Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Oh well...

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

PARARUBBAS has returned, sadly, now as YHN089 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yhn089). At least for now, he seems to be more tamed, allowing us to keep LINKS and REFS (he often does that while providing templates, which i told him over and over again were highly appreciated - but he has returned, with many accounts previous, to "finish the job" and remove links, refs and glue sentences).

However, he continues to do this: in INFOBOXES on soccer players, he continues to remove LOAN SIGNS (i do happen to think too that symbol is not all that relevant, but it's WP standard procedure to insert it, he is not to remove) and change club link - for instance, if name of article is LEIXÕES S.C., he removes the dots, if it is SPORTING CLUBE DE PORTUGAL, he shortens it to SPORTING CP (see example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beto_(Portuguese_footballer_born_1982)&diff=prev&oldid=297529139). Of course, edit summaries continue to shine in its absence.

Do i need to fill a report or can the block process be initiated/dealt with by you, just with this message (also keeping in mind you will easily concur with me IT IS Pararubbas, 100% sure)? If a report is needed, it shall be done, i guarantee you.

Ty very much in advance (ah, also this: starting with this account, i will stop feeding the trolls, and ALL messages (sarcastic, aggressive, friendly, menacing) will cease to be sent to this "person"'s page - RevertBlockIgnore...), have a nice week,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as Pararubbas. Thanks for agreeing not to leave any further messages for these guys. I believe that the 'Ignore' part of 'Revert, Block, Ignore' is helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, have a good one - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This IP's last edit was at 11:00 on 20 June, and it is now 22 June. By the 'admin laziness principle' there is no need to block troublemakers unless we have evidence that they are still active. This especially applies to dynamic IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bria Valente

The page that is currently up contains none of this information. There seems to be a personal issue with the user that keeps reverting my very lenghthy bio to not included certain information. here is the original bio in completion. If it does not violate any rules this is a more extensive bio that is not libelous nor slanderous in nature.

Thank you.--Xcentrex (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed a copy of the article from your comment. Please join in the discussion at Talk:Bria Valente and try to persuade the editors there that your version is better. You must be sure that your version is compliant with the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. It is unlikely you will find any admin to take action on an {{editprotected}} request unless you can show that your change has been approved by consensus on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed, could you do me a favor? (And admin favor, that is?) Please go in and replace the first couple of words with "Bria Valente (born Brenda M. Fuentes) is ..." I think that's how it should be, or you can have it any other way--but the way the article has it right now is an eyesore. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This should probably wait until protection expires, unless you want to file an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Naw, it's not that big a deal--I just figured you could wave a magic wand. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Sorry for the histericals in the message title, but just found out this now: PARARUBBAS - judging by the date in which he "took care" of business the last time - had TWO accounts running simultaneously!!! Incredible!!!

Here it is, trust me, it's this "person": ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rfv0898). He continues to allow us to maintain links and REFS, but removes everything he does not wants in BOX, period. For instance, this player had a loan to a team before it bought him, but two separate periods were needed in BOX. PARARUBBAS glued it all together and removed signs (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castanheira_(footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=296782099). In this other player, he created INFOBOX, always liked, i say, but then proceeded to glue ALL sentences (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Calado&diff=296793623&oldid=293539674).

Block or non-block? Attentively, VASCO, PORTUGAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ew/n inquiry

Can you review the new information you requested? Thank you. TechOutsider (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning for this editor. If he or she does not respond, blocks or semiprotection should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. TechOutsider (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Socks & stuff

Hello, Ed:

Thanks for your attention to a recent 3RR issue I submitted. You inquired about my suspicions about a probable sock of a banned user. I responded privately via email; if I'm going to start naming names publicly, I should probably do so in the SPI/Checkuser venue. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I received your email. I haven't tried to check contributions to see if there is any resemblance. If you take it to SPI they will want to know (a) what is the actual damage? (b) What action should the admins take if you are correct? EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears another admin also smells a probable sock of a banned user in Pecker Checker. That account has been flagged. Was this due to your activities? It seems related to items 21-24 of the information I forwarded to you. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that User:Pecker Checker was blocked as a sock of TDC due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026. That case is still open. If you have information about the other accounts named in that case, you may want to add your own comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Instead of adding my own comments at the NRCPRM2026 case, and cluttering it up, I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TDC to consolidate past TDC cases with the new information discovered at the NRCPRM2026 case, as well as new suspicions. It appears the TDC-versus-NRCPRM (James Salsman) feud extends off-wiki, and may be more complicated than it appears. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Swancookie dispute

Since you've been dragged into this dispute, I'd ask you to read some of the history of it, like this discussion I initiated at WP:AN/I several days ago [[1] . This dispute has been running for three months, and every week or so a new player turns up repeating one variation or another on a set of repeatedly rejected claims. For all the personal attacks that are being thrown around, especially in my direction, this is nothing more than harassment of editors who are simply enforcing WP:BLP sourcing and undue weight requirements. Please note that one of the harassed editors, Bali Ultimate, has recently left Wikipedia, citing such hasrassment as a factor in his decision. I can't sum up the problem better than he did: "The lack of backup from the wider community in dealing with the whole cabal of C-list celebrities and fanboys, their sockpuppets, their meatpuppets, the sockpuppets of their meatpuppets and their endless accusations/reversions/reinsertions of sources to buzznet, myspace and the like, is why i quit (among others). There is a whole culture here that, for some reason, coddles vandals, allows unacceptably sourced information to persist and tells users who have a grasp on and commitment to the core idea of wikipedia that they must either engage in endless, circular, illogical and fruitless conversations with users that have no interest in the encyclopedia and its broader interests or just give in, allow the promotional, unverifiable crap to remain." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like the ANI thread was trying to bite off more than it can chew. Making routine use of WP:BLPN and WP:AN3 on specific issues might be the best you can do. People who remove BLP-violating material do run the risk of being seen as stubborn or peremptory, even when they are right. You seem to have got User:Ricky81682 on your side in some of these issues. The complaint that others made about you having a COI appears rather silly. If that charge comes up again, filing at WP:COIN will usually gather some assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving it any attention at all. I know how silly this all sounds but Hullaballoo has to take a little responsibility here for his part in this. His uncivil actions and condescending tone towards these editors is not helping the situation at all. I understand that removing BLP-violating material is not an easy job but Hullaballo's aggressive editing style is of course going to ruffle some feathers. I'm not asking that he or anybody else here engage in illogical and fruitless conversations with users, but I do think it necessary (especially with newer users) to not name call and demean the very articles that they are trying to improve. It's counter productive to call these editors "sockpuppets & meatpuppets" It's insulting to address the articles they are editing as those of "C-list celebrities". I assure you his tone is exacerbating this already out of control situation. It's truly frustrating for me personally to deal with this editor.

I'm not sure how to issue a formal complaint about Hullaballoo's behavior. Honestly I really don't want to but my fear is that I'm now lumped in with a group of individuals he considers SPAs and he will continually harass me and undo all edits I make, even if they meet wikipi policy and standards. Yesterday he made 6 edits to the article Jessicka, my fear is he will edit that article until he can nominate it for speedy deletion. He's done this with several other articles (he believes are) related: Lenora Claire [2] (made edits until it could be nominated), Mrs. Scabtree, Lisa Leveridge (made edits until it could be nominated). I am beyond sure he has a bias and I believe if you further investigate you'll see his tone speaks for itself.

As not to repeat my complaints: My last response below: [3]

I appreciate any help, Swancookie (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Karheim mess...

Go ahead and do what you think is best. I've been playing it soft until now, hoping that User:Psikxas would "get it" with regard to his company not being notable. I have been working with him trying to mentor him a bit and direct him to the right policy pages. As you note, however, if he is willfully plagarizing, or willfully endorsing plagarism, I do agree that can be a serious problem. I am not sure I fully endorse the banhammer yet today; I think we need to remove all evidence of the link and inform him that if he returns it, THEN he can be blocked, and leave the ball in his court, as it were. But please do what you feel is best. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there ED, VASCO again (unfortunately),

This "person" rested for about 2,3 days...Pityful ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ujmik08).

Continues to remove LOAN SIGNS in infoboxes of players, continues to glue all sentences (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A1s&diff=prev&oldid=298349943). 14th sock!!!!

Ty very much for your invaluable cooperation, have a nice weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. It's good you're on the lookout! EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephan Rosti

EdJohnston: I do not see any movement on the Stephan Rosti Discussion page or any challenge to the reliable sources that I have offered. I shall move to revert the article to match those sources. There are other articles where I will also need your help to resolve. --98.194.124.102 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I would appreciate your involvement on the Talk page of the article to get the matter closed. Regards, --98.195.180.144 (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I have commented at Talk:Stephan Rosti. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A Mixed Bunch of Issues

Hi Ed

I am only trying to bring together a few thread which seem to have spread around various disussion pages which seem to centre around me.

  1. How WIKI tries to help those who have Communications disabilities in normal life, when then have real problems coping in the alien WIKI environment, which has its own peculiar way of doing things, which does not always conform to the world outise of WIKI, so in wiki terminology wiki is not globalised.
  2. The Wiki Dyslexia project almost fell into disuse, mainly because one of the previously very active members of the editing teram was found to have a conflict of interests, and the other editors drifted aweay rather than have continual disagreements. Personally I need the Dyslexia Article to refelct current Dyslexia research becuase unless it does this makes editing the Auditory Processing Disorder artilce even more of a nightmare. Before I made any editorial changes to the dyslexia article I asked all the other editors and others if they would be willing to help edit the Dyslexia article, especially as I usually only see my role as doing the research and providing the citations material for those who would actually write the article. (I do reconise the limitations that my APD imposes on me). However no other editor was willing to help So I have been left to edit the artilce on my own, I have added updates on the dyalexia disacusion page Talk:Dyslexia, but the Dyslexia project pages seem to be surplus to the existing requirments.
  3. In the past week or so I have revamped the Dyslexia project artilces, and the contnet of the template so that any editor can make suggestions etc regading the content of the main dyalexia project Articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Proposed organization Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia reorganization in progress Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Reorganization stage two Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alexia Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Auditory Processing Disorder . May be others should be made aware of the eistance of these Sandboxes but who would be interested, so far I seem to have not much success getting others to contribute.
  4. In the last week or so I have been working with a whole range of editors, some of whom are also adminstrators, on a wide range of issues most of which revolve aroud the artilces in the dyslexia project.
  5. Dyslexia is a very wide topic, and requires others who may not intially consider Dyslexia to be part of their speciality or special interest, that Dyslexia does is a factor which tyhey need to biuld into to their area od specialisation. The deeper you read into the resaearhc done regarding dyslexia the more obvious these connectionsa become. So if you like a crude way to describe the problem is to overcome the ignorance of others, which is not always entirely their fault. Some research is so new and may not have seemed relevent in days gone bye.
  6. I do have a communications disability, which i can do noithing to prevent. I have both good and bad days. On a good day I can cope provided there is not too much additional stress. On a bad day I get easily stressed and can sometimes overreact. But i can only judge a good or a bad day retosepctively, not when it is acuallly happening. So I need others to understand the nature of my disability, and help guide me when i make what for most others would be silly mistakes. The whole reason I am editing the Dyslexia and eventually the Auditory Processing Disorder article is so that others will have a more realistic idea of waht these disabilities are based on international research.
  7. Hopefully editing both the Dyslexia and Auditory Processing Disorder, articles will not take too much longer so that i can escape the stress of working in the WIKI environment.

dolfrog (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Found another one, and no this is not anon editing, it's an account, EDC018 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090608162120&target=Edc018). This is getting rather odd, now he operates with two accounts at a time...Could you block this one too before he has a chance to find it has not still been closed? Thus, he will have to open a new one...which i - with your invaluable help - will close too!!!

Ty very much, have a nice week from Portugal,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced. This editor has not contributed since 8 June and is not unambiguously Pararubbas. I did notice him introducing one arithmetic mistake here, but that might just be a slip. He has not done any reverts that are marked as such. I think we can afford to wait and see. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ed, i studied this account "inputs" at length and i guarantee you it IS Pararubbas (sentences glued, removal in player infoboxes; yes he has stopped with LINKS/REFS removal, but he is not to do the rest either). All in all, i do agree with you, maybe this account will not be used again, maybe he does not even remember it - happens when you have 2 at a time! - but it is him...

I respect your judgement however, cheers,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Norton AntiVirus semi-protection

I am requesting semi-protection for NAV. User:94.195.86.16 has not reverted his or her edit even though he or she was warned by User:EdJohnston. Semi-protection will encourage the user to reach concensus before adding information to the article. Since the user behind the IP address uses multiple IP addresses (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norton_AntiVirus&action=history see here]), a rangeblock may affect other anon editors not associated with this paticular IP. 124.79.232.121 (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Opps, forgot to login or must have logged out. User:TechOutsider posted the above message. TechOutsider (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparent Norton Antivirus war

First, let me be clear that I was not aware of any warnings on my IP address until this morning. I do not edit wikipedia except very rarely. It was only this morning that I received the message. 94.195.86.16 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am massively less familiar than this person, techoutsider, with the workings of editing wikipedia. In particular, less familiar than he clearly is with the process of wikipedia dispute. I would like to bring this issue to some sort of resolution process, but am uncertain how to go about it. I did try, by following the "talk" link. And I left a message on his profile page, I think. I have also posted versions of this posting elsewhere, not knowing which place is most appropriate. (I have to say, if it doesn't already exist, some kind of basic forum would be a lot simpler than navigating through all these layers of "edit page" pages. V. confusing to those of us who don't do this professionally or spend much time on it.)

However, re techoutsider, it isn't a promising start for any resolution, that he responds by assuming I'm someone who changes my IP address in some sinister fashion. I am in fact just an ordinary UK citizen who has recently (and only once, ever) changed internet provider. I previously had a username HotelNewHampshire, but have found problems logging in.

I feel it is an extraordinarily aggressive and inappropriate step in response to an attempted negotiation to seek to block my address. It is as if, in real life he responded to a civilised approach by seeking to have me arrested. I don't believe he would act that way in person, but often people feel able to behave differently online.

For what it's worth, my details may still be held under the above mentioned profile name. If not, I am perfectly happy to share my personal details with anyone from wikipedia who might be able to help resolve this. I would rather not share my details with techoutsider himself at this stage, however, given the aggression shown.

The disputed entry in the article, is something I feel fairly strongly about, because I feel Symantec are a company who should not have to resort to such aggressive sales measures. It is certainly relevant to such an article. If I had seen such information before purchase, for instance, it most certainly would have affected my decision to buy.

The truth of the entry is manifestly verifiable, simply by replicating the circumstances described. I don't know what wikipedia's rules are on this, but I would very much like some direct feedback from them on this specific matter, so that it is clear just what sort of reference they do require in such a case - given that cooperation from Symantec themselves is clearly not going to be forthcoming.

