, I feel comfortable exercising my discretion to take certain actions, I don't feel sufficiently comfortable to do so here. Whatever it means that I took over The Blade's ban and that CTC is fine with me taking over responsibility for the indefinite extension of that ban, I am not issuing any new ban of the sort Cailil describes. At the same time, I see a clear consensus that any removal of the current ban must be brought to AE. And that's the position I will take with TSC. I will also advise him that it would be unwise for him to appeal the ban to AE now and that he would be far better served waiting at least three months, preferably six, before doing so. Otherwise, he will not have a clean track record of sufficient duration to justify lifting the ban. I'll still hold off telling him all this for a while longer in case there are further comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 Why should I wait six months when I went nine with a clean record? TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My god, TSC, you're back to pinging me again. You now have the use of my talk page. Why post here, too, saying the same things?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that Bbb23 has agreed to be the contact person for TSC to go to regarding his ban, this discussion probably belongs on Bbb23's talk page. I agree that any new application by TSC for unban that occurs before three months' time is likely to go nowhere. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Ed, am I allowed to revert back to before the sources ended up being misrepresented? It is a few hours outside the 24hr slot but I would rather not get my ass blocked based on your comments here. The other thing is about Neo. Sitush mentioned he cannot currently login to his account. here is were he has said he has lost his login details, should you let his alt account or one of the sock accounts he mentioned know about the sanction? He may not know of it and then accidently violate it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's unwise to edit any article that is being discussed at AN3. Wait until the report is closed. It looks as though Neo. still intends to get his main account restarted if he can get a new password. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

American Hustle

Thank you for helping move American Hustle (2007 film). It looks like the 2007 film article's talk page is still at Talk:American Hustle. Would you be able to delete Talk:American Hustle (2007 film) so we can move the talk page there? Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 14:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the talk page to Talk:American Hustle (2007 film). EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Happy editing! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So a gang

is a majority.

Do you consider the group pulled together for the Jerusalem talk to be non-POV? I can see at least a third of that group as clear POV warriors. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom went to a lot of trouble to have a proper RfC. Appealing against the outcome of WP:Requests for comment/Jerusalem (when you didn't participate yourself) seems unlikely get much traction. The RfC ran from 23 May 2013 to 22 June 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth

Hi Ed. Edgth, soon after the 48-hour block he is at it again edit-warring on Mythology. He is also using personal attacks in his edit-summaries. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you´ve already done two reverts in contravention of the talk page consensus on 1 and 3 of August. Edgth (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if Edgth would wait until someone else supported his changes. Continuing the same war that led to your previous block is like tempting fate, and Edgth should watch out for unsympathetic admins. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a long discussion on the talk page that resulted in humanity being in the lead. Dr.K keeps going back on that. Edgth (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

False. I only acquiesced in one occurrence of the word "humanity" but not specifically at the lead. This is also the wrong place to advance your claims as I have already replied at the talk of the article. Also don't misrepresent the number of my reverts. I only reverted you once. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your revert of humanity in the lead on 1 August is a revert. The whole edit warring discussion on the edit warring board contains you repeatedly saying that it only involved the lead and not the whole article. Edgth (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No. It doesn't count for 3RR purposes as it is more than 24-hours old. Also your claim about the lead is false. I replied at Mythology: [56]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverts don´t have to be in a 24 hour period for it to be edit warring. And I replied there to your irrelevant observation. Maybe we should stop discussing this here. Edgth (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

Hi Ed, I had a look at Wikipedia:ANEW#User:Edgth_reported_by_User:Dr.K._.28Result:_48h.29 after seeing a few edits go by on Mythology and the user you blocked is at it again, having reverted twice since coming off his block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and obviously the person who has been edit warring the last few days against the consensus established on the talk page is blameless. Edgth (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor will not take no for an answer. In his single-minded WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT ideological quest to obliterate the word "humankind" from Wikipedia has now taken to attempting to intimidate the editor who recently reverted him on Mythology: [57]. I am not sure what he will do when the other editor will not self-revert as Edgth is asking him to do. Will Edgth continue his single-minded edit-warring to remove the word "humankind" from Mythology? And then what? Will he expand his campaign to other articles? This is getting ridiculous and disruptive. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that I smiled when I saw the word intimidate. I conclude that you going back on our agreement and edit warring against the consensus on the talk page of mythology to be disruptive and needlessly protracting this dispute that was seemingly over. Edgth (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently all three words are there: 1 humankind, 1 humanity and 1 mankind. This was the balanced version Buster7 and I had agreed to. Yet you reverted the 1 occurrence of humankind in the article in your edit today. Can you explain why? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the original dispute was over the humankind in the lead. Edit warring took place then a long discussion took place. The result was that it would be humanity in the lead. The rest of the article was not discussed. Then you went back on that and changed the lead to humankind, edit warring to keep your way and the admins, in their infinite knowledge, ignored this. Edgth (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You either misunderstood the consensus or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Here is my reply: To avoid repetition and return to the status quo before your "human race" edit I replaced one "humanity" with "humankind". Now everyone should be happy. and just above that I had said: I will not contest the presence of the word in the article any longer. The discussion was about the frequency of the terms not the lead. Now there is balance in the article with each term present once, yet you want to remove 1 humankind and have two occurrences of "humanity" instead, and you are edit-warring for days against multiple editors to achieve it. Please stop your disruption. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Liar Liar, pants on fire. You were very adamant on the edit warring board that the consensus only included the lead and not the rest of the article. It´s ludicrous that you now say that that´s not the case. Edgth (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don´t know why I´m bothering, maybe an admin will finally put this sorry case to bed, but here´s what was said:

