User talk:EdJohnston/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Re:

Sure thing. I did, initially, impose a voluntary article ban on any chess articles he was adding his books into as a part of the mediation and an alternative to blocking. I'd be willing to assist in guiding it in a supportive role but I think it'd be more effective if he agreed and was compliant to it. Then it'd show that he understands that there is a problem with him adding his own materials in. What'd you think? Thanks for the message, friend. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I think I can help you guys out here. I have written a total of 7 chess books, all of which are tournament books. Four of them are about the Melody Amber chess tournament, where consensus seems to have emerged. One is not relevant to en:Wikipedia. The remaining two might, in theory, at some point in the future be added, but chances are slim because the relevant articles don't exist yet and I don't have the material or the desire to write them. So you are really shooting a bug with a cannon.
Second, however, I find your entire approach toward me extremely hostile and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says you cannot refer to your own work, and absolutely no reason whatsoever to block me. The only problem here is that certain other users, who never before have shown an interest in chess articles, wish to see my name deleted from the internet. You cannot hold me responsible for their actions and abuse. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is guided by consensus. If a number of users propose a strong argument (in this case, neutrality/COI) against you having your works included in an article, which is considered consensus, then you will not be allowed to include your books. That is how Wikipedia works if there no specific guideline/policy (Wikipedia doesn't have "rules" per se) to settle it.
Editors do not need a background in any sort of topic to be able to make a decision about an article inside of that topic. So any sort of dismissal of an editors opinion simply because you believe them to have no background in it is simply discriminatory and that is going against the spirit of Wikipedia.
Either a) You stop adding in your own books (Which is considered a potential violation of WP:PROMOTION) and stop editing chess articles in such a way. Or b) You agree to allow a larger discussion to take place so as consensus can be achieved. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Show me where I tried to overrule consensus. You keep making accusations without backing them up.
I have initiated several attempts to start a larger discussion, but I am still waiting for someone to join in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Block evader

Since you issued the block for User:AgntOrange, just an fyi as I'm pretty sure its the same person. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for AgntOrange. EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AgntOrange also posts anonymously as 71.56.158.17, though not since he was blocked from posting.--Edgewise (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert Ed! Appreciated :) WLU (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I may do that instead and I'm undecided as yet - if Io lets it go, so will I, so all my work may be for naught. Hopefully actually, but I kinda doubt it. WLU (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, looks like I'm going ahead. Will RFC/U instead, possibly tomorrow or Monday. In the meantime, I'll be building a case here. Feel free to add if you'd like, please separate into your own section though. WLU (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Citing

In order to use the "notes" and "references" combination, go to Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references. I normally put in all of the normal citations before applying that template. To make it simpler, I use Microsoft Word's "find all" and "replace all" functions to instant swap out the beginning "ref" labels for the "cite" labels and then fill in the end wiki parenthesis after. However, if you have the patience, you can fill it all out in the beginning and save yourself the effort. Once you get the hang of it, it starts to go faster. I hope this helps you in the future. Its something that is being promoted for Feature Articles with many citations in order to make them "cleaner" to read. Happy editing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went through and caught another error in the citation piping. I checked them all again and they seem to work both ways up and down. Thanks for going through and fixing some of the others. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

HP SPaM

Do you think it's ok now then? I'm not going to check all those refs now lol, what made me very dubious is there was not really anything mentioning HP SPaM on google news or google. And some of the refs didn't say what the article said they said.:) Not sure how easily people can check a lot of these refs. However, it does look better and I'm glad to see the logo back- wonder why it was deleted in the past. Merkin's mum 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Me again- I'm not an expert oon how reporting COI etc works- yes I'm happy for it to be taken off the COI noticeboard of course, but I think the tag should stay at the top of the article, at least for a while, to stop anything creeping back in. Merkin's mum 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