It was interesting to discover, initially, that every time I entered the working reference to the matter on Symantec's own page, I then discovered the page had been moved. This happened several times, as I remember, but I assume that would still be in wikipedia records.

The continual deletion of this entry now feels rather like the same thing is happening.

I say again, I would like to resolve this issue one way or the other, and without a war. Given that Wikipedia aims to provide completeness and accuracy in its articles, I hope it can find a way to make that possible in this case that is in line with its rules. Perhaps the ideal way, however, would be for Symantec would be to withdraw the offending screen altogether. 94.195.86.16 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are not surprised that Wikipedia has editorial standards. You confess in your above note that you feel yourself to less familiar than some are with the workings of Wikipedia. If so, please take a look at our policy on reliable sources. The material you want to include does not satisfy this policy. You are welcome to conduct a wider search to find out whether any third-party publication has commented on this issue. If not, then per what we usually do here the material should stay out. You have asserted: The truth of the entry is manifestly verifiable, simply by replicating the circumstances described. This describes something that carries no weight here. Lack of any outside recognition of this point dooms it to exclusion. This is separate from the editorial judgment as to, even if verifiable, this item would be so important that it needs to be featured in our article. (Outside recognition would help testify to its importance. If there is no outside recognition, this might suggest that few people consider the matter important). I trust that you do not expect us to change our entire policy to accommodate your wishes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Well, so much for dispute resolution. If wikipedia's "reliable sources" policy precludes basic verification (which cannot be faked) and admits 3rd party references (which can be moved as well as faked), then so be it. However it does massively undermine its credibility on articles that represent a vested (and monied, and resourced) interest such as this. A quick google will provide enough 3rd party references to support that opinion, at least.
As for the second point, *it disables your computer*. It disabled mine for two weeks, because I couldn't afford to resubscribe. I now possess software I purchased but cannot use. You might not think this relevant. I suspect others would disagree. And if this were not the case, the article probably wouldn't have been disputed in the first place.
Finally, if the "mediator" - as I assume that is your nominal role here - cannot maintain a polite tone in his replies, what exactly is the purpose of dispute resolution?
I sm left feeling that were I to turn up referenced to the hilt, and with a 500,000 signature petition this entry would be deleted. I say again, so much for dispute resolution. But this feels so arbitrary, I do think it's worth investigating a little more.
And incidentally, the net is full of complaints about this pop up screen - but they're just from ordinary users of the programme on forums, so I guess they don't matter.
Oh, and as a newcomer and a newbie here, thanks so much for the lovely welcome to your site. Delightful experience. The beaurocrat will live forever.

94.195.86.16 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. People who come here to right great wrongs are often disappointed. We try to neutrally summarize what the third parties have published. You've indicated that you have a grievance against a particular company, and you are welcome to pursue remedies against that company elsewhere. Just don't try to get material into our article on them that is not published already by others. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
THAT point I do acknowledge. Although its validity rests on what counts as a 3rd party. Had I the money to finance a newspaper, or a website, then the playing field might be a little less sloped.
In general, in dispute resolutions, if one side comes out feeling aggrieved with the mediator, the mediator has not done his or her job properly. Your contribution here has actually introduced fresh conflict.
You could have said, for instance, "These are Wikipedia's rules. They are arguably weighted against the individual in favour of resourced companies who are able to employ people like techoutsider. However, we have to draw the line somewhere, and allowing your entry, without 3rd party refs - regardless of its truth or otherwise - would actually undermine the cohesiveness of Wikipedia as a whole."
That would have been straight, respectful and clear. Ironically, your approach is if anything more likely to make people *avoid* this so-called "dispute resolution process" - like the plague. Instead of clear courtesy I feel 10 years old and chased off the grass by kid-hating parky. (NB the above is in no way meant to impute any relation between techoutsider and any 3rd party.)

94.195.86.16 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

TechOutsider's apologies

EdJohnston, this argument was entirely my fault. Dear User:94.195.86.16

After reconsidering myself, I　decided not to block all your IP addresses. I should not have threatened you on one of your talk pages.

It was an empty threat, a lame effort forcing you to reconsider yourself. I am currently in no position to issue bans, and probably never will be in such a position. I specifically told the administrator intervening in this case not to ban you; I've been banned numerous occasions. Bans make people bitter and often create more problems as the ban is lifted. Just google "TechOutsider" and you will see me banned in several forums, even the Norton forums themselves.

At the Tech Support Guy Forums, I was being rude and mocked others. Not surprisingly, it was a thread a user started asking if he should renew his Norton subscription or not. I basically hijacked the thread when it was on its 13th or 14th page, desprately trying to convince the user he should renew his subscription instead of opting for Malwarebytes and a host of other applications. One of my posts read:


Several of those posts did not fly with the incredibly patient moderator.


I hopped on my neighbor's wi-fi right after that and created a new account, "Rolin09". I was banned, however created two more sockpuppets on the Tech Support Guy Forums. Now my neighbor's IP address has been blacklisted by the Tech Support Guy Forums.
At the Norton forums, I was banned as well. "Tech0utsider". Haven't logged on since December 2008.
I appreciate you being civil in this argument (I more or less turned this into an argument by reverting your edits w/o further explanation). Had you reported me, I would have been warned, and possibly banned at an admin's discretion. Oh, I've also had my share of flaming people on Wikipedia as well. A user left me a particularly nasty message about Norton on an article's talk page, see Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 2#Major edit. Guess what I did? I copy and pasted the exact same message the editor left me and put it on the Kaspersky Internet Security talk page, just see the whole Kaspersky Internet Security talk page. I have to compliment User:Jamshud to taking my flamebaits seriously and actually using them as motivation to improve the article. Nevertheless, I attacked him endlessly.
Now, in no way am I implying you are a Kaspersky fan.
A ban on all your IP addresses would affect innocent users and discourage a diplomatic approach to solving this problem. Instead, the reason why you cannot edit Norton AntiVirus is because an administrator (not me) semi-protected the article, not allowing anon. IP users to edit it. I thought by doing so you may create an account, become an autoconfirmed user, and then discuss the issue more seriously with me. Before, you edited under multiple IPs; I don't know if that was on purpose or because you didn't know you had a dynamic IP. I left a message on one of the IP addresses' talk page, and you failed to respond to my message.
You admit you do not know about Wikipedia's policies that well (such as dispute resolution). Let me first state Wikipedia aims for completeness. However, the crux of this model is the fact Wikipedia requires all disputable information to be backed up by a source. See WP:V and WP:OR; those are not my rules, but Wikipedia's. I could be lax, and let your information slide in the article. However, I do have a bias, and thus cannot. Doing so would also not help Wikipedia.
I actually tried to locate the article you linked to; I created a sockpuppet on the Norton forums (now don't tell em' that -_-) and asked a moderator/employee to help me locate the article. He has been very helpful, however has not replied. Honest! I can even e-mail you my login/pass so you can see my private message for yourself!
You've been a very good player so far. I'm the one who should have my Wikipedia priv. revoked. Editing Wikipedia is a priv., not a right, see Wikipedia:Free speech.
As for the content ... I will try to find a source. As for Symantec removing the screen, I'll ask that mod/employee! I also know another Symantec employee on Wikipedia! His account is User:Beecaver67. He used to be an anon IP who I asked to create an account. He states he worked for Symantec on this talk page. Thank you again for being civil. TechOutsider (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way

"IP hopper" is not a derogatory term. Many people are not aware they are IP hoppers. Second, why did you post your message in the Norton AntiVirus archives? People rarely look there and it explicitly states not to edit the archive to preserve its integrity. TechOutsider (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a revert war

Hi. Please unprotect Music video. What happened earlier today was not a content dispute. I was reverting the additions of a user blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. They had several proxies available and persisted to make various edits after being blocked. This resulted in a rangeblock on the IPs[4]. Thanks, Synchronism (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't completely formalized a request for unprotection yet, but I have commented about it at RFPP. I know it's not your intention, but I really fear smeared by being involved in a so-called editing dispute. I'm sorry that I posted there first though, I don't think I've ever done an unprotection request before.Synchronism (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Unprotected Music video. When doing so many reverts of a sock, it would not hurt for you to post on the article Talk. That's where an admin would look to figure out what is going on. There is a risk you might yourself get blocked in the confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to take the 'no fanfare' approach, but I'll make a note of it there. I would not want to be blocked in the confusion so I'll take heed in the future.Synchronism (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeal of an AE sanction

Hi, I've filed an appeal, under the right to do so in the Digwuren case, of a recent restriction that was placed on me, over at AE [5]. Since, if I remember correctly, you've been involved in AE cases in the past, I would appreciate your input.radek (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:B9 hummingbird hovering

Can you also review the user's contributions at Apperception ? An IP complained about it on my talk page. I don't know the details, but at first glance I see similar slow edit-warring (5 reverts to preferred version since June 12th) and addition of typical OR/new-agey-personal-commentary like in the following footnote:

Please accept my apologies for the perpetuation of the arbitrary construction of Eastern and Western discourse: If we reify the polarity of the Occident and Orient, a historical literature review may reveal the attribution of meditative disciplines to the East and prayerful disciplines to the West. Just as the East and West are but arbitrary compass constructions of an all-encompassing Globe, so too are the disciplines of prayer and meditation complimentary, interpenetrating and essentially indivisible. The perpetuation of these cultural and historical misattributions obscures the boundary-permeable manifold experience of individuals and communities that traverse this ill-constructed ideo-geographical binary.

There are two related 3rd Opinion requests on the talk page, initiated by the other editors. Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Violation of your editing restriction at Alexander Francis Lydon

A community discussion at the administrators' Incidents noticeboard has reached a consensus that you be placed under the following editing restriction. Do not revert-war to make any article formatting change that is against the guidelines in the Manual of Style; in particular, you must not revert another revert in order to change the level of a heading or the position of an image.
Firstly, which guideline states that an article has to have an infobox? Secondly, I made it quite clear that "I regard this as an illegal decision, which clearly flouts the guidelines of the MoS, and do not accept it." Lastly, your so-called 'community discussion' involved some half a dozen people, all of whom had an axe to grind, except for Joe Hepperle whose input was ignored. After the gangrape in which articles were removed from my userspace and placed in mainspace against my wishes, I have stopped contributing new articles. So if it makes you and your gang feel any better, block away to your heart's content and know that I have lost all respect for your judgement and a system which lends itself to harassing constructive editors. Rotational (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Weasel words and weasel concepts

Thanks for the excellent rewriting of those lines in the "Reliability and bias" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... I wholeheartedly support the version you wrote. Please add it to the page! Longshot.222 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

J.Bechara tags

Thanks for your observations about Jorge Bechara article. It was corrected and improved with more references and sources. Who will be making a final decision about it? Georgebech (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The future of that article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Bechara. You may participate in that discussion, but if you are related to the subject, you should make that fact known to the other participants. The problem seems to be the lack of any articles by outsiders that discuss his work. If his work has been exhibited in any galleries, published reviews of those shows might exist. Perhaps he has won some awards, where the award itself is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. (We need to have outside opinion about his work, to meet our sourcing requirements). The article also has incomplete references such as "The Correspondent, Journal, December 1999, October 2001" which give no hint as to what the coverage consisted of, who wrote it, etc. EdJohnston (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:John.Edwards.1967

Hi! Sorry for disturbing, but I need your help. I requested some help at vandalism [6] but they suggested to contact you. The problem is with user User:John.Edwards.1967. I think you are familiar with this case, since you sent a comment at WP:ANI [7]. I wrote:

"Massive vandalism, nacionalistic POV pushing, anti-Hungarian statement, personal attacks (His comment: [8]"My only purpose is to make sure biased people like you don't distort the truth") from User:John.Edwards.1967. His edit pattern and interest is familiar with banned nacionalist user user:Carpaticus. See contributions (99% vandalism). [9] Already warned by admin and other users. See: [10]. He is pushing his POV over the subject. See. [11] Note: he clearly says at the edit summary: "I love your objectivisim. Here is some of mine." Removed referenced material from article (Financial Times). See: [12]. Removing material what he cannot accept: [13]"

So, my question is what can we/you do in this case? Thank you for your help!--B@xter9 11:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If John.Edwards.1967 does not reply to the ANI complaint, and continues to make reverts that suggest ethnic POV-warring, he may receive a short block under WP:EW. A longer sanction, most likely an indef, could be imposed if he is found to be a sock of User:Bonaparte. I took a look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte. Do you want to make a filing at WP:Sockpuppet investigations, and supply evidence that he is a new sock under the Bonaparte case? This would only succeed you can provide enough behavioral data (evidence of ethnic revert-warring in the past, or of hostile comments) to justify a checkuser. Another possibility, even if the checkuser data is stale, is that the admins there might issue an indef block based on behavior alone. Working in your favor is the huge list of previous socks at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte. EdJohnston (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Logan IPs and Fan Edit

Thanks for your help! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim Il-Sung

I'm asking for dispute resolution by asking for a third opinion and opening an RFC. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though you don't need both procedures. The RFC is more logical in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring at Gerard Piqué

Hello EdJohnston. So, I try to explain. I always try padrozinar the Wikipedia, not to be a mess. In the particular case, following the trend of 99% of the players or former players of Barcelona, put "FC" Barcelona, because it is really the name of the club. When the club is referred to as not to confudir with the city of Barcelona. However, the user decided PeeJay2K3 be reversing the Gerard Piqué and only him. Why not change all the other players too? My opinion is that all are equal, and 99% of the cases is "FC Barcelona", it is easier to get 1% do not agree?