I also thought we had an agreement. You said you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article but you´re back to removing it. I´m not back to edit warring. I was trying to implement our agreement when you decided to go back on it. Also, why is it edit warring when I do it but not you? A ridiculous report. Edgth (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The word "humanity" is still at the lead. I stuck by the agreement and left it at the lead. You removed the one single remaining "humankind", that is the problem. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You said that you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article. It seems by that you just meant the lead. Nevertheless, the editing we´ve been doing over the last hour isn´t edit warring but trying to come to an agreement after the confusion over the agreement. Edgth (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, because that is where you put it. In our agreement I was referring to your original edit specifically where you replaced a single "humankind" with "humanity" at the lead. I'm also willing to AGF you were confused about that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m also willing to AGF that you misspoke and didn´t intend to break the agreement. YAY we´re friends now. Edgth (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy. Edgth (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop your false accusations and personal attacks. I used that detailed language talking about the lead because you were not only reverting the lead but you also blithely obliterated any other occurrence of the word "humankind" in your edits, although nothing like that was agreed upon. So I was, in good faith, pointing you to the exact location of the original word hoping that you stop your obtuse reverting elsewhere and confine yourself to that exact spot. I did not count on your rigid interpretation that you wanted the word "humanity" specifically at the lead and "humankind" gone completely to the point of mechanically repeating "humanity" multiple times in the article. Obviously I did not discuss this matter at such length on talk:Mythology and talk:Bahá'í Faith to have to agree to something as silly as your rigid interpretation. You also cherry-picked part of the 3RRN discussion but you forgot to add the reply I gave to Alex Bakharev when he asked me if I was still asking for your block: That's a good question Alex. I did reach an agreement with Edgth, subject to some misinterpretations (AGF), but Paul August, who was not part of the agreement, edited the article today in favour of the word "humankind". I happen to completely agree with his position because that was my original position and I agree with his edit-summaries. So there is another consensus forming at the present time which is not covered by the old agreement. I'll AGF and I would settle for some advice to Edgth not to revert Paul's edits because he does not have consensus any longer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC) So, fairly and squarely I declared to you at 3RRN that I no longer agreed with your extreme position, after I saw your rigid obliteration of "humankind" in the article. I also agreed with Paul's intervention and that helped me realise that your position was untenable. But even so, when I edited the article I changed only 1 "humanity" and not both of them as Paul preferred, specifically stating that I do it without prejudice to Paul's edit: [58]; all the time trying to find a compromise which could satisfy everyone. But I had not counted on your disruptive intransigence, personal attacks, continuous edit-warring, misrepresentations and ideological opposition to the the term "humankind". Not to mention that your repeatedblanket removals of all "humankind" occurrences broke the original agreement by removing all occurrences of "humankind" although no such agreement existed. But I am not going to call you a liar, or a deceptive editor; that's simply not my style. But I have had enough of your attacks and misrepresentations. I will not engage with you any longer, because it is an utter waste of time. You can have the last word. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole discussion was only on the edit war over humankind in the lead. The resulting consensus was only focused on humanity being in the lead instead. You maintained that that was the case at the board. Your wall of text doesn´t change that. Edgth (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And what´s extreme about changing humankind to humanity in the lead, as agreed on the talk page? Also, I didn´t break the agreement. The agreement was for the lead to be humanity, the rest of the article wasn´t discussed so I was in every right to edit the rest of it. You´ve been continually lying and misrepresenting me and the situation. Your sock report and transparent flip flopping on what the consensus and agreement was are good examples. Edgth (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ed, I also point to your attention the following remark by this editor:

  No I don´t. I can go about replacing humankind with humanity. They both mean the same thing so unless there is a good reason for a specific article to have humankind instead, I can change it. Please begin a fruitless search for a policy or guideline that says otherwise. Edgth (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• His ideological and disruptive opposition to the word "humankind" is chillingly clear. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• If User:Edgth intends to remove the word 'humankind' all across Wikipedia, he will need to find a consensus to do so. He has apparently yielded to consensus at Bahá'í Faith and it turns out that Mythology has been fully protected for ten days by another admin. If Edgth's campaign against 'humankind' widens to more articles I suspect that admins may need to step in. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, what´s wrong with changing humankind to humanity? They both mean the same thing while humanity is far more common and readers would have actually seen that word before. Edgth (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Blithering blisters! We'll have the ol' Tom Catster turning in his grave, in fear that future editors of Burnt Nortonmight be tempted to alter his lines:

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind

Cannot bear very much reality.