H. Paul Shuch at WP:COI/N

Hi EdJohnston, thanks for the note. It seems as if there are two kinds of biography articles in the Category:SETI - people I had heard of without reading the article (Arthur C. Clarke, Freeman Dyson, Drake, Carl Sagan, etc.) and people that seem even less notable than Shuch. I am not an expert on SETI or engineering, so I would be glad to get community input via an AfD (or perhaps an RfC). The advantage of an AfD is that it is taken more seriously and gets more feedback. Since Shuch wrote that his bio at the SETI League website was written by someone else (though doubtless with his input), there are also potential copyright violation concerns. Should the article be stubbified before AfD or only if it does not go to AfD? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go to AfD as it is now, so people can get the full effect. If the article is kept, we might benefit from the AfD comments as to what is most important. Since SETI is a quasi-scientific field we could also search in places like Google Scholar to see if people are citing his work. I agree that Category:SETI is not all important people, but you might find somebody in there who you DO think deserves an article, who is like a journeyman worker in the field; Shuch tells a good story but it is hard to find articles that actually write about him. Suppose we had to build his entire article out of direct quotes about him from other publications, how large would it be? EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I am almost done here for now, so I will list it at AfD within the next day. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It is now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Paul Shuch Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It is looking like a keep with lots of pruning recommended. I will wait until the AfD closes then edit out fluff and try to avoid copyvio from his SETI League bio too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I know the article needs to be trimmed but I have little stomach for such work. What do you think should be done? Sorry this is taking so long, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
See a proposal for how I would fix the article and eliminate the tags at Talk:H. Paul Shuch#Proposed rewrite. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EIW

Thanks for your note. I read the rationale you pointed out and I don't understand it either. I left a comment on John Broughton's discussion page about what I was trying to do. My edit was reverted by him. --DRoll (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Block Log

Thank you for your prompt action with regard to the vandalism coming from 74.42.242.106 -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I am not sure yet why is it impossible for you to accept that I am not part of CAMERA group - if indeed such group exists. I must say you are not the only one: I have received an e-mail from someone asking me to get them on board CAMERA payroll. I wish I knew how to do that but I can't since I am not part of CAMERA. Anyhow please chack the evidence again. The COI case you mentioned has nothing to do with me. I edit wkipedia on my wown and never edited anything that has to do with CAMERA. If you bother to udnerdtand my political view you would see that CAMERA are far more right winged and exterme than I am. Zeq (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me out with a dispute resolution experiment? There are some editors that have been on ANI a lot recently (you may recall a "block-shopping" thread that you participated in),[1] and I'm trying to get a handle on the whole thing, placing editing restrictions per Digwuren, and trying to set up a central location for discussion. I've been having relative success so far, but would appreciate another admin in the mix, and I've always had great respect for your level head in these kinds of situations. Would you be interested in joining in? If so, check out User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and the related talkpage. If not, no worries, I'll keep asking around! Thanks, Elonka 13:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I added my name to the list of admins, though I don't know how active I will be there. I hope the experiment works! The task looks like it could be labor-intensive for admins. It may appear that some editors should be given long-term article bans from all Eastern European articles. If this checkuser case is an example of the general attitudes in this area, it's discouraging. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a couple of them seem to be heading for longterm bans, but I'm trying to give them every opportunity to "go straight". And no worries on the time requirements, just pop in as you can. Often I just find myself playing the role of mentor, as I instruct them on various Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. So if you see a thread where you think you can be helpful, go ahead and post a note. And if you see someone that needs to be blocked, go right ahead. You can tell on the mainpage which ones are already under editing restrictions, so you have pretty wide latitude. --Elonka 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(followup) Hiya, to try and reduce the time-intensive nature of things, I've created an "admin log" at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Admin notes. What do you think of this idea? --Elonka 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I notice that you may be wanting some reviews of your admin actions, and I'll try to contribute when I can. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just one non-urgent one at the moment, mostly as a test case. And if you can think of any other ways to streamline the system, I'm listening. Over at the WorkGroup wiki (we're looking for new members, is that something you'd be interested in joining?) one of the suggestions is that any admin action should require approval of at least 3 other admins to ensure consensus, but I personally think that's impossible. I understand the need to review of controversial admin decisions, but I think any tools we come up with, they're more likely to be under used than abused.  :) Anyway, let me know, Elonka 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Request of edit of protected pages