Any doubt, ask the user NothingButAGoodNothing who knows and knows that I am not a vandal. --Bruninho (talk) 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is easier to prove your good intentions if you are willing to explain your views at Talk:Gerard Piqué. Everyone who joined in the recent edit war on that article probably deserved a block, though none were given this time around. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:John.Edwards.1967

Hello, Ed. Well, despite your warning, Mr Edwards did not bother responding at the ANI thread against him, instead going ahead with the exact same tendentious edits he's been doing for 13 months, and which seems to be almost his single purpose here. - Biruitorul Talk 03:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Hobartimus to see if he thinks that John.Edwards.1967 could be a sock of Bonaparte. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Could be but it's hard to tell. Bonaparte definitely had a problem with Hungarians same here, but this acc. does not have that much of a profile in terms of edits though they are spread out over a long period of time. I would not say there is anything definitive but I wouldn't expect it considering the amount of experience. I would support Biruitorul's assessment (I read the Ani thread earlier). Hobartimus (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
He will not stop, he refuses to answer pleas for discussion, and he continues to edit against consensus by me, Baxter9, Hobartimus and several others who have worked on the article and now this one, where his tendentious editing has spread. We may have reached the "exhausted the community's patience" point here. - Biruitorul Talk 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Since he resumed editing without responding to my final notice, he is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

confusion

Ah ha. I have just worked out what you mean by THE template ...
I think 3RR is the wrong place for what I want.
Can you please advise which is the "right" place to get advice on dealing with a user who likes to edit war, and pays no attention to wiki ettiquette? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In the 3RR report I suggested what to do next. The only other option is an WP:RFC/U which takes a lot of trouble, and it seems you don't like templates :-). EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you did, thanks. Yes, WP:RFC/U does look "involved".
Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I've never met a template I didn't like. (Come to think about it, I've never met a template ...  ;-)

LoganPublishing

Thanks for the message. By all means undo the "Resolved" - I didn't notice on the WP:UAA history page that your block was only temporary. – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gariwo is reliable and above all I'm quoting Gariwo's specific content, not Gariwo's homepage

Dear EdJohnston, Gariwo.net is one of the four (4) organizations on earth running a Garden of the Righteous, which also entails lots of high quality research to identify the Righteous to be remembered in there. It has been active for 10 years, during which it has gained the partnership of Milan's City Council and the support of many top international scholars from all over the world. How can you say it is not reliable? By the way I'm not adding anything. I was censored by a student persuaded he embodies the Wikipedia values rather than receiving warnings as you put it. Now I was trying to see if I can meet his requirements. See on ThemFromSpace's page if you want. And especially it is incorrect to say I link to Gariwo.net. I link to the Gariwo pages where there is encyclopedic culture about the specific figures of Righteous at hand each time. Let me add I am dealing with ThemFromSpace as I will be glad to deal with you because he is polite enough and is enlightening me about interesting rules and methods, not because you or he are entitled to censor my work. What would you do if I always came to cut your work? Do you want me to report you to the Wikipedia direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzoecarol (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Enzoecarol. Please continue the discussion there, to avoid splitting the conversation across two pages. See WP:Signature for how to sign your posts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I answered you there. --Enzoecarol (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good morning, I'm waiting for your comment. Thanks a lot! --Enzoecarol (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

old stuff now new stuff

Remember when you said this: "I notice that Radek (above) agrees to most of this except he has a concern about IPs who make the same reverts as Matthead. If this happens in the future, he could request a temporary semi-protection (e.g. two weeks) at WP:RFPP, mentioning this discussion" here: [14]. I was wondering if I could hold you to it and ask you to semi-protect Maria Cunitz based on these edits: (Matthead), (Matthead), (anon IP - same one as always), (anon) without having to go to trouble of going to RFPP (if I did that every time this anon does this, I would not have time to do anything else). Also, is it possible to have it just said somewhere that this anon's (operating under multiple IPs but always with similar edits and easily recognizable to anyone who's been around for a bit) edits can be reverted without fear of violating some 'edit warring' definition? This person has been carrying out disruptive edits on these subjects for close to four years, has violated numerous policies (in this latest instance, removing and misrepresenting refs) but AFAIK has never been warned or sanctioned or blocked simply because there is no point in doing that to someone who never registers and always slightly changes the IP they're editing from (I think at some point someone filed a case but a range block was turned down simply due to potential collateral damage). Note also the EXACT same pattern: Matthead + anon, which gets around Matthead's 1RR restriction. Of course with the anonymous nature of that IP any potential speculations can't be proven or even investigated.radek (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There may be grounds for admin action, but first I'd like to see a proper discussion of all these changes on the article Talk page. I see you went through and made all the German names into Polish names. Even her Polish wiki article, pl:Maria Cunitz, just says Pochodziła z polsko-niemieckiej rodziny, which I assume means she came from a Polish-German family. Your wholesale Polishizing of the article seems no more justifiable than a wholesale Germanizing would be. Nothing that is directly taken from any of the sources makes her be more Polish than German. Semiprotection would be reasonable if the IPs continue to revert without discussing after the registered editors have explained themselves on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, hold on there a second. I did NOT go "through and made all the German names into Polish names" - what are you talking about? I ADDED Maria's Polish-Silesian name, reffed it, restored the category (since now there's refs) and changed ONE name from "Elias von Löwen"-->"Eliasz Kreczmar" since that was his name, with "von Löwen" only a nobility title he received later. I LEFT: "Maria Cunitz", "Wohlau", "Schweidnitz", "Pitschen", "Oels", as well as the name of her family members which had also been previously Germanized. My changes were minor. Now some of these probably SHOULD be changed to Polish, to accord with standard naming conventions but I left it alone. I have NOT done a "whole sale Polishizing of the article" and I'm pretty amazed that you got that impression from my edit.
The problem with the IP editor is that it is being used to circumvent the usual Wiki policies and the usual sanctions/reprimands/warnings that normally follow when a user makes such violations. Basically this guy can remove sources, edit war, create POV forks on talk pages and be incivil with impunity because of his/her anonymity. Actually I don't care that much about page protection here - as I'm sure the IP will just move on to other articles and we can't page-protect all Polish-German articles. But I don't see why I should engage in discussion with a user who's purposefully using anon accounts to circumvent Wiki policies that I try very hard to follow (and which as a result I'm constrained - rightly - by). Particularly troubling is the Matthead+Anon combo which in the past used to start edit wars and is now being used to get around Matthead's 1RR restriction. Again, there's isn't necessarily a reason to think that Matthead is to blame for this (I'm AGFing here), but the anon certainly is. What is the best way to deal with a anonymous disruptive Wiki-policy defying, nonpunishable user?radek (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Subman

Not exactly immediately relevant, but there's an interesting comment on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud (talk · contribs)

Hi there, Sorry to bother you, but Jackistud has unfortunately immediately (on coming off the block you gave them) reverted to her preferred version of Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira and has commenced, edit warring despite warnings and attempts at discussion on the talk page. They have then made the following legal threat in an edit summary: "new sources come from her ofccial web site. if you continue this, i ´ll take lkegal action. my lawyer was already noticed!!". I think you may have to come good on your warning. Sorry. Verbal chat 18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The threat has now been made on my talk page too. I'll take it to ANI if you're not around. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
They have now made 3 threats, after the warning on their talk about NLT policy. Would you like me to take this to ANI, or are you able to block for this? (genuine question, not trying to put you in awkward position) Verbal chat 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see that you acted while I was writing. Thanks, and sorry it's come to this. Verbal chat 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

allegation of pushing conspiracy theory

Hi. In your block text you said "Rebroad is apparently pushing a conspiracy theory about the Bilderberg Group against consensus". Please can you justify your allegation? How is mentioning a fact (that he attended a meeting) in any way pushing a "theory"? A fact is not a theory. I would like you to retract your allegation. --Rebroad (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please continue any discussion on the appropriate talk page. I'm happy with my conclusion based on the data submitted in the 3RR report. If you check back in a week, a month, or a year I don't believe you will see that wording like this still remaining in the article: The current holder of the post is Lord Mandelson, and of the shadow post is Kenneth Clarke, both of who, coincidently or not, have attended Bilderberg meetings.[1][2] The phrase, 'conincidently or not', besides being misspelled, is pure weasel wording and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. If you continue to insert stuff like this, you will probably wind up indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your warning

Hi,

Recently you did warning about my editions of Graph isomorphism problem. I tried to find consensus among editors. For example, I tried to hear reasons by User:Verbal, however he repeated absurd reason about COI and did not answer my questions. Today I wrote to his talk page:

"Which article did you mean? Graph isomorphism or Graph isomorphism problem? What discussion did you mean? There was only one discussion with me on talk page of Graph isomorphism problem. And this discussion was not complete: nobody answered my questions there. There were many discussions on talk page of Graph isomorphism. For example, the discussion about SMILES. I insisted that SMILES should be inserted in Application section and now that my edition is realized in Application section of Graph isomorphism problem! Is this my edition disruption? About my so-called "COI": nobody proved it! Self-citation is not forbidden in Wiki, so you have to prove that it is insignificant paper which adds nothing to the article. But this paper was cited in another printed source, so the fact is that this is significant paper :)"

But he deleted this my reply with remark "Reverted 1 edit by Tim32; Not interested, sorry. (TW)" but saved his last message on his talk page. In this situation this his message looks like defamation. The fact is that he has no arguments against my reasons and he is not interested in consensus.--Tim32 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to remove others' posts from their own Talk. I am persuaded that consensus is still against including that paper. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This "consensus" was based only on absurd reason that "it is self-citation", but self-citation is not forbidden in Wiki, so the editor has to prove that it is insignificant paper which adds nothing to the article. But link to this paper is very important for Graph isomorphism problem: only one approach (for chemical applications) is noted in the article now. It is extremely incomplete! This paper described another approaches and it was cited in another printed source.--Tim32 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


I see you did a good work to organize opposite opinion, but at the same time you did not find any time to answer me here :((--Tim32 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The courtesy

Thanks for it.--Asdfg12345 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Responsed.--Asdfg12345 20:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For the love of God

Stop him. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48h for continuing his previous war on the Manuel Zelaya article. Maybe we should consider putting the Honduras articles on article probation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you decide. I'm not familiar with administrative procedures. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, is this of any note, or am I just being an a prick? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

BRUNINHO

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Hope all's fine by you. Regarding your request, it's been done, i'll let you know if/when BRUNINHO answers back.

As for PARARUBBAS, a new pattern has emerged. He definitely has stopped removing REFS/LINKS (took him 13, 14 accounts to realize that), but continues (so far i have only seen anon examples of that, other than that account you did not want to block) to remove stuff in player's infoboxes, just because.

There i was running my mouth...I'll let you know about the first topic, rest assured.

Take care, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi there ED, VASCO here,

BRUNINHO responded to my message, although what i saw on your talkpage once (from him, albeit in broken English), is pretty much what he said to me now:

He says that everybody is picking on Gerard Piqué's case, constantly changing it to BARCELONA, then leaving FC BARCELONA on all the other players. Coming to think of it, Ed, and without wanting to show anyone how to do their job, i see the chap's point. He also said that when his block occurred he had not touched anything in three days (please note that here, i am not choosing any sides, just telling what BRUNO asked me to).

All in all, he thinks there should be some consistency - FC BARCELONA for all the players, or just BARCELONA, but to all (past, present).

I rest my (LOL!! his) case, have a nice week,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vasco, Bruninho (talk · contribs) was warned for edit warring at Gerard Piqué on 6 July, and the article was fully protected to stop this war. He then went ahead and made the 'FC Barcelona' change on the Jordi Cruyff article on July 7. He was asked to undo this change on the Jordi Cruyff article, by my message on his Talk of 20:42 UTC July 8. He ignored this request and continued to edit other articles. That is when he was blocked. Is it possible that he does not understood requests that are in English?
Regarding whether 'FC Barcelona' should allowed to stay in the other articles or be carefully removed, why not ask this question of User:PeeJay2K3? Since he is active in the football project, he may be able to advise what to do about this. Bruninho can raise this question himself at WT:FOOTY if he wants to. Thank you for serving as a translator in this matter! EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bruninho @ Jordi Cruyff

It seems that User:Bruninho just won't quit, despite the comment I made at Talk:Gerard Piqué, as you can see here. He's obviously completely unwilling to listen to reason on this issue. – PeeJay 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fairly certain that the discussion occurred, so I should be able to find it, but if not, I can always start another one. As you can see from my talk page, it's not just me that believes that such a consensus exists. – PeeJay 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, after further posts to my talk page from other users, it seems quite clear that User:Bruninho is in the wrong here (that's not to say I'm in the right, though; I'm in the wrong too, but for another reason). Any chance I can have your support if I revert his last edit to Jordi Cruyff? – PeeJay 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have given Bruninho a final warning about his edit at Jordi Cruyff. We should probably wait to see how he responds before taking further action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
There is now another editor (User:Mauricy) who is weighing into the matter at Jordi Cruyff. I have suspicions that this may be a sockpuppet of User:Bruninho, but nothing concrete. Please help. – PeeJay 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reported User:Bruninho for, I believe, using a sockpuppet in the form of User:Mauricy. Please leave your comments on the situation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bruninho. Thanks. – PeeJay 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Regarding your idea, i did so: messaged PEEJAY2K3, and seriously, this situation has clearly gotten out of control, i also talked to BRUNINHO, but apparently to no avail, he continues.

I would like to ask you a favour, unrelated: just checked an anonymous "user"'s "contributions", IP 89.152.9.130 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.152.9.130). This is a different anon case because this guy most definitely has a standard IP, has operated solely with it almost a month.

My request is: i saw his appalling contribution in Lucílio Batista. This person is a Portuguese soccer referee, and was the "judge" of a recent important match between two clubs in Portugal, Sporting Clube de Portugal (this "user"'s club for sure, he edits almost exclusively in it, and his address is from Portugal, also my country) and F.C. Porto. The referee's work (i saw the match) was highly controversial, but what it didn't merit was the "input" of this "person", "user" IP 89.152.9.130, proceeding to insert insults and other foul stuff in BATISTA's wiki-article (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luc%C3%ADlio_Batista&diff=300415668&oldid=300415413).

Any possibility of a block, or at least a warning? These people don't belong here at WP, contributing nothing. I don't want to talk to this vandal because i have had it up to here (points to head :)) already with PARARUBBAS, which by the way continues with his shenanigans, now anonymously.

Ty very much in advance, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. I am not on Wikipedia very much during July. If this vandal is adding defamatory comments about a person, it's a WP:BLP violation. If you take it to WP:AIV it should get prompt attention. Keep reporting Pararubbas at WP:SPI as needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Just did as you suggested ED, but fear i will not get any feedback at all, after seeing some of the rules there (1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism (check!)/2. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop (he has not yet received one single message/warning)/3. Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent (this one i can't make any of its sense - so if a vandal has vandalized 3000 pages, but has not edited in a month or his taking a nap it does not count?)

Did my best, as always, take care - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloomex

Ed, I think you can safely unprotect Bloomex at this time. I'm sure there will be more problems in the future with COI/POV-pushing, but there's no longer any reason to exclude new editors. (In fact, fresh faces might be beneficial.) The article currently has consensus and is as reasonably an NPOV version of this article as can be made from the limited sources available. I still can't say it should survive another AfD, though, as its notability is quite borderline (as far as sources go). Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Askari Mark. I will not be around very much until the end of July. Keep in mind the long list of suspected IP socks in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowerman11/Archive. It's OK with me to lift the protection. If you can keep an eye on the article for a while, just ask at WP:RFPP for unprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand. I'll continue to keep an eye on it. As I mentioned, I expect the "usual suspects" to return. Enjoy your time away, Ed! Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved (?)

