User talk:EdJohnston

Review a guideline for university students editing genes and proteins?

Hi! I wondered if you'd be willing to have a look at the Wiki Education Foundation's draft of a guidebook for genes and proteins articles? You were suggested as someone with an interest in the subject matter, so I hope you don't mind my asking! Thanks. Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

AE Comment in own section

Shows you how often I make it over to AE. No, I am not in any way involved - I guess I just commented as I would have at a Request for Arbitration and stayed in my own section. Didn't even catch it until you pointed it out. Sorry for the confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Your community sanction

I've mentioned your existing community sanction at User talk:Sphilbrick#User:Wikidea's community sanction. You can respond if you wish. It's my proposal that you can avoid being subject to admin action if you will agree to make no edits which add redlinks to pages about EU law without first getting consensus on a talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you bring this up, I'd like to ask you to tell me how this will expire or be removed. Thanks, Wikidea 17:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You can request at WP:AN for the sanction to be lifted. If you do so, try to provide evidence that the earlier complaint about your edits no longer applies, perhaps because you have changed your approach. The original complaint about you from 2009 was at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Sanction proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I can. But why hasn't this had some kind of automatic expiry though? I think it's unfair that something 6 years ago gets brought up like this - it's made a totally different debate between me and another user (who wants to delete information) a personalised one about me. I don't understand why that's legitimate. Wikidea 14:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic you are complaining about an old sanction while in the midst of a new dispute, in which you are actively pushing ideas that nobody else supports. Sanctions don't expire unless they are created with a specified end date. If you think the old sanction should be removed, your current behavior isn't helping your case. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, see here on my "current behaviour", and how this began, and Talk:Tulk v Moxhay. I was just trying to help write an encyclopedia, but obviously that doesn't count for anything. Wikidea 18:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you agreed to give up the use of templates containing red links? EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

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

---

Ed, FYI, this thread was copy-pasted to the WP:RSN. It will get confusing if you answer here and someone else answers there. OP, please fix somehow per WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is another edit war in progess at Scientific opinion on climate change. The point at issue is whether two scientific papers are, or are not, reliable sources. Could you please advise how I can get an independent opinion on this. Biscuittin (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, this isn't going to degenerate into another conflict. But I'd like to draw your attention to (a) [1], in which B is displaying distinctly battleground-type mentality; and (b) a spate of controversial edits and reverts having just come off a 3RR block. Hopefully, B will see sense and back off a little William M. Connolley (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It is precisely because I wish to avoid a battleground that I have asked for advice here. Biscuittin (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A battleground describes a venue, which is not what we're talking about here. Instead, the expression "Battleground" is short for each editors private state of mind.... are we here with "battleground mentality"? You have already been alerted that DS applies to discussions of climate change as a result of ARBCC. Everyone is going to assume that you have taken time to read that, especially the principles section, which explicitly bars battleground mentality.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So I have been found guilty of "battleground mentality" before the trial even starts. I'm not going to respond to any more of these slurs. I will wait for EdJohnston to respond. Biscuittin (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As the discussion has strayed off-topic, I would remind people that it is not about me, it is about whether or not these two papers [2] [3] are reliable sources. Biscuittin (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This thread started off with a request for process advice, with respect to determining whether some sources are RS. My advice, step 1, eds are most effective when they do not attempt to "rescue" articles from other eds they think of as a "Cabal". Step 2, if unsatisfied at article talk, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Done. Biscuittin (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

If you have more to say on this topic, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scientific opinion on climate change. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Hello. This is a message to inform you that a clarification request that you were involved in, pertaining to the Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t), has been archived with no action. You can now find it here. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Yuletide

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Rhoark (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Dodge Tomahawk

Can you restore this version of Dodge Tomahawk? This is more or less the stable version of the article that is under discussion. The newbie (?) or sock editor who carried out the mass deletion of fully-cited content justified it with "blah blah blah nobody cares", and suspiciously appeared out of nowhere right after Spacecowboy420 and I agreed to cease reverting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

See {{Edit fully protected}}. This looks to be a good-faith disagreement, and consensus should be demonstrated for any change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

New sock puppets

Hi Ed. Do you remember the user H1N111/ElreydeEspana? He was blocked and created a new account. The new sockpuppets are Arthur Colignón (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Qtwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Check his contributions, are the same. And recently he insulted me in my user talk with an ip. Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe Bbb23 can help you. Check all the sock puppets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive --Bleckter (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to have picked out these accounts because they are new since fall 2015 and they have made a lot of edits at White Latin Americans. To get a checkuser to investigate you would need to exhibit some edits by the new accounts that are similar to those of H1N111. It would be helpful for you to explain on the talk page why you disagree with the edits of User:Arthur Colignón and User:Qtwe. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Check his contributions, he is the only guatemalan user who edits Irreligion, White/European People, Guatemala, Demographics of Mexico, etc. And the only user who tells you Edjonson-Edjohnson. [4] [5] --Bleckter (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really impressed with all this, I'm sorry, I did not know that I was editing in dangerous places, although my editions in white Latin American are nothing more two images and small editions, I usually edit in pages such like Belgian international schools and Belgian empire--Arthur Colignón (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello EdJohnston, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Question

In regard to your statement here, is the request truly to be declared declined? From what Bishonen stated, the enforcement is going to be removed/rescinded, therefore, a decline of the appeal isn't possible (for a non-existent tban enforcement). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ed, perhaps Winkelvi himself can note at the top that he withdraws his request, and then it can be closed as "Request withdrawn"? That does seem better than "declined". Bishonen | talk 19:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

The AE has been closed by Timotheus Canens, so nothing more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

ARCA notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 20:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)