I need two protected pages edited in order to repair the syntax for the template {{shortcut}}.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working

{{shortcut|[[WP:CFD/W]]}} --> {{shortcut|WP:CFD/W}}

Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia

{{shortcut|[[WP:ITAAW]]}} --> {{shortcut|WP:ITAAW}}

These pages appear in the maintenance category CAT:SHORTFIX. Thanks in advance. --DRoll (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That was fast! --DRoll (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection of International Sahaja Public School

Just a question, learning some information here. You fully protected this page instead of blocking User:Simon D M and User:Freelion, as they were in obvious violation of WP:3RR. Dusticomplain/compliment 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article at the request of User:Will Beback, who is a very experienced editor. It is better if you take your questions to him. It is now (a) too late for a 3RR on the earlier edits, (b) somebody needs to actually make a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that its too late now but you were the one who took the action by protecting the page. I was just curious if there was an underlying reason that I don't know about. Dusticomplain/compliment 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Full protection is sometimes used to force contending editors to work for consensus on the Talk page. Even a 3RR block is at most a temporary solution, since it is usually quite short. I see no Talk discussion since 18 April so I guess there is no progress yet. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile sock pocket found

It appears that User:Nicklausse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nicklausse) , is a socket pocket of Sumerophile, please verify this, he is editing the same ways as Sumerophile, and same pages he is vandalizing. 76.238.245.180 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets if you are concerned. The complaint would have more credibility if it came from an account with a track record. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I believe you've just met the infamous Ararat Arev. who has 80 banned sock puppets to his name (and counting..): [2] The same person who launched a personal attack on my talk page just yesterday: [3]? It has almost the same anonymous IP address. The Admins all know him sadly as you can sadly see from 2006: [4] Regards, Artene50 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yankees10

I just wanted to see if I could persuade you to lift the block on Yankees10. He has not asked me to do this in any shape or form, nor has anyone else. I know Yankees10 violated 3RR and he made a mistake. But Yankees10 is a good editor that adds a lot to Wikipedia, and this weekend in particular he has added seemingly infinite and invaluable information regarding the NFL Draft. I think you can be sure he's going to stay out of trouble if you unblock him and I think his contributions outweigh his minor infraction. Just my two cents.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but people would think that the 3RR system is toothless after he skirted the edge of the rules on more than one article. If he has important knowledge that should go into some of the articles, he could always add it to his own Talk page (which he can still edit during the block). Then you or anyone else who thinks the info is correct could add it to the articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, unblocking him would only give him the idea that he can do whatever he wants as long as he has the right alliances, and this would only promote edit warring and disruptive behavior when we're trying to reduce it. I've personally never seen somebody so blatently violate the 3RR rule in such combative ways on four pages at once over a 24 hr period. They are textbook 3RR violations, he was warned, and he knew this would happen when he did it. Not to mention the aggrevating comments. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Loner

Would it please be possible to do a page protection on Mr. Loner's talk page, preferably to the last revision NOT made by him? He's just going to keep blanking it otherwise. Komodo Lover always tends to be very disruptive on his account talk pages even when blocked from editing Wikipedia itself. CBFan (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the 3RR noticeboard

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Neil Brown reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 31 hours ) Note that I also listed diffs of reverts by Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who filed the report; that user has not been blocked. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was all set to follow up, but Seicer beat me to it! I hope you have a plan for automating yourself; this must take a lot of work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I found out how to renew the computer account on which I did that one automated edit; so we'll see! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder

Hello, I started an RfC/U in which some of the evidence is a discussion between you and the editor. Fram (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Komodo Lover...again.

Back with "Total Ignorant Boy". Seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Total_Ignorent_boy It clearly is him because some of his edits are identical to "Mr Loner", and the picture on his front page is the EXACT same one he had with "Puncharoo". Plus, he's trying to keep open a page he created.