Hi ED, VASCO again, hope you're enjoying your break,

Per Bruninho's request, i now add the (translated) message he sent to my talk page, in its totality (also per request):

"Hey VASCO, BRUNO here.

First, sorry i took so long to reply. I know you want to help and i acknowledge. It happens these last few days have been really hectic for me; you can also see i have edited very little during that time.

I see there are some editors "in your case". My god, these fellows are pushy, everything has to be their way. It looks as if it's some kind of "society", where everything is pre-arranged and you can't get in and change stuff.

Honestly, i have given up arguing about the FC/no FC discussion. It will stay that way, some players with FC, some without. Everything will be a mess, but since it's what they want...

Another thing: i am not User:Mauricy nor somebody else. So tell them to stop the investigations and everything else. I am minding my business now, have been editing very little this last days (as opposed to them, i have a social life: work, girl, friends, etc...). Therefore, it article changes come about, it will not be me...

Please note well, i am ASSURING i will not change it more. I don't want any trouble, only for them to stop threatening and harassing me. If they leave me be, i won't disturb anyone.

I would like for you to write all that for them (preferably the entire text). And sorry again for putting you in the mix.

BRUNINHO"

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Klein again

Hello, Ed! I'm popping up here because we were both trying to curb Aaron Klein bio self-promotion from 2006 through 2008. I'm hesitant to ask you to step in anything but have you followed the aggravation there this year? (There's a lot on the floor: see archive 2 and current talk.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay away from article disputes for a while, though the page is still on my watchlist and I see you've been very patient there. I wish there were a way to ordain a 'word limit' for this article, through some kind of RfC, so that there would be an upper limit of the amount of coverage of Klein's reporting that could be added. (Since he is in many controversies, coverage of all of them could fill up several articles). The fact that he is a reporter for a publication, World Net Daily, that we do not consider a reliable source should theoretically deserve some weight. It seems possible that a recent participant on talk, 79.178.103.240, may be connected to Klein. My only evidence is the POV expressed and the geolocation of the IP. I took a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jerusalem21/Archive but the only commonality I could see between this IP and the accounts listed there was the editing pattern. It is interesting that Jerusalem21 did wind up with an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) broke 1RR.

Version reverted to: [15]

Version reverted to: [16]

-- Vision Thing -- 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for The Four Deuces, asking him to undo his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed the last change. I had not thought it represented a second reversal because the first reversal was reversing a paragraph that I had entered.[17] The Four Deuces (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph about Hayek that you had added in that edit is different from paragraph you removed. Changes were made in between [18] (and you had expressed your disagreement with them on talk) that you reverted by removing paragraph. -- Vision Thing -- 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

the dazzle dancers

hi,

this page should be deleted... there is some editor whom is being very rude on this page... they are a music group with strong gay overtones...

not notable at all as per the music requirement..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dazzle_Dancers#The_Dazzle_Dancers

i beleive the editor is part of the group since he is so arrogant and rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.105 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you need to review these actual press notices... They are mentions in passing as opening acts, etc..

Not feature articles (in the main respected references)... additionally, they are just extras in that gay film...

id ask to re-consider.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.105 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi ED, hope your wikibreak has so far been satisfactory,

I knew it would happen man, and i think i told you about this account, Edc018. I imagine PARARUBBAS' surprise when he found out he had no need to open a new sock, because this one was still available.

He immediately started to contribute, gluing all sentences F.C. Paços de Ferreira (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F.C._Pa%C3%A7os_de_Ferreira&diff=next&oldid=303911157, anon) and Rui Bento (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rui_Bento&diff=303746064&oldid=300668721) - i already reverted - and be sure, he will remove player infobox stuff if he is "given the chance" (latest "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Edc018).

All for the moment now, continue to relax, all the best, have a nice weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Have also sent this message to Satori Son, whom originally (and greatly!) assisted me in this situation, just in case your schedule does not permit for a login in the next hours.

--NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: John Serry Sr. Cleanup & Peacock Tag Removal

Dear Mr. Johnston: Just a quick note regarding the article: John Serry Sr.. As per the Wikipedia:Cleanup process guidlines I have attempted to remove the Peacock & Cleanup tags which were placed upon the article on March 21, 2009 (i.e. an attempt to de-list the article) after making an effort to re-edit the article in order to address various objections raised by User:Damiens.rf. My attempt to remove these tags was reversed by User:Damiens.rf who indicates that these tags must be removed by someone else but does not indicate who I should contact. If possible, kindly review the article for the editorial changes which have been made-- including the removal of "Peacock" terms and the general cleanup of the article. If possible, please instruct User:Damiens.rf that these tags should be removed at this juncture as per the Wikipedia: Cleanup process. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely: --Pjs012915 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Talkback

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

WuhWuzDat 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ed - perhaps this posting [19]on my paysage blog [20] could be a interesting reading for a wikipedia admin ! best wishes from Grünstadt ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hey. I've responded on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pantepoptes

He has resumed edit-warring without discussing. 3R at Anatolia [21] [22] [23], 3R at Accession of Turkey to the European Union [24] [25] [26], accompanied by copious shouting and incivility. Even though related threads have been started in the discussion page of both articles, he will not discuss. Something else that's weird: This account edits on a 24 hour basis [27]. He also seems highly knowledgeable about wikipedia procedures for such a new user. --Athenean (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Without discussion? See: Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Every single sentence that I added are supported by at least 1 (in most cases 2) references. And "none" of the references are Turkish sources (I actually added Greek Cypriot sources). Please stop removing referenced content. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, after I warned you for 3RR. And just because something is referenced doesn't mean it's within the scope of an article. Your edits are highly POV attempts to justify the invasion, which is not only wrong in itself, it is also beyond the scope of the article entirely. --Athenean (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No, "before" your hilarious 3RR warning, because you reverted as many times as I did (I didn't remove your unreferenced additions, but you kept removing my "referenced" additions - none of which are Turkish references, but neutral sources.) Pantepoptes (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to check that again [28] [29]. 14 minutes later. So you are dishonest. And can you please explain how it is that you edit on a 24-hour basis and know so much about wikipedia procedures while so new? --Athenean (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Pantepoptes has been blocked 24 hours by Toddst1 for edit warring at Anatolia. I don't think I have any continuing role in this matter. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong

Hello EdJohnston. You've helped mediate a dispute between myself and User:Supreme Deliciousness before on Stephan Rosti, and to my recollection the problem was solved in a reasonable amount of time. SD had to withdraw his false claims to the article because YOU were even-handed. I see you responded today to Annyong on the Asmahan article dispute between the same 2 editors. I would like to alert you that the RfC did not work specifically because Annyong was NOT the neutral 3O/mediator that he had presented himself to be. Annyong was invited to mediate the dispute by SD, and since then, he has supported SD all along, even when SD was deliberately misquoting the sources. For example, SD used a statement from a book about another music personality to support his POV on Asmahan, and SD's false position received instant backing by Annyong. To assume good faith, Annyong was doing a very poor job checking the sources or even reading the inputs on the Talk page. This has happened over and over again. The RfC did not work because, as soon as another user, Nefer Tweety, agreed with my position, both SD and Annyong brought sock-puppetry charges TWICE against that user. The two SPI's have resulted in "Declined" and "Unrelated", respectively, yet the puppetry accusations against and intimidations to NT continue to be made. Annyong has supported SD all along, even in edit-warring reverts of legitimate edits made by myself or NT. I can very comfortably state that Annyong's self-presentation as a neutral 3O/mediator was dishonest and an affront to the process, and has prolonged this dispute much farther beyond its due course. Annyong's contributions to the matter since another mediator, Diaa Abdelmoneim, stepped in, and who has been much more reasonable and fair than Annyong ever was, have been to criticize judge, and revert, all in support of SD, and to stifle NT's opinion through intimidation and false accusation. If Annyong had taken an even-handed 3O/mediator position on the matter, like you had done on Stephan Rosti, it would have been resolved even before the RfC. I therefore request that you please exclude Annyong's opinion from your review of this matter. If I knew where to report Annyong for abuse of the 3O/mediator process, I would do so. Regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

System

Hi, I seem to have a disagreement with a new editor about the removal of a textline. I wonder if you could check, and maybe comment on it on the talkpage. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New developments kind of resolved the situation -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Return of problematic editor

This person User talk:Mr3003nights seems to disregard most established editing norms and also intensely stirs the pot at the same time on the wage slavery article (see talk). This person also has freely employed sock puppets in a kind of fake rhetorical polemic in the past in edit summaries and point arguments in the talk page also User talk:99.2.224.110.

You previously page protected the article, probably as a result of this same person also (Have to assume so as the language and debate style and debating points are identical [30]. That user has consistently run multiple accounts in the past and re-appeared with the same edits using different names over and over and generally is a major nuisance as to disruptively attacking editors and making edits not connected to sourcing [31]... and there are a number of other similar accounts and i.p.'s, this person has used. If you could take some action about all that, it would be much appreciated. This person seem awfully consistently a problem on that article, and only seems to get more aggressively negative as time goes on despite multiple blocking and lots of positive suggestions being tossed their way. skip sievert (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you believe that Mr3003nights, 99.2.224.110 and NeutralityForever are the same person. I suspect there could be enough evidence sitting around somewhere to justify more blocks or protections, but someone would have to put it all together. Are you willing to file a new report at WP:SPI? List the past blocks and protections that are related to this article. There is enough abuse here that a checkuser can probably be justified. If a report is filed, ping me and I will take a look at it. If you think this is a good idea, here are some links that might be included in the SPI report:
3RR complaint about NeutralityForever
3RR complaint about the IP
ANI complaint about the original sockpuppetry
The IP's block log
Block log of NeutralityForever
Block log of Entresasix
Protection log of Wage slavery.
If this is filed at SPI, we need at least one other admin to look this over, since I took many of the past actions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas and more background info. - I am not sure I am the person to file an investigation because of baggage accumulation also. I did bring it to the attention of one other Admin. User talk:William M. Connolley - [32] - skip sievert (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


First of all, there is no sockpuppeting here. I am currently using the name mr3003 nights, and though I did have other names in the past 1)sometimes I don't sign on and thus my IP registers as 99.2.224.110. 2) there has been no violation of wiki rules on my part, such as 3 reverts in 24 hours or anything like that for a long time 3) I've already payed for whatever mistakes I made in the past. Now, the truth is that skip is accusing me of precisely his own actions. Please check the last few posts of the discussion page of the article on wage slavery. I'll try to summarize


Skip claims that by quoting the actual text; that by writing "the overcoming of wage labor became 'in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war'" that I am interpreting the source in an incorrect way. Skip, in turn, has placed [citation needed] marks after sentences like these E.g.

Even Abraham Lincoln and the republicans of that era saw wage labor as unfree, only better than chattel slavery in that the worker could eventually rise above it and achieving self-employment.[citation needed] Their republican artisan tradition considered "wage labor [to be] inconsistent with freedom" and defined "free labor" as "labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike," such as "self-employment" and other such "independence" from a "wage-earning status".[citation needed]


even after fabricating quotes that didn't exist and attributing them to the text


For example:

Actual slavery, as in 'owning' humans, became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" (skipsievert's 1st version, nowhere found in the text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300425845&oldid=300267945

A preference for wage labor over slavery, however became for Lincoln, a "rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War" (skipsievert's 2nd version nowhere found in the text)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=300813400&oldid=300784311

If you want to take the time to verify this, read the text I'll paste which is a trascript of the source in question

p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel

... unlike the abolitionists, he [Lincoln] did not equate free labor with wage labor. The superiority of free labor to slave labor did not consist in the fact that free laborers consent to exchange their work for a wage, whereas slaves do not consent. The difference was rather that the Northern wage labor could hope one day to escape from his condition, whereas the slave could not. It was not consent that distinguished free labor from slavery, but rather the prospect of independence, the chance to rise to own productive property and to work for oneself. According to Lincoln, it was this feature of the free labor system that the Southern critics of wage labor overlooked: "They insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen. What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern laborers! They think that men are always to remain laborers here -- but there is no such class. The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him." Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers are comparable to slaves. He held that both forms of work wrongly subordinate labor to capital. Those who debated "whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without consent," considered too narrow a range of possibilities. Free labor is labor carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike. Lincoln insisted that, at least in the north, most Americans were independent in this sense: "Men, with their families--wives, sons and daughters -- work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other."Wage labor as a temporary condition on the way to independence was compatible with freedom, and wholly unobjectionable. Lincoln offered himself as an example, reminding audiences that he too had once been a hired labor splitting rails. What made free labor free was not the worker's consent to work for wage but his opportunity to rise above wage earning status to self-employment and independence. "The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages of while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him." This was the true meaning of free labor, "the just and generous and prosperous system, which opens the way to all." So confident was Lincoln in the openness of the free labor system that those who failed to rise could only be victims of "a dependent nature" or of "improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune." Those who succeeded in working their way up from poverty, on the other hand, were as worthy as any man living of trust and political power.In Lincoln's hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the Northern cause in the Civil War. In the 1830s and 1840s, labor leaders had invoked this conception in criticizing northern society; wage labor, they feared, was supplanting free labor. In the late 1850s, Lincoln and the Republicans invoked the same conception in defending northern society; the superiority of the North to the slaveholding South consisted in the independence the free labor system made possible. "The Republicans therefore identified themselves with the aspirations of northern labor in a way abolitionists never did, but at the same time, helped turn those aspirations into a critique of the South, not an attack on the northern social order."

And it doesn't stop there. Skip has a personal vendetta against me. So for example, today in the discussion page he wrote:

Also the area around that has been fact tagged as that area is not connected to the latter reference to the N.Y.T. article source. That area also needs direct sourcing or removal. skip sievert (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My answer was

skisievert, that quote from the NYT is on page 183 of the source, and it is directly sourced. IT IS YOU!!!! who is removing the source and placing [citation needed] marks. Your record of deceit is really shocking. Mr3003nights (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now. if you want to check who is lying here, please go to page 183 of the source p.181-184 Democracy's Discontent By Michael J. Sandel and check for yourself. Mr3003nights (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism - 1RR

An entry I made to the Fascism article was reversed by IP 72.219.161.154 with the notation (Undid revision 304808298 by The Four Deuces (talk) Change not addressed on talk).[33] I note that no IP has participated in discussion recently. A check using an IP locator shows that the IP is from Laguna Beach, Orange County, California. I note that User:Mamalujo works in San Diego, California and had made an edit ten hours previously. [34] Of course I have no way of knowing if they are the same. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll reserve judgment on whether this IP and Mamalujo could be the same. But since the IP removed your disputed reference to Stackelberg, I think it would be good to assess whether your inclusion of the Stackelberg quote has consensus. One way you might try to do that is post a request at the WP:Content noticeboard for any admin, or any experienced editor (who has not edited at Fascism), to look at the discussion at Talk:Fascism#Professor_Stackelberg to see if there is consensus to include the quote. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I will do that. I had set up by the way a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see your thread at RSN. If you do find a volunteer to to 'close' the Stackelberg discussion, ask them to look both at Talk:Fascism and WP:RSN#Fascism before offering their conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a notice to WP:Content_noticeboard#Fascism. Could you please check that I have stated the request adequately. Thanks. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you want to refer specifically to inclusion of the Stackelberg reference. And whoever closes the discussion is only supposed to judge the consensus, not state their own opinion. (The question of whether Fascism is right-wing is way too difficult for a discussion-closer to quickly determine). EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Pantepoptes

I put in a request for full protect of this and was asked to ask you as the blocking admin. would you consider in light of vandalism and removal of official block notices? LibStar (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline. Users are allowed to remove their own block notices, and some amount of venting by blocked users is tolerated. This editor behaves as though he expects his future on Wikipedia to be short, because he goes around with guns blazing to every article he visits, freely abusing others in his edit summaries. My guess is that we will meet his expectations. I wonder if he could be a well-known sock, but I don't follow Middle Eastern articles much, so I don't know the likely candidates. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
could be a sock, but not 100% sure. although no one else has been so pro Turkey recently on the Accession article. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!