Which reminds me of those other lines, so appropriate to wiki wars

The trilling wire in the blood

Sings below inveterate scars

Appeasing long forgotten wars.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, that phrase did sound familiar. T. S. Eliot will probably have the last word! EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you also for this note of literary levity. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ed: Thank you Ed for your advice. My thanks also go to Drmies for taking the time to check into this disruption. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. This editor, as promised, is spreading this to FA articles now and is edit-warring with multiple editors there. Example: [59]. Also got a new warning on his talk which he blanked as usual: [60]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, are you going to keep telling on me at this page? Edgth (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, your edit-warring campaign continues, so the reports continue accordingly. BTW, you are still edit-warring replacing "humankind' with "mankind" despite being told multiple times in multiple pages not to do that. Now you chose an FA article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I replaced it once. That´s not edit-warring. Edgth (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

FDU

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hello, can I create article about Azerbaijani footballers or creation of articles also not allowed until December?--NovaSkola (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

According to what User:Sandstein wrote in the WP:ARBAA2 log on 10 June 2013, "the topic ban is modified to exclude any edit that is about sports, provided that it does not relate in any way to political or historical disputes concerning Armenia or Azerbaijan." You can write about Azerbaijani sportsmen so long as the article is completely unconnected to the AA conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Move

Hello, I saw that you recently moved the page Magna Carta... Holy Grail per the Requested move discussion. However, the result of the discussion was 2 Oppose vs 2 Support, which in my opinion is indicating a No Consensus result, rather than a move. Why did you decide to move the page? 2Flows (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Counting the nominator, it was three in favor of the move and two against. The nominator listed seven reliable sources including the New York Times that do not use the ellipses. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Since there are reliable sources using both styles, it would be hard to determine which is the common name. Also "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Judging by the fact that the official sites of the album's publisher and main artist use ellipses (as stated by the first Oppose), it seems that some of the other sources may have written the name without ellipses in error, due to it being revealed shortly before the release. (as stated by the second Oppose) 2Flows (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be counted, so I'm not sure why it's impossible to determine what's 'common.' We can guess that adding the ellipses was a bright idea that one of the producers had late in the release process when the the simpler name had already been widely communicated to the press through advance marketing materials. If the album is newsworthy for an extended time, we can watch and see if press sources that don't yet use the ellipses begin to add them. If in fact the producers changed their mind about the best title, how can we say there was an 'error'? EdJohnston (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that in the Terms of use for the Samsung MCHG App, the album is written without ellipses [61], which means the official sources also used a mixed spelling. I guess what you said about adding the ellipses is a plausible explanation, so we can go with the way the majority of the sources spell it. My argument was that all official sources use the ellipses spelling, which I now saw is not true, so I would support the move. 2Flows (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent comments at ANI

Ed, I saw your latest comments at AN/I and they deserve a response. You say I was altering "a direct quote" - at the time this wasn't obvious since the quote wasn't referred to by the article, as it should have been. I didn't see it, and if the anon IP had simply pointed it out, in good faith, no problem. Although as a point of note, as per WP:NFCCEG, the quote should have been removed in any case since it adds nothing to the article - but I wouldn't have done that. You also say that my edits change the way the AA refer to Ireland on their own website - in point of fact, by a long shot most (nearly all) of the references are to "Ireland" and not to "Republic of Ireland".
But what really made me wonder is, why did you focus all your comment on my behaviour, and none on the anon IP? No mention that the anon IP didn't leave any edit summaries (I'm not a mind reader), or respond to my notices on their Talk page. No mention that instead of addressing the content, they switched to a personal comment that the edits were not allowed as per the Topic Ban, which is not only untrue, but unnecessary (and provocative) in an edit summary. More than that, you're familiar with the history and being stalked by socks. We both know that there is a very good chance that the anon IP is the same sock, burning up another IP address in the process. Do you believe that my behaviour was incorrect, or so bad, that you felt the need to admonish me and effectively support the position of the anon IP? Not trying to force you to see differently - you're entitled to your opinion - just interested in where you stand on this, and is your response today pretty much what I can expect every time an anon IP starts a fight with me in the future. --HighKing (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. I expect that User:Cailil is in a position to follow up on this when he becomes active again. It wasn't good to see you policing how 'Ireland' was referred to there, because it's in the spirit of the 'Great Britain' issue where you are still banned. Edit warring to change the text of a direct quote is a bad idea, when you were changing it from right to wrong. It took me five minutes to find it on the AA's web site. Should I go on? EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'd known it was a direct quote, I wouldn't have changed the text. --HighKing (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

They have bad credit rating also [62] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)