Also, could you have this redirect page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_animals_in_Prehistoric_Park&redirect=no blocked? That way, Komodo Lover's sockpuppets will not continually vandalise it or try to bring it back up. CBFan (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Total Ignorent boy and protected the redirect as you requested. I am glad to see the new collection of data at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Komodo lover. Do you think a checkuser would be worthwhile? EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Definately CBFan (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello CBFan. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Komodo lover. If you know how to file these CU requests, maybe you can look at this one and see if it was done correctly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Komodo lover

Hi, sorry, am completely snowed at the moment and won't be around for a week or so, but isn't the report here the same as the report here? GBT/C 20:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - have looked a bit more at stuff. Don't think I can add much. A CU would either be accepted or rejected. There's enough to show long-term abuse to merit it, but I question whether there's going to be an underlying IP to block. We'll see, though. GBT/C 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem that the numbered SSP reports didn't all use the same capitalization: some of them use 'Komodo lover' (the correct name) while two of them use 'Komodo Lover' (wrong capitalization). I would fix them all if I didn't think it would mess up the system. Or perhaps I can consolidate them all into a single report? EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't consolidate them, but move the incorrect ones to correct capitalisation then fix any double redirects. I probably didn't block the IP because it was an IP and there hadn't been any edits for a couple of days. In retrospect that's probably because they'd been caught by the autoblock on the accounts, but there you go. No more detailed thinking at play than that! GBT/C 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, the SSP reports now have consistent names. The latest is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover (10th) and it is nearly ready to close. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for noticing the continuing activity by User:69.86.92.251 and blocking that IP. --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I vociferously dispute your implication of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I have no POV on Migrationwatch. If you look back at the edits over the last year you will notice that I carefully balanced the article. Indeed I was the primary editor involved in lengthening it from a stub. A few examples:

1. I showed how MigrationWatch had documented abuse of the asylum system.

2. I stated both sides of the issue of deporting criminals liable to future torture.

3. I wrote "Its defenders claim its warnings have been vindicated and that MigrationWatch's research has opened up the debate on immigration for the first time since the late 1960s.[34] They also claim that MigrationWatch is merely advocating a legitimate position that net immigration to the UK is to the country's detriment."


If you look earlier in the discussion section you will see I also wrote:

IMHO one of the reasons this subject is so difficult is that merely admitting that one has a political agenda effects how the issue is seen. If it was health care no-one is too ashamed of admitting where on the political spectrum they are and how it informs their viewpoint. Here however if one admits one's viewpoint one loses respectability and politcal support. So many want to play games and pretend they are only looking at objective data. Additionally this question effects questions of self and group identity which are quite primal and not susceptible to rational logic.

On the flip side quite often there is evidence that the immigration numbers are much higher than predicted. Thus it is legitimate to ask a government to explain that they said only x people would come when 10 times x did come.

But even this is complicated by the fact that the UK's economy is booming partly as a result of migration. Opponents might sometimes ask about the permanent consequence on the culture of the UK. But this too muddy water. Aren't people entitled to adopt a culture of their choosing so long as it is lawful? Do those who oppose immigration think they can mandate what the culture of the country should be? Yet here still the situation is complex in that cultural cohesion provides people with a sense of well being, low crime and social cohesion. Some people may say that they will be miserable if the culture quickly changes due to an influx of newcomers. Perhaps their happiness should be weighed in the equation? This contradicts somewhat with the liberty of the individual even if they obey the law. Well perhaps we can, as objectively as possible, explore these issues, and try to document this cultural and political conflict.