Hi ED, sorry to bother you,

Could you please help me? Asked User:Kingoomieiii for help on a page move subject (we have been talking this past hours about some subjects, mostly regarding...you got it - vandalism!), and now "pass the ball" to you (this user told me to get help from an admin)...

I have been trying, to no avail, to move these two footballers' pages (Franky van Der Elst and François van Der Elst), to no avail. Have already managed to move Leo van Der Elst. Why you ask? Because the correct language form, in Flemish - and i think in German too, although such names are much less common there - is "van der Elst", not "Van Der Elst". Only way "van" gets a capital is in the start of a sentence. I get this strange message "a similar page already exists", dunno why. Could you help me out?

KINGOOMIEIII also gave me this redirects which i think will be helpful for page merge(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franky_van_der_Elst&redirect=no) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fran%C3%A7ois_van_der_Elst&redirect=no).

Thank you very much in advance, happy weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Take care, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Vasco. I agree that Franky van der Elst appears most logical. However, I see that these names are spelled in a variety of ways. Take a look at the first entry in the history of this redirect: moved François van der Elst to François Van Der Elst over redirect: Belgians use capitalized "Van" and "De". I left a note for an editor from Belgium to see what he thinks. We do not want to have a 'style war' — those are the very worst kind! EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
See the advice provided by JoJan at User talk:JoJan#Belgian advice needed. This suggests to me that, for these names, it is safest to follow: (a) spelling of that person in Dutch-language newspapers, (b) spelling in Dutch Wikipedia if newspapers aren't available. I think 'Leo Van der Elst' may be correct for the footballer, based on Google hits in reliable sources, even though Dutch wiki has nl:Leo Van Der Elst. I am now doubtful of the claim that 'Van' and 'Der' are always capitalized in Belgian use, even though a couple of editors have asserted that in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks a million for the input, ED. However, one problem persists: since "we" decided it's best to write subject's name as "Van der Elst", i proceeded to alter everything (templates, storyline sentences, infobox, page move). But, regarding page moves, one setback: I could only move Leo Van der Elst's page, Franky van Der Elst and François van Der Elst remained "wrong" (well at least different, and i think there should be some coherence), i cannot seem to come around and move those pages, always get the "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid" message. I do need help!

Cheers, and thank you again, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My findings suggest that all Belgian footballers 'Van Der XXXX' may use different capitalizations, and we need to discover what each person actually uses. If we see how the media usually describe them, that should be enough. Have you searched for how Franky Van der Elst's name is given in reliable sources? Your claim that 'there should be some coherence' only implies that, for each person whose preference we know, we capitalize their name the same way in all our articles. Please let me know what your searches reveal for how these two guys' names are usually capitalized. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, nice teamwork,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved Franky and François to new titles based on the sources that you found. Can you use 'Whatlinkshere' on the old names to see if these moves created any double redirects? Also, can you be sure that the new sources are included in the respective articles? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fouad Ibrahim

Hello Ed - I have tried to clean-up and improve the article concerning Fouad Ibrahim. I have one time named my paysage blog [35] as reference - because I have not found any other - but you can change this. I would be good you just read it and perhaps if necessary correct the article (grammar, spelling). Thank you very much ! bist wishes from Grünstadt Christophe Neff (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Thikkamasala

Hi Ed, I appreciate your remark on the talk page. I really don't want to get into a fight there, and I certainly don't want to lose my patience--cooler heads should prevail, and yours is probably cooler than mine. So thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Shayan Italia, the block is over. The user is as uncommunicative as ever, and has restored the entire article--"now with sources." There's only one somewhat reliable source, and the rest is a bunch of press releases and other stuff verifying all kinds of trivial information. What shall I do? Where should I take this? Or do I just go ahead and start cutting, basically baiting for another 3RR block? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If a guy comes back and resumes doing the very thing he was blocked for, it's a very clearcut case. You might even be able to take it to AIV. I've reblocked for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet use by user Iwanafish

Hello,

FYI, I am afraid that user Iwanafish is reverting back to using sock puppets. Same behavior and comments with different names.

It is something to watch. If the warnings of removing tags by other editors do not work, I will advise.

See his other known sock puppets and contribution efforts at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iwanafish#26_May_2009

Current aliases seen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daikusama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.165.27.244

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Both are now blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Efective. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yasis year two

There's been a big uptick since the one year anniversary. NJGW (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He's been given a special anniversary rangeblock. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there some sort of barnstar we can give him for holding one hell of a grudge? NJGW (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice guy

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

nice teamwork on the VAN DER ELST stuff, man!!

Also, how bout this chap? This is what i get for fighting vandals with all my heart and soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NothingButAGoodNothing&diff=prev&oldid=305185006); furthermore, he has a dynamic IP, so nothing can be done about it :(

Have a nice week,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

VirtualSteve has addressed the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Volhynia dispute now at AN3

I was thinking about protecting the article, but your solution seems even better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to prevent these disputes from spilling onto other pages, I'd slap 1RR on Ukrainian Insurgent Army as well just to make sure.(I've left this comment at the Volhynia talk page as well).radek (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, you realize that 1RR on these pages creates a distinct disadvantage to one side? There are twice as many Polish editors working on the page, half of which are acting destructively. Then on the other hand there are 2...maybe 3 Ukrainian editors trying to combat this. Can you not see the problems this would cause? It solves nothing, just threatens to bring sanction on Ukrainians trying to give the article a NPOV.--Львівське (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The success of your arguments should not depend on the speed of your reverts. If you can convince others that your edits are neutral and balanced, things should be OK. Consider trying to negotiate with people on the other side. WP:AE is available to report any abuse. The alternative to a 1RR is probably full protection. It's hard to believe that full protection would be better than 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Pantepoptes

I have reason to believe that the newly-created acount Pipebag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a block-evading sock of User:Pantepoptes. I have initiated an investigation here [36] and listed evidence there. What do you think? Regards, Athenean (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Looks like Nishkid64 has wrapped up the entire problem, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pantepoptes. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma. (I remember all the socks with the Roman-emperor names that had a pro-Turkish POV). They seem to be the same guy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear evidence about Corticopia's sock

Check this out, more Corticopia evidence. An anon. IP from Toronto and Ixtapl are the same person, editing and pushing the same POV, same hour same POV:

I think this evidence is enough for a block, since all he is doing is edit warring and disrupting the status of the articles, because no other user besides himself is pushing this particular biased POV. Please pay attention to the fact that the anon. is the one that in the past opened and reported Jcmenal. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 10:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very terse summary of the problem. I have blocked Ixtapl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as a sock of Corticopia and the IP for six months. Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked and he is still free to edit. I encourage Corticopia to use one single account from now on, and to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution rather than continuing a perpetual revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your involvement! So far, this problem has 2 years now, and even if administrators have taken actions against edit-warring, no one has shown interest in ending this rampant sockpuppetry situation, in which is frustrating that one single person can disrupt several articles. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Corticopia is avoiding his block, editing anonymously again [37]. Note that previously Ixtapl, a proved Corticopia sock, was the POV pusher. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Middle America. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again Ed for your fast and fair response. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Incredible... Middle America (Americas) history. Same problem, he's edit-warring anonymously, disrupting the article. IP of the same range, located (as always) in Toronto, Canada. Same POV push, same behaviour. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes: incredible. What POV push are you referring to -- yours? Both the body of references and citations in the article clearly support more balanced phrasing. Dispute resolution (as suggested) is useless with these particular editors from Mexico who haven't even discussed the issue on the talk page, and regardless do as they usually usually do: revert war, disrupt, and resort to ad hominem argument. And, before the administrator - who is arguably already complicit in locking down pages and supporting a proven edit warrior and sockpuppeteer - decides to compound that error and do the reporter's dirty work for him, please be advised that I need not nor will not edit with a user name. That is all I have to say. 69.158.152.157 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello 69.158.152.157. You've been around a long time, and I think you know what you would have to do to be taken seriously. I hope it doesn't come as a complete shock that someone who contributes to a wide variety of articles under a registered account is more credible than a constantly-changing IP who hops around to avoid blocks. Your only goal on Wikipedia appears to be maintaining a fixed viewpoint on certain middle-American topics that you try to enforce by edit-warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And that justifies similar actions of 'established' editors - with a fixed viewpoint on similar American articles, who pop up largely to preserve that viewpoint through reversion and edit warring (which your ignorance of is, well, unsurprising) - who do exactly the same thing, yet are not sanctioned for it? In fact, they are encouraged through your semi-protection of articles, as the above editor will predictably revert to a preferred state. Your actions, frankly, are laughable and can't be taken seriously. Keep up the good work. 69.158.152.157 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Ed. In a complete defiance to the established rules, Corticopia's from Toronto is again edit warring, now in his preferred article North America. Note that when he is gone, none of the other editors, nor regular visitor of the article objects. He's the only one always trying to impose with his "Central/Middle America agenda". And just a hint, because I know how he works (and can prove it with Ixtapl): he will now register an account, pretend he's a "good guy" (other than Corticopia) and then he will start implementing his POV among the articles. Ixtapl appeared in the article Mexico initially pretending he was a different person than Corticopia... in fact he even "discussed" with Corticopia (LOL?) and took opposite sides! As stated in the sockpuppet article, this is a classical behaviour or sockpuppeters. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the Fowler's quotation verbatim in North America, and the text related to it: it was changed without consensus, previously removed by the commentator above (see archives), and the actual quotation was recently changed by a similar edit warrior who has since departed. I won't comment on other gibberish above, but I'm clearly not the only editor who supports said viewpoint, reliably sourced; others don't necessarily challenge AlexC because they, as I, tire of talking to a wall and discussing issues with an admitted Mexican 'patriot' (per talk page) who continuously reverts with limited scope and who cannot accept disagreeable source matter. In light of incompetent editors and complicit administrators, I will ignore all rules -- a policy. I defy this editor and, since few editors appear to come to their defense, see little reason to yield in any incarnation. No more comment. 69.158.152.157 (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok Ed. Now he's just being disruptive out of rage or frustration. I think he's made clear he won't stop. contribuitions

No, not really, since I can edit at will regardless of semi-protection. The reporter seems to be more frustrated than anyone, given their persistence and is likely politically impotent etc. in the homeland: the bulk of his edits are in support of one viewpoint, however misguided, and is his entire talk page is devoted to whatever the issue is. The map the user tries to include is of limited utility, and has been absent from the article for months without a peep. But, the administrator seems more like a yes man, so get to it. 69.158.152.157 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ed, this is now jus insane [38], he won't stop his disruptive behaviour, going from article to article no matter what. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: recent change to WP:RESTRICT

Sorry about that. The actual wording at the discussion was "must stop" (which is essentially the same) but that got lost in translation. I've changed it to that. Is that ok? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Niffweeds complaint in regards to socionics article

I have written my side of the story on the noticeboard incident report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rmcnew_and_Socionics

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcnew (talk • contribs) 22:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

as I expected..

he didn't edit for 3 days and came back and his first edit was to shove the copyvio back into the article [39].--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

about that ban... [40].--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Another admin to the rescue here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but somehow I feel we're far from done..--Crossmr (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

minor

Sorry, seemed minor to me. The comprehensive article by Snyder on this makes no mention of 1945, just 1947 when the UPA was finally booted from the territory by the Soviets.--Львівське (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson and Finneganw

Nothing more to do here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hello. Since spotting your warning to user Finneganw, I'd like to ask whether this leniency toward him is fair. He's a sock puppet/sock puppeteer and well known for it. Do you really think he'll stop ranting at Anna Anderson? Just because you asked him nicely? That creature does not recognize "nice". I am nobody, yet I am the Revolution and I entreat you to join with the three other admins who call for his banishment from the topic. By the way, I am an indefblocked editor thanks to Nishkid64. Do you know why? Mainly because Finnie and his shadow aggiebean told Nishkid to do it. Finn is much more trouble than he is worth. READ the history. And furthermore, user aggiebean ought to be warned as well, but not banned.75.21.105.228 (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed, sorry to post again, but I would ask that you look as a 'fresh pair of eyes' on the abuses of Nishkid64. Because I have implicated him in the matter of Finneganw's topic ban from Anna Anderson, he's tried yet again to range-block me. He has as per usual resorted to name-calling in the most stupid fashion at the admin's notice board in the matter of Finneganw. He has entreated the admins to ignore my support of the ban. He is an abusive, deceitful admin. Is this what your precious administrators consider fair? All I have done, as Nishkid himself will tell you, is "annoy" (read: disagree with) others. Yet there is no real action to ban Finneganw from here. I am beginning to suspect the nature of Nishkid's deep involvement in the trouble at Anna Anderson.75.21.147.214 (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
He's been more than annoying. This troublesome user has been blocked by multiple administrators, all of whom he claims are harassing him, on his various dynamic IP addresses. He doesn't seem to understand that a block is a clear message that he is no longer welcome to Wikipedia and that his edits will be reverted and his IPs blocked. Ignore this guy, Ed. He seems to latch on to any poor soul who'll lend him his ears for five minutes. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Nishkid, thanks for your comment. I'm not planning to respond to the IP editor, but I didn't consider it worthwhile to undo his posts from my Talk. If you want to remove them from AN that's fine. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I hope I did not convey the idea that I want responses or dialogue with you. I know it is taboo to do so. I post to leave information, that is all. If you study the abusive hatred Nishkid has shown toward me, and some of it I can understand, you will see why I appealed to your fairness. Note, as I will repeat, Nishkid's repeated defence of aggiebean and Finneganw, two of the worst editors ever. And yes, I was the first editor at Anna Anderson to be savaged and it was by Nishkid. He simply doesn't like editors standing up to his fascist, abusive methods. And he hates being outsmarted, so he semi-protects any fool who asks him. Now do you see the hypocrisy in his posts regarding me? Do you see how he blocks my fluctuating IPs using an old username as a reason? Is this justice? This swine does not deserve adminstrative powers...just as his predecessor Trusilver was told that he was too brutal with editors, and was told he [Trusilver] was unfit to administrate. But here he still is...and Nishkid is setting a precedent you are all going to regret in the end.76.195.83.251 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR

I'm guessing you saw this since you saw the 'minor' issue, but 1RR? 1 2 by Paweł5586? It's annoying when you try to make constructive edits w/ sources expanding the article and it just keeps getting reverted.

As far as the edit goes, I think it gives undue weight to keep repeating "80,000" 3 times in the intro paragraph. Give a detail of all that happened then branch off into specifics, no?--Львівське (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the editor about the 1RR. Regarding the 80,000, you may well be right but you should make that argument on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, sorry, but read it carefully it is not proper topic for this informations. This topic is about Massacres Poles in Volhynia not about population. Look at Ukrainian Insurgent Army topic, Lwiwskie made many vadalism there, removing photos without any good explanation.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Pavel, there are at least 2 discussions on the talk page for the removal of said pictures. Just because you don't appreciate the work of another, doesn't make it "vadalism".--Львівське (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing, Lwiwskie has no respect to innocent Polish, Jews victims of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. UPA were nationalist and terrorist organization responsible for 100-150 thousands Polish victims, 30 thousands Ukrainians (killed for helping Poles) and Jews. Look at his profile - you can find their flag and sentence - heroes. I hope English Wikipedia dont support them. This flag should be removed by admin. What Jews would have say if someone would add nazi flag to his profile.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Will your WP:POV pushing end? Sheesh...--Львівське (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I promise. One week in this topic. How about Lvivske and his behavior. Stop him too. --Paweł5586 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Paweł, thanks for your response. You will not be editing Massacres of Poles in Volhynia for a week. If you believe that Lvivske has committed a new 1RR violation, please supply the details. I do notice that Lvivske is actively participating at both Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army and at Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. I have not seen any comments by you on those talk pages. If you have concerns, you should express them, and you should be willing to negotiate and try to get consensus for your ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ed, please note that Paweł did in fact comment on both of the respective talk pages, although - in my opinion - his comments were characteristic of a new user unfamiliar with Wiki policies. I think this one - for both for Paweł and to a lesser extent for Lvivske falls under "don't bite the newbies". Both users have shown a great willingness to discuss things subsequently when they were asked too.radek (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary restriction

Discussion at User talk:Paweł5586#Please avoid both articles until Aug 14.

I cant answer at discussion page too? Sorry for my one edit at Massacres... I forgot:( --Paweł5586 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You are not restricted from the Talk page, only from the article itself, until 14 August. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sora Kake Girl vandal returned (again)

121.185.26.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) returned as soon as his block expired again on July 18. I just now picked up on it, though. Unfortunately, I don't have time to review all the new edits to see if anything still needs reverted. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on where the vandalism is? Sora Kake Girl has not been edited from this IP range since June 17. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
A series of edits to Talk:Sora Kake Girl tipped me off (8 of the last 9 edits have been him adding large amounts of nonsense and subsequently self-reverting). A brief glimpse at contribs from the whole range show he's edited other pages since the block expired, and created several talk pages for IP addresses within the range while the block was active, but like I said, I haven't had time to carefully review all the latest edits. I'm wondering if I should make a CU request to make sure there are no user accounts registered from that range before indef-blocking the range, since it's not used like normal ISP ranges are. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I renewed the rangeblock for two months. Since this is anon-only, this should not bother any registered accounts. Feel free to make a CU request if you think there is more to be done. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. On further reflection, you're probably right about it not bothering any registered users, so I probably won't bother with a CU request right now. I'm just wondering how this person has access to an IP range that appears to be only allocated and not used, though. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain 'allocated but not used?' EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, as in, it's owned by them, but they don't seem to use it, and they certainly don't seem to allow the public to use it. I don't know too much about the whole thing, though, so what I say should be taken with a grain of salt. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Entropy

Thank you for noticing what can only be described as an edit war regarding my recently proposed edits to the Entropy article. This was my first effort in a wiki project and my bold edits may not have been the best strategy. Nevertheless I have usually refrained from any reverts unless there was prior discussion. Certain other editors cannot make such claims and have engaged in multiple reverts, all of which are in clear violation of wikipedia policy because they resulted in multiple viable sources being deleted each time. These reverts were so prompt and persistent (often occurring immediately after my changes were entered) that I still do not find all of my sources in any one historical record.

I believe the edit war has subsided now because of a consensus to preserve the last revert even though it means all of my work has been deleted. Bold edits in physics articles may be met with resistance because the diffs become so huge. But I believe that reverts should be strongly discouraged in physics articles unless the edits have been made in clear violation of policy. Furthermore I believe that reverts of physics articles in clear violation of policy should be treated harshly. A lot of work goes into editing an article like Entropy and editors who are quick to revert rather than try to help improve may not understand the subject matter as well as they think. Quantumechanic (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Quantumechanic#Edit warring at Entropy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If Count Iblis (talk) is trying to drive me away, he is doing a good job. I will not persist in trying to contribute when confronted with repeated blanking in clear violation of wikipedia policy. This user has just deleted two more viable references without justification. Quantumechanic (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

When you describe Count Iblis's actions as user vandalism, this suggests you are not very familiar with Wikipedia policy. This issue is clearly a content dispute. Count Iblis is typical of the people who may be reviewing changes on physics articles. If you can persuade him that your changes are desirable, others may agree as well. I am sorry to observe that editors who don't find consensus for their changes often complain to admins of misbehavior by the other users. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussed here

and here


See here for the agreement on editing that later turned out not to work

In short, this is absolutely not about me wanting to have some preferred POV out of the POVs that exists in the physics literature. Count Iblis (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for your contribution at User talk:Count Iblis#Civility. I saw no sign that I was making myself understood so I raised the matter at WP:WQA#Naming and shaming. Regards, Dolphin51 (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfunny problem

Hello, I noticed that that Unfunny deleted "article" (in fact it was only redirect page) can not be edited (only admins can do this, because that page is probably protected), but I have an idea. What about redirecting that page to "Antihumor" article? What do you think about it? Sincerely, RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Unfunny redirect has already been deleted eight times by various admins since 2005. It is better if you open a request at WP:Deletion review to allow its recreation. You should preferably have some evidence (maybe from publications elsewhere?) that such a redirect would make sense. Due to past vandalism the new redirect might need to be full-protected, and that would cause enough controversy that you should be sure this redirect is truly necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Yeah, in Unfunny deletion log it looks like there was some kind of wikipedia/encyclopedia dramatica war. I just suppose that redirection to Antihumor will be some kind of democratic resort, but maybe it is not necessary at all. Anyway I'm not convinced about that solution at all. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Rushden & Diamonds F.C.

Would it be legit to removed the fan's forum at the bottom of the page as per WP:ELNO? --Jimbo[online] 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter of editor consensus. Why not propose it on the article's talk page first? You could ask for opinions at WT:FOOTY also. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rehashing...

Hi Ed, remember User talk:Thikkamasala from a few weeks ago? Edits to Shayan Italia that were unencyclopedic and unverified, plus some 3RRing, lack of edit summaries, being incummunicado, etc.? They're at it again, as the history shows, with the same old problem, which I think boils down to an unwillingness to learn WP guidelines and apply them. What shall I do? Go to ANI? (I'm not trying to just unload this on you, but I'm not entirely sure what the best course of action is--you blocked him twice and it didn't seem to help.) Your advice is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you file this at WP:AN3. Mention that it's an edit-warring complaint, not 3RR, and that persuasion and shorter blocks have not helped. (Last one was for a week). You could summarize the messages you have left for him. An admin needs to decide whether the next step is a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I'm trying to place fact tags on claims that are cited by blogs on the article Chetniks. User:DIREKTOR seems to think that blogs are a reliable source so he keeps reverting the tags without discussion. I know that blogs are not good sources, and i keep telling referring him to wp:sources. He simply reverts the tags and attacks me by posting unwarranted tags on my user page. He seems to think its ok to war edit in order to win the right to use blogs as sourcesRex Dominator (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Rex Dominator is right. Furthermore, Direktor is always engaging in edit wars with those (Serbian, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Italians, Slovenians, Germans et al) who disagree with his Tito support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.51 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning DIREKTOR

While I can’t express my opinion on the all of the disputes between DIREKTOR and the Wiki World, he is definitely pushing his POV. It seems to be very similar to that of the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia (as well as their tactics).

Info from Music and Media-18th October 2005 “Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work”. One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. I’m afraid Mr Direkor has taken this to new levels with abuse, reports and inappropriate deletion.

On a positive note the check and balances on the Wiki English Site do help minimise POV. Some of those articles pertaining to the Balkans could be a lot worse.Sir Floyd (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


DAFMM Edit Warring

Thanks for the comment. I personally think this is ridiculous and against change just because the people against my are administrators, and I'm just a expeirenced editor. I am going to therefore take this further. Is there anything against my starting a page against administrators in my userspace - without causing controvesy? People can make there comments and we will see what people say about the powers and contacts of senior editors and administrators.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

P. S. Where is the result of the complaint?

Hello DAFMM. The result of the WP:AN3 complaint is here. I hope you are not surprised that Wikipedia has a 'house style' that we try to use in all of our articles. Since a common style is recommended, it may come to the attention of administrators that someone is trying to pioneer a brand-new style. (Or, it might be an old-fashioned style that Wikipedia has decided not to use here). EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You can only try. I have also started that page at User: DAFMM/AdministratorPowers. DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Sockpuppet of Koov?

Hi! Could you check Pedir (talk · contribs)? I think he/she is a sockpuppet of Koov (talk · contribs). Thanks! --Turkish Flame ☎ 05:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64 has taken care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

3 RR Report

Thanks for the reply Ed. The edit warring on Juice Plus has stopped for now, so it looks like the situation is under control. No valid case was made to defend the edits that were at the center of the edit war (deletion of content in the lead section), but I'll keep your RfC suggestion it in mind if the edit warring starts up again. Once again, thanks for your input. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Missile33 (talk) violated 3RR after all, despite several warnings. Please see Aug. 18 reversions at 01:07,[41] 01:56, [42], and 11:35 [43]. There was one more reversion by this user today as well.[44] Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It takes four reverts within 24 hours to break WP:3RR. In any case, you're the main person reverting against Patriot Missile33, and you've made no effort to use formal WP:Dispute resolution, such as an RfC. An admin might consider you to be a participant in the edit war. (Note: I personally have no sympathy with Patriot's edits). These factors work against the report being closed in the way you want. I can't close this one anyway since I used to edit the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment?

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliweb. — Athaenara ✉ 16:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added my own comment there. Some issues never go away :-). EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
True, that, thanks! (and to think that you were the one who invited me in ;-P) — Athaenara ✉ 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo strangeness

Hi Ed. A while ago I uploaded a photo of me to go with the article Vaughan Pratt as you requested. Recently I updated it by uploading a more recent photo with the same name. This worked at first, but at some point since then the thumbnail and preview reverted to an earlier version even though the full size version remained the new one. (Click on the thumbnail at Vaughan Pratt and then click on the preview to see what I mean.) Any idea what's going on there? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That one puzzles me. I, too, see the next-to-latest version even on a brand-new page. Four ideas:
  1. Try a new upload with the suffix 'jpg' instead of 'JPG'. (They seem to be different). You would need to resubmit all the licensing info.
  2. Ask at WP:VPT for advice.
  3. Wait a month. Thumbnail-generation is CPU-intensive and is sometimes backlogged.
  4. Accept the older picture! (The background of the new one is slightly confusing). EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't reproduce the problem. Is it fixed? Hans Adler 19:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Vaughan Pratt.
The above picture has a sky-colored background at upper left when I view it. This is not the latest version of File:VaughanPratt.JPG (submitted 1 August, 2009 at Commons), which has nearby tree branches in the background. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
User:B solved the problem by suggesting Shift-reload on the browser (to clear your cache). Now I see the correct image above. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Merseyrail peer review

Hi thanks for the response I might have the patience it depends what we are talking about.tools are required.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about mergers and what consensus means

You seem to be knowledge about such things, and a reasonable minded person, so I want your opinion. Most people say that something should not be merged, but a smaller number say that consensus for a merge means they can ignore the arguments they don't like, and merge it anyway at anytime they want, no matter what the majority of us say. They argued all day with me about that at: [[45]]. Merges require consensus, and consensus doesn't mean less than half the people wanting to do something, correct? If you handle edit warring and whatnot a lot, surely this must come up often. Dream Focus 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that somebody has opened an official RFC on the merge decision. After the RFC been open for a reasonable time, you could post at WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. That would hopefully lead to a result that was less contentious. If you decide to take that route, the closer who is judging consensus will probably be influenced by sources, as they would be in an AfD discussion. If the stand-alone articles are weakly sourced, the argument to merge would be stronger. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly unfair block and admins taking sides

Hi EdJohnston,

I see you are very active on the incident boards and were also recently a part of an incident here [46] which I reported with all the evidence needed, yet a senior admin took sides against me and even blocked me when there was clear evidence against the other user and I had done nothing wrong, In fact a number of 'Indian' editors shad been canvassing against me, including with that administrator that blocked me, such as here [47] and this can be easily verified. I would appreciate it if you could help or advise me on this matter. Regards. Khokhar (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you arrived on Wikipedia, you have been in one battle after another. A scan of the edit summaries of your last 250 edits will easily show this. Against this background, YellowMonkey's action does not seem remarkable. It seems that you have relevant knowledge that could be used to improve articles, but you also have a preference for certain ethnic or cultural topics that are usually controversial. Only those with great patience and diplomacy will have success in editing there. I do not perceive you as having shown us those skills on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam and probably COI-problem

Hi Ed,

Gavyg03 (talk · contribs), who also created Five Knuckles, is mass-adding Five Knuckles' ranking of MMA-fighters to the fighters' articles (example) and I'm wondering what would be a good way to attack this. While there isn't anything wrong with listing well-known outlets' (e.g. Sherdog.com, Yahoo! Sports, SI.com) rank of fighters, this is quite obviously a problem. Should I simply revert all his additions as spam (i.e. basically apply WP:Linkspam), or take it to the MMA-wikiproject to get a consensus for what outlets we should use for rankings? Also, I note that the Five Knuckles-article lists "Gavin Vincent" as one of the creator so I think we might be looking at a COI-problem as well.