It has been my sincere effort to write an article that is neutral. Recently the article was rewritten so that it was grossly biased in favor of MigrationWatch. Furthermore I have addressed the issues of Wikipedia:No original research. Indeed a number of other editors validated the paragraphs. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gordon's work on this article was motivated by the posting at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It doesn't look good if you yell at the ostensibly-neutral person coming in from outside to help fix the problems. Calling this group 'right-wing' is something that would need to be carefully traced to sources, given that the topic is emotionally-charged. Your recent revert looks like a blunderbuss attempt to make the article reflect your own point of view. If you are willing to provide sources and negotiate carefully, your participation will be welcome on the article's Talk page. It's very inadvisable to do wholesale reverts without first getting consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
MigrationWatch is rightwing. That is just reality. I don't know how much you follow the British media. There are sources for this in the refs. There have been sources for quite a while. It would be like saying that Americans for Tax Reform is not conservative. There has been much discussion over the last 18 months about this label. Recently one biased editor in particular deleted this label against the consensus. I merely restated that previously held consensus. I suggest that as a neutral third party you carefully investigate the history of the editing of this article and you will see what I am saying. I am not trying to yell at anyone. I would also note that it doesn't look good that as a neutral third party your actions look as though you have taken sides. As for your description that I am trying to edit this article to reflect a point of view - you could not be further from the truth. I have always given both sides of the debate 'equal time' in the article and quoted the left and wing points of view. Indeed the whole reason I spent time lengthening the article was to avoid the demogogary that surrounds issues of immigration. I can't force you to believe me. My 12 months worth of edits speak for themselves. See here [5]Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Since there is a discussion thread on your own Talk, I prefer to continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

There has been an allegation of misusing rollback features against me, and my rollback right was retracted. I have provided a clarfication here. Please, take a look. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not convinced. WP:ROLLBACK indicates that it should only be used for vandalism. It was not very astute of you to use Rollback to revert a member of Arbcom. In most cases where I use rollback I immediately follow by posting a vandal warning message to the Talk page of the person who made the edit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wessex Institute / Socks / Edit wars

Grateful for your admin input to this; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Minor

My apologies! i had set it that way so everything didnt get auto-added to my watchlist; i have since worked out how to do that differently but never got round to changing it. thanks for pointing it out! Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking Cryptographic hash. It took quite a bit of self-control for me not to block him myself. Do you have any opinions about the state of affairs at that article? A MedCab case has been filed, but no mediator seems to want to touch it. I also filed a report at AN/I, but nobody's responded to that yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not surprising that such a controversial article would be messy. I don't know any good answer for handling that kind of article dispute in general. In one case, I know that a difficult article was placed under full protection for several weeks while another admin tried to gather consensus on the article Talk, and periodically submitted {{editprotected}} requests to get consensus changes put into the article. (A different admin responded to the requests). EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Karina Pasian

Hello! If you'd like, please follow the progress of my sandbox page for the Karina Pasian article, located here. I have a request out to my Def Jam rep for an official bio so that I have more to work with, but I've got a start on this article, at least. I welcome any comments that you might have on my talk page, please and thank you! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a good start. Be sure to take a look at Wikipedia:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Note the part about 'two or more albums on a major label.' If Karina is really this famous, she ought to have been covered in newspapers and magazines. They have more credibility than web sites as reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles WP:3RR

Thanks for the notification, have commented there. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK with me to move the discussion to Talk:British Isles. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment. The "dispute" on the British Isles page should go to accelerated arbitration, mediation, or Arbcom. It's apparently been going on for YEARS. There are editors who refuse to accept verifiable sources and reject all facts that don't agree with their view. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Is anything going to happen on the 3RR? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just saw the "No Action" on the 3RR. I'm disgusted/disappointed/amazed. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Snakezilla and more

Could I ask that you have this page protected? Even though this particular sockpuppet account was blocked ages ago, Komodo Lover STILL uses it. Thanks in advance. CBFan (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you perhaps have a look at User talk: Gigatron, who has also being abusing it (I've just literally had to revert some edits). In fact, maybe this could be done for all his confirmed sockpuppets? CBFan (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov

Please consider to reset Koov's block to one month for block evasion, assuming that's what he did. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Play party (BDSM)