Any advice? --aktsu (t / c) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I never would never have imagined this, but someone else actually noticed it and brought it up at WT:MMA three hours ago. I'm legitimately amazed because things like this seems to never get picked up on with WP:MMA being stretched so thin (single-digits active members). I guess it'll sort itself out then, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on applying WP:LINKSPAM's "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." to article-additions. Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 19:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I moved the article back to WP:AFC, from which it had been prematurely moved to main space. I've protected the title Five Knuckles, but this can be undone as soon as the creator gets his material reviewed by an experienced contributor. I've warned the article creator that he is on thin ice. If you see him continuing to add links, let me know, or report it at WT:WPSPAM. They're not very sympathetic to spam over there. An opinion from the WT:MMA regulars about the value of the Five Knuckles ratings would be quite significant. The site owner is not the best person to be adding these ratings, and he had better be aware of that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please forgive me for not knowing how to use Wikipedia. I'm Jason Perkins, Co-Creator of FiveKnuckles.com. My partner Gavin Vincent created a page for our website to give folks some background on the site. This was not done for the purposes of advertising, but simply to list ourselves amongst the database of MMA websites already contained on Wikipedia for informational purposes and to be recognized as the legitimate outlet that we are. We are a collection of writers from already accepted sources such as Sherdog.com, MMAWeekly, CagePotato, MMAJunkie, and Fightline.com. Our Alexa ranking has climbed to 78,000 in the few months we've been around due to our ability to break news in the sport and our integrity as a site to bring trusted information to our readers. The original page that was created by Gavin, was then re-edited almost immediately and was taken to a point of neutrality by several anonymous individuals which I'm sure you have a record of. However, Gavin proceeded to add our rankings to the fighter pages, which was done with the dual purpose of exposure and legitimacy, as several other legit outlets have done this in the past. While our rankings are seen as a legitimate source of knowledge in the MMA community and our collected monthly to form HDNet's "Inside MMA" monthly rankings, to me, it's unacceptable that they were added by us (this was done without my knowledge) and I would agree with you folks that they should be removed. I would ask however that you view us with the same legitimacy that you hold for Sherdog.com, Yahoo.com, and MMA Weekly. We are affiliated with Yahoo! Sports as they sponsor our live event updates and have already been accepted as a trusted source in the MMA blogsphere, being sourced for breaking news on MMAMania, MMAFrenzy, Sherdog, BloodyElbow.com and many more accepted MMA websites. I apologize that this has been your introduction to our site, but in time, I'm confident that you will see the value of what we bring to the MMA community with our breaking news and reliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.132.62 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hello EdJohnston and aktsu. I am sorry for whatever damage I may have done. I meant to update several fighter records that were out of date and took the liberty of updating several Sherdog records that were out-of-date. Yes, I was also adding Five Knuckles to that mix but they are a reputable source and I didn't see the harm. I will immediately seize further action until I hear from you. Again, I am sorry as the main intention was to update Sherdog records while adding Five Knuckles reputation to the mix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyg03 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RE Zinda

Hi there, I just want to clarify that I was merely reverting information that was removed by Lexbevis(contribs)who apparently created an account just primarily for that purpose. The list prior to removal had been originally there for ages without any issues. In fact it was even useful in resolving a previous discussion where another editor claimed that Zinda was NOT plagiarised from Old boy. As for consensus, as far as I see there was only one editor on the opposing end in that issue. That same editor was similar in conflict with me in another WP:EW situation so I tend to take his comments with a pinch of salt, considering that he had been banned a number of times for edit wars in the past. When a 2nd editor Collectonian (talk stepped in , I respected her decision and stopped the edits. I did try to validate my reason for the reversion on her talk page but somehow the discussion stopped. Only upon my revision did it create an issue. Anyways I did find a review about Zinda that raises only the 4 glaring similarities, and this will be included in the talk page for about a week before I add them in the main page. As mentioned, I did not create the content so am not partial to it, but just want to highlight the similarities of the plagiarism claims which is the focus of the plagiarism subsection (which was also NOT created by me. I just want to enhance the content). Would that resolve the problem?Zhanzhao (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Whether the plagiarism claim belongs in the article is up to the consensus found on the Talk page. When the same editor puts in material repeatedly, and others remove it, it suggests he does not have consensus. Under those conditions, you need to discuss rather than revert. EdJohnston (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunatly in this case, the "other editors" is made up of only 1 dissenting voice, Shshshsh/Shahid. Even when replacement content is suggested, it is outright rejected by quoting a vague ruling page without giving the specific reason why it should be rejected. Check the visit the Zinda talk page and you'll see what I mean as this behaviour is being repeated. In context, the same said user had in the past claimed that plagiarism claims should only be made on the individual film pages. Now, he is even rejected the input of such content in these individual pages. Maybe you could help give us out here by giving us an even-handed input on the talk page and "break the tie" so to speak, else it will always be one editor against another.Zhanzhao (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not up to admins to solve content problems. If you are unhappy with editors who are reverting your changes, and you don't think you can reach a compromise, find a WikiProject where you can ask for more opinions. User:Collectonian is an experienced editor and she thinks your material is against the WP:MOSFILM guideline, since it involves original research. You could try posting the issue at WP:NORN if you disagree. If no success, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree that the original material I reverted was unsourced, which was why I am now using a verified sourced, which willget around the WP:V and WP:OR issue. Also, no lists this time justa paragraph from the source I am using describing the nature of the plagiarism. As mentioned, I did post on User:Collectonian's talk page asking for her opinion on alternatives but have not gotten a reply on it yet. I'll ask on her talk page again. Thanks for you advice in any case.Zhanzhao (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Redir1

Do you need help with User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Redir1, or would I just be getting in the way? Aditya (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please! Continue work on that file if you can. I think it is reasonable for admins to delete as R3 anything that has been reviewed by an experienced editor and does not have value. Just make a suitable mark on each entry in Redir1 if you have an opinion, one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. I read this a bit late, I'll start work on it tomorrow. Cheers, Aditya (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User:YgoFan90_reported_by_User:Bill

Would you consider a block of Mokoniki also? He had 6 edit reversions in this case also, regardless of YgoFan90's bad behavior. At least warn Mokoniki. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not available for few hours. I'll look again when I return. The action was more due to YgoFan90 being completely unwilling to negotiate, and to see that he was over the edge, rather than me doing a pure count of the reverts. When contacted about his edits, Ygo simply became belligerent and kept repeating himself. If there was any hint of willingness to change his approach a block would not have occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Help Requested with UST Global and article documenting the founder of this company

Hello Ed. After 9 months, company employees have started removing the factual posts about the founding of UST Global.

The first user to do this last week was blocked by Wikipedia. The second user to do this has removed the sections that were put back by Wikipedia 9 months ago.

I am sorry to trouble you, but since you straighted this exact situation in 2008, I thought I would ask for your help.

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance to you.

Most Sincerely.

Stephen Ross Stevejross (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left a warning for Evan Lechien about his removal of well-sourced information from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

I need another page protected (man is this vandal relentless and annoying) please. User:VirtualSteve has been very supportive in this matters, but i believe he is on a wikibreak (has not responded to any queries from users in the past week).

I'll briefly brief :) you, with the last three messages i sent to Steve, about a vandal (and i feel there is a bit of persecution to yours truly involved, could it be this "user" has not liked having been reported and found out it was me (which is pretty plausible)?

In order of dispatch, here are my last three requests to Steve: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VirtualSteve/Archive13#HELP.21.21 1) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VirtualSteve/Archive13#Oh_boy 2) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VirtualSteve#One_more.21 3).

With that "in store", think it is possible to protect Francisco Pavón's page, which was his latest masterpiece? He, again, altered birthdate, height, stats and inserted lies in storyline just because. If you check edit history, you will see that, alone in this article, he used three different IPs. So far, i have counted nearly 30, so no talkpage with this chap or long-range blocks, someone told me this week this particular array of IP is used by millions across England, so page protection is the sole way to go, unfortunately.

Ty very much in advance, cheers,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Francisco Pavón has been semied three months. But please don't use insults in edit summaries, even when addressing vandals. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry man, sometimes i get extremely carried away. It's very hard to be patient with this disruptions. I'll try my best, promise; if i can't hold my own, i'll surely be man enough to "take the punishment", Ed. Sorry again and thank you (also again...).

VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More trouble

Please look into this insult and accusation of editing in bad faith: [48]. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cooperative effort

I understand you BK Ryu and Eli are working through the list, do you know what I could do to help lessen this workload everyone has chosen? Ryu and BK both had an issue with names so would it be a good idea to try and collect them into a list so I can upgrade them into proper articles (or disambig in the case of single names as opposed to inviduals) to avoid the amount of work done needing to delete them only to probably recreate them months later when someone gets around to doing a full job? I'd like to do that full job now, more time spent creating bio stubs will be less time making redirects and lessen the double redirect objections. Also you mentioned that others appear to be deleting directly... do you know who, so I can at least check the logs to make sure the quality ones also aren't being loss in case some of them aren't paying as much attention as you and conserving some? Tyciol (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

On the list User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Redir1, only 20 out of the first 55 redirects have been marked as worthy of keeping. This is out of a partial list containing 1000 redirects. My guess that if the whole list is surveyed by hand, one-third would wind up being kept and the other two-thirds would be deleted. Since you created 5000 redirects altogether, I am not confident that we will have editors available to go through the entire list critically. At some point a mass deletion of the remainder may be needed. I have little time to work on this at present. If you want to see which admin deleted a redirect, click on the redlink. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Look into this please?

I don't want to violate 3RR. This guy keeps inserting non-RS material into the article Chodaczkow Wielki massacre. The article's creator himself proposed to delete the article and agreed that the sources pawel is inserting aren't reliable, pawel is sticking to his guns. (see the talk page [49]). ThanksFaustian (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not nominate the article for deletion yourself? See WP:AFD for how to do this. I notice that even our own article on Wiktor Poliszczuk says that his work is 'outside of the scholarly mainstream.' EdJohnston (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to do this. Could you ask [[User:Paweł5586 to stop adding the nonreliable stuff into the article? ThanksFaustian (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Faustian is removing the sources which we have added to article. He cant decide for us what is or not reliabale--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't decide anything, I merely follow wikipedia policy. I have opened up the AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chodaczkow Wielki massacre. So far only one uninvolved editor has gotten involved; he has voted to delete the article.Faustian (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Paweł5586 and Faustian should not get into an edit war about the sources, since they risk getting blocked. Luckily the disputed sources can still be seen on the Talk page. If the AfD closes with Keep, there will need to be an agreement among editors as to what sources are legitimate to keep in the article. An WP:RFC could be one way to decide that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It is small diffrence beetwen us: I dont removing any facts with sources. I have found 8 sources about Chodaczków. One of them is 1000 pages book based on recollections, reviewed by historians, and one more historian - Grzegorz Motyka is qouting to this book. And one more thing look at "restoration" by Faustian - link he havent restored all text he had removed. This is cheating--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
(Sigh). None of the eight sources are reliable. Many of those eight are a bunch of stuff published by the same propagandistic publishing house that'as been rejected by most editors on the talk pages.
This brings about a question for Ed. We have a situation where the same three editors working together are able to get their same unreliable sources onto article pages and to "tag team" as a way of getting around 3R. I suppose I could canvas others to nuetralize this (as was done here by User:Paweł5586 recruiting some help: [50]), but this isn't right. What must be done next? We have a majority of the people on the talk pages agreeing that the source is not reliable, it is clearly is according to wikipedia:reliability (no gray area there). But we have these three people disagreeing.Faustian (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't yet see a case for admin intervention on Chodaczkow Wielki massacre. If the article survives AfD, editors will need to reach a conclusion about what sources should stay in the article. Great patience (and some reading of sources) may be needed to figure that out. Nobody will win by reverting more than the other guy, since admins will be sure that does not occur. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, now he is using the same unreliable source on all sorts of other articles: [51] and [52], seemingly trying to spread out the edit-warring. He is also trying to engage in taunting as seen here: [53]. You warned him earlier of misbehavior: [54] and is seems as if this sort of behavior is escalating on his part.13:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, two reverts, possible vandalism - text with sources were removed by Galassi--Paweł5586 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

More Polish-Ukrainian disputes

Since you took an interest in the situation on the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia I mentioned this comment you made [55] at Loosmark's AE appeal [56] since I think it is pertinent to what the situation on the article was prior to the latest rounds of mutual accusations.radek (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance Needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
foo

Closing this thread - A number of editors left comments in this section asking me to look at the dispute at the Albanian nationalism article. All those involved should consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. These steps, such as WP:RFC/U, have the potential of bringing in administrators when the issue is sufficiently prepared and documented. I'm not planning to work on the complaints that were left here so far, so I'm closing the thread. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried two other admins but got no response from them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_nationalism Please take a look at the article, its talk page and its revision history. Megistias, a greek editor, has purposefully created this article in order to smear Albania and Albanians. He misqoutes and miscites many of the information he has put up in the article. He is continously engaged in an edit war with 3 other editors, and refuses any sort of compromise. This is clearly seen in the talk page, as he continously assumes bad faith and morever very uncivil to the other editors, calling them an "Albanian gang" that wants to committ vandalism and that they need to "scuffy out of the article". Morever he has been blocked 4 other times, for the same uncivil behavior and edit warring. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMegistias I think he needs to be dealt with, along with the article he has created. Wikipedia is not for propaganda as Megistias is doing, but for informing. Thank You. --I Pakapshem (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider adding your opinion to the RfC at Talk:Albanian nationalism#Albanian nationalism POV. Admins are not supposed to intervene in content disputes. There are already articles on Serbian nationalism and Greek nationalism. Megistias has not been blocked since April 2008, which is a long time ago. If this article matters a lot to you, I suggest doing research on the sources to try to upgrade the quality of the material. I recall leaving you some suggestions about research in Albanian sources over at User talk:I Pakapshem#Famous Himariots, but I don't believe this led to anything. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added my opinion. I don't think you looked at the whole thing carefully, or the reverts back and forth between the editors and also Megistias' tone of communicating with the other editors trying to reach a compromise with him. From my experience here, it seems like admins don't have any sort of uniformity of dealing with things and rather they make arbitrary decisions. I have been banned in some instances even because an admin thought I was edit warring, even though I was not breaking actual rules. Anyways...--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you don't give us any easy questions to solve. 'Please sort out the Balkans' is not a reasonable request to give to admins. 'Check out this 3RR' is often feasible. If you intend to do a lot of work on Balkan articles, you could certainly direct your attention to easier questions. Albanian nationalism is an article that is almost guaranteed to be an eternal source of trouble, no matter how good people's intentions are. But you have the power to work on something else, if you actually want to (e.g. biographies of important Albanians). EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is asking anybody to please sort out the balkans. I am only asking you to please sort out this abusive, tendentious, nationalistic editor. What I itend to do is from keep the Albanian and Albanian related articles as true and real as possible, which are under heavy siege by Megistias, Athenean, Alexikoua, Factuarius etc. and many other serbian and greek editors whose only objetive seems to be to distort the truth. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, almost all Albanian related articles are writing from you Pakapshem, the Balkanian's word, the Aigest, the Sarandioti, and the rest of the block and was protected by continued edit-warring and the battleground mentality from all of you. And you are trying now to do the same with that article, by trying to re-establish the nightmare of the impossibility to edit a single word without your permission as you had did with rest of the articles. So please spare my name from your confession of innocence and the good-guys bad-guys fairytales. Thanks, --Factuarius (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course we are going to edit them since we are ALBANIAN and who best would know about a certain country than it's own inhabitants, and we edit them because you and the rest of the greeks editors keep distorting everything and anything in the articles in order to undermine Albania and Albanians and to push you nationalistic agenda. This will not stand, and it has nothing to do with fairytales but with reality. Why the hell are all these greeks interested in editing Albanian articles? Is it because they are very good wikipedians and altruist people who want to contribute? Nah, it doesn't look like it at all.--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive activity

Seems a dangerous nationalistic pattern is very active in this discussion with User:I_Pakashem trying to triger an battleground [[57]], [[58]], [[59]], [[60]], [[61]], [[62]], [[63]]. Comments like: ', our neighbors occupy the land and yet they bill us with the extremist nationalist ideology', 'the desire of Albanians to unite all Albanian populated lands into one state is not revanchist but a natural desire of self determination and rule', 'All of the greek editors edits in Albanian or Albanian related articles are always done to undermine..', 'This is what you call talking out of your a**', are really appropriate for wikipedia? I would no doubt if this user feels proud with his block record history.