I reported Rividian who had ignored the 3 revert rule. You saw fit to warn us both. This user's edits have been reverted by another user but Rividian continues to ignore the 3 revert rule. I have made no further edits on this page: Rividian has made it clear that any constructive edits will be reverted by him and it seems I will be edit-warring by making them. The page has now been nominated for deletion on the basis of its damaged state. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to comment in the AfD, you can ask the other editors to look at one of the earlier versions that still contains the disputed material. If you are in a position to consult any books in the next day or two, you might be able to single-handedly rescue the article by supplying reliable sources and saying so in the AfD. In an AfD it is a valid argument for deletion to say that an article has remained unsourced for a long time. With regard to your position in the edit war, it was sensible of you to avoid making any further reverts for a little while. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of topic ban on User:DemolitionMan. What expiration date should go here? Leithp 07:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous AN discussion was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#User:DemolitionMan. I looked at the terms given to the other restrictions in WP:RESTRICT. Arbcom seems to go with either one year or indefinite. The community leans toward six months or a year. I would suggest extending DemolitionMan's topic ban for another six months. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3

Hi, as you may or may not be aware, I was the editor who filed a 3RR report against PeeJay2K3, the user who you gave a 24 hour block to. Thanks for your prompt action.

I am not contacting you in order to request/suggest further sanctions against that user, I was however wondering if you would mind sending him a message and giving him some advice/a warning regarding 3RR.

The reason that I ask this is that despite the 6 reverts made by that user, that led to the 3RR report/24 hour block, when I checked the article in question after a nights sleep, I found that he made revert number seven even though he was aware of and had commented on the 3RR report against him.

It seems that as long as he thinks his edit is a good edit, then 3RR does not apply to him. While I am sure that the majority of his edits are good edits, done with the best of intentions, the 3RR is there for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=211740848

thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope the situation speaks for itself. There are editors who care about the details, and like to get everything right, who may collide with others who are equally devoted to the truth but have a different opinion. Good faith on both sides in this case. This is not the first time such a thing has happened in a sports article.

EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


I had no major issue with the content, infact after consideration, regarding the grammar point I was about to say that either grammar form could be correct, so to avoid conflict we should use the form that he likes. The content was never the issue, to me its just the (I am trying to avoid the word arrogant) erm attitude in which one user is so convinced that they are correct, that in their mind this takes priority over not only the edits of other users, but the rules/guidelines of wikipedia. Maybe he was correct, but I was a little disappointed that when I warned him about his 6 reverts, he thought that 3RR didn't apply to him because his edits were good edits, and this idea was reinforced when he made his 7th revert, despite there being a 3RR report against him. Anyway, I apologise for ranting about this on your talk page, at least now I have this off my chest, I should be able to interact with the other user, without any ill feelings towards him. Thanks for your time in this matter Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

arbitrarily deep

As for the Cladistics entry, in fact there were many mistakes I corrected that are specifically characteristic of mistakes made by *German speakers* in particular. This just confirms the criticism that the persons or persons who made those edits fall short of mastery of written English usage.

I wonder where you grew up; the idea that it could be OK to join an ADVERB to the adjective it modifies is bizarre: you're approving of something that doesn't even occur. I repeat, there are many points of hyphen usage on which there is wide disagreement among educated, reasonable people; what you have singled out *would not be one of them*. I dare you to claim you have repeatedly seen "a very-ADJECTIVE NOUN", etc. No, only "a very ADJECTIVE NOUN". Really, you are lacking intuition in language usage. Hurmata (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Ed.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Aee1980

FYI, I blocked 70.167.99.34 (talk · contribs), which I am fairly sure was Aee1980 trying to get around his block so that he could continue to edit war at Komotini. I'm a little fuzzy on procedure here, as to who or how I tag, and whether or not to extend the block of Aee1980, so please deal with it however you see fit, and I will observe and learn.  :) --Elonka 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I'm hardly an expert with sockpuppets, but since there is nothing beyond block evasion I would not bother (yet) filing an WP:SSP. I reset the original block on Aee1980 due to the evasion. The tags you left on both accounts seem appropriate. My guess is that Aee1980, as soon as his renewed block is over, will continue as before. That could be the occasion for a longer block of both accounts, one that could be posted at AN for review. But maybe things will turn around instead. We can always hope. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)