I really believe that the other Albanian users have good intentions in improving together this article, and we will try in good faith to improve it, but I_Pekepshem is really a bad exeption, launching personal attacks in order to trigger 'chaos'.

I have tried to make some corrections in the lead already, but with this highly disruptive activity by him, I doubt if we have peacuful resultsAlexikoua (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


Alexikoua, why don't you report on the language of your compatriot Megistias? How about your accusations that you have made against me, that I have set you up to be banned and many other ridiculous ones? The ones with bad itentions Alexikoua are you and all the other greek editors. Like I have said, all you guys seem to be extremely interested in editing Albanian and Albanian related article, and never interested in compromising but only pushing your nationalistic POV.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2009 (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.

Tag Teaming

Seems like Megistias and Alexikoua here are tag teaming not to get into an edit war, by reverting the photo that i added on baseless arguments like "WIth that added the gallery has 3 void spaces,now it has not voids" and "8 images are enough". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fustanella&action=history--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have wiki-commons. In the past you had a great desire to add a picture with a fustanella guy. It's ok. Now you want to add another one. Off course you can upload one thousand pictures with Albanians wearing Fustanella and I suggest you create a category in wiki commons for that job. It's obvious the article doesn't need dozent of pictures of the same clothe. Alexikoua (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on how many photos the article can have, hence your and Megistia's rvs are quite simply unnecessary and consist of edit warring.--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Tried to request checkuser at the proper place, but i was not allowed to, dunno why. I could not write anything after i opened proper box. So, before this new sock, User:Fgh089 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fgh089) - note name similarity, edits in Portuguese soccer, etc, etc - has a chance to further "contribute", i would appreciate some actions if possible. I only requested investigation (in this case, with checkuser) because i wanted to follow the procedures, i KNOW it's User:Pararubbas!

Take care, ty very much in advance,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for filing a report at WP:SPI. It looks like it is going through the system now, and the SPI editors should be able to handle it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Attentively, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Zxcv08 has been blocked per the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Corticopia... yet again.

His disruptive behaviour and his continuous violation of the Wikipedia rules continues, just in order to spread his bias and POV. Check this please, he's again trying to impose a false concept (that doesn't even exist for Latin America!) and thus, starting a revert-war disguised in anonymous IP. [64]

IP 69.158.58.56 (click to see WhoIs), as usual, the same range and from Toronto, Canada. Not to mention the bias and POV he's trying to impose. Thanks for your help in advance. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

69.158.58.56 is likely to be Corticopia but has made only one edit so far in 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Does this editor have nothing better than to do than to assail anonymous IPs for minor edits? He has already accused one other editor of being a sockpuppet (Feeeshboy) based on his 'expertise'. Middle America is just as much a 'subregion' of Latin America as North America, Central America, etc. Oh: wait, everything there is pretty much unsourced. So, who is being disruptive? Put a sock in it. 69.158.58.56 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
What's more, the recent originator of the content in the appropriate section added in "'Central America', 'Meso America'" originally, only for the 'editor' above to change it to suit his petty subjective viewpoint. So, who is imposing the false concept? 69.158.58.56 (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

4 disruptive edits so far (plus every other he's gonna do today) 69.158.58.56 contributions log AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 13:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the adding of that text disruptive? This editor has reverted without explaining why in edit summaries. As well, speaking of 'rules', he may have violated the 3 revert rule. This editor seriously needs to STFU. 69.158.58.56 (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He's just being disruptive, uncivil, highly agressive, using profanity in edit summaries and other Wikipedia violations. Please check his Contributions log. By the way, he used profanity here, against me look [65] (In case you don't know STFU means shut the fuck up)AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Boo-hoo. Perhaps the administrator is cognizant of and has chosen to ignore this editor's shenanigans. 69.158.58.56 (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Athenean

User has broken his ARMBAC restriction of one revert per week per article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athenean Here is the latest revert. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himar%C3%AB&action=edit&undoafter=314214701&undo=314222464 Sources are provided in the talk page by Aigest with isbn numbers for books and page numbers. His nationalistic POV pushing won't stop.--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he undid his last revert at 00:45. That clears up the potential 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I am getting really tired of I Pakapshem's tendentiousness and disruption. His recent contribs log is a graveyard of incivility, filibuster, personal attacks, and vendettas against other users, bogus reports, POV-motivated AfD's, you name it [66] [67] [68]. He is starting to become very disruptive. Enough. --Athenean (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention disruptive canvassing [69]. --Athenean (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your claims are nonsense. The article is part of TaskForce Albanian and notifying them that is up for deletion is not canvassing at all but a normal thing to do. Canvassing is what you and the other greek editors do.--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Take some anger management classes. You can't go around pushing your nationalistic agenda and not expect reprecussions for it.--I Pakapshem (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Illyrian languages

There is always an IP who vandalizes [70] the article by removing Albanian language article from the related topics. If you read through the article you can see that Venetic language is not linked anymore with Illyrian being a separate group and the same is with Liburnian language which belongs to Venetic group, again not related to Illyrian, while Albanian language is still disputed as such. However all the three languages are listed in the related topics because they have been once (or even now case of Albanian) linked with Illyrian language. Apparently the anon IP keeps removing Albanian language link various times [71] [72] [73] [74] persevering in disruptive edits. Could you semi-protect the Illyrian languages article? Bests Aigest (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Aigest. I added a new section header above your comment, and semiprotected Illyrian languages. The IP who was reverting the article does not participate in any discussions. If he joins the Talk page to discuss his changes, and agrees to accept consensus, the semi may be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? And where is the RELIABLE source? Just because some ALbanian guy would like to believe that he is a direct descendant of the Illyrians does NOT mean that that is so, nor that the Turkic language that Albanians speak is in any way shape or form the modern version of the Indo-European Illyrian tongue. 41.245.151.96 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. In the rush of writing I forgot the title, anyhow you managed to name it exactly like what I had in mind :) Bests Aigest (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it more than a little strange that when asked for reliable sources, the point of action is to lock the page. I'm sure Aigest is thrilled. Unfortunately anyone who knows reads the article will find pro-Albanian POV and factual errors. 41.245.151.96 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors who make changes to hotly-contested articles using an IP address with no history do not always get a full hearing for their opinions. Please consider creating an account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Skopje name at ANI

Hey EdJohnson, thanks for the heads-up. I have replied in the relevant thread, please have a look if you are interested. What exaclty seems to be the problem with the alternative name? I am not a sock-puppet of another recently involved, registered user. Pariah Lupus (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry of Iwanafish continues

Hello,

Please see Iwanfish's use of Enfermeroo as a sockpuppet for his continued misbehavior. Please compare what he has done in the past to the exact behavior he is doing now with Enfermeroo. I guess I am flattered. His use of a variant of my user name is an attempt to confuse, mislead or distort. Any suggestions on what to do?

The real Enfermero (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Handled. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. He is a strange user and I am glad I was warned about him. Enfermero (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Himara

Seeing that Athenean was forced to undo his revert of my perfectly fine edit, he has notified his tag team partner Alexikoua to revert my edit nontheless in the Himara claim with the claim that the section added is not properly sourced, although Aigest has clearly provided them in the talk page. This looks like gaming of the system. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himar%C3%AB&action=history--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph was added to the article without including the sources. I assume you intend the items at Talk:Himarë#1481 uprising under Scanderbeg.27s son to serve as sources. You are making very specific claims about the fate of Albanians in Sicily, and not telling us which of a large set of books can be used to back this up. And, you did not provide any inline citations, to help us understand who asserted what. Do you have access to any of these books, so that this material can be substantiated in detail? I found Kurt Treptow's book on Google Books but it had very little to say about Himara. This is literally everything that Google shows from Page 40 (it is only 'Snippet view'):

...vision to Himara. The Albanian victories over Suleiman's troops and the subsequence capture of Himara and Sopot came at a critical time for Ferrante. The Neapolitans were having difficulty financing their..

Can you tell if any facts in the paragraph are substantiated by this? If not, who has access to the book? Someone who wants to add the text should have access. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aigest has provided page numbers on the sources he has listed. That should be more than enough, and yes the facts of the successes of the uprising in 1494-1509 are substantiated by the above citation.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're asking us to take on faith that the book substantiates what the article says. An actual quote from the book would be more persuasive. If neither you nor Aigest has actually seen the book, I would be doubtful. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would he provide page numbers if he hasn't seen the book? Isn't assuming good faith a wiki thing? If you're not assuming the posivite then you're assuming he just made up the page numbers, right?--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source. http://books.google.com/books?id=slVpAAAAMAAJ&q=himara+1481&dq=himara+1481 Clearly mentions Himara and the son of Kastrioti.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that I would exclude that paragraph, if it were up to me. But the material has been challenged by other editors, on factual grounds. I expect you will work to try to overcome their doubts. For example, you did not even add the references to the article itself. It is easier to do a little bit of library work or web searching than to try to win the argument in a political controversy. Though you have ongoing disagreements with Alexikoua and Athenean, this particular case is is not really political. It's a question of whether editors who want to add new material will prepare the material thoroughly. If you need any help in formatting references, I can assist. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is political, it is always political ed with these guys. This paragraph clearly shows Himara's Albanian heritage and they can't have that because they are trying to claim Himara as greek. Aigest already did the work, and if you google himara 1481 you get the books he mentions in the talk page. I believe the article should be readded and we can add the links to the specifik books from google books. If you can help me do this then that's good.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I explained that the section is unsourced, but it would be a surprise if I_P. wouldn't accuse me just for 24h..Alexikoua (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This comes from a guy who went on rave about me setting you up to be banned by wikipedia by creating sockpuppets and the like. If you as so much open the talk page and see, the sources are all in oder by Aigest.--I Pakapshem (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you to add them.Alexikoua (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't because of the ARMBAC restriction.--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello I Pakapshem. If you want to draft up a new version of the paragraph on the article Talk page, and include the references (formatted properly) I imagine someone could be found to re-add the paragraph. Leave enough time to pass for others to comment on your work. Since Alexikoua removed the paragraph before, he is allowed to re-add the paragraph if he wants to, without violating any restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the paragraph. So, I_P. no reason to bother. According to your approach, Himara is Albanian again.Alexikoua (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read two of the books (Castellan in Albanian language my personal library, Petta in Italian from library), I know what they say and declare, but in order to give all the possibility to verify that those facts are true I will provide a freely visible text link

Giovani Albino, born in Castelluco, was in service of Aragonese court as teacher, biblioterian, secretary, diplomat, oratory. He was the author of De bello Hydruntino (1480-148), narrating the war of Otranto. link [75]

and here is part of text from his book in Latin [76]

and the comment made by author with the translation from Italian to English made by me.

Albino alludes of the military campaign lead by John Castriot Skanderbeg against the Turks in Albania, in the begining of September, in order to prevent that the new reinforcements from Valona could arrived to help the besieged Ottomans in Otranto. In fact in this port, it was gathered a naval contingent lead by Suleyman Alibey Eunuch, governor of Greece, with duty to protect that locality and to provide help to Turks which were in the Puglia's city. The Skanderbeg in the command of 4000 Albanian infantry and with the help of Neapolitan fleet, which had reached him in the meantime, defeated the enemy in Himara and made him prisoner. Alphons, while received the news of the victory, sent immediatly (7 September) Albino in Albania for ransoming and taking in his Kingdom, Suleyman Alibey Eunuch which in turn when the war was over, was liberated against a ransom of 20.000 ducats.[77]

Or even this one, official website of Himara region [78]

Hope it is useful. Bests Aigest (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough reply. I see that Alexikoua has restored some material to the article as a result. I hope that you or one of the regular editors will also add the references which you found to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Added the ref. Hope none argues anymore on this :) Regards Aigest (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still not the same. Critical information that clearly shows these Himariots that left Himara after the failed uprisings, settled in Italy and to this day they refer to themselves as Albanians, has been left out.--I Pakapshem (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Need the details, as explained above. Work with Aigest if you don't have the details. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The book says about Kastrioti, nothing about migration to Italy.Alexikoua (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Read Piana degli Albanesi and you will see. Himara was, is and will forever be Albanian in every possible way. Just because some greek schools were open in the 18th century there and some sold out people now a days declare they are greek for a 200 euro pension, does not make them greek. Himariots actually in majority are not even autochtones to the town, but catholic migrants after the ottoman takeover of Albania from Puka, Miredita and Lezha. They have last names like Gjoni, Gjini, Leka, Ndrenika etc which are typical catholic northern Albanian last names.--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanians appear in history after 11th century AD.Its that simple before that they were not in the region of Epirus or anywhere within Byzantium. Byzantine_references_to_Albanians.Himare was ancient Greek then Roman then Byzantine and so on.Megistias (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hahahah what a joke. The name albanians appears in history in the 11th century, but before they were Illyrians and Epirotes, Chaonians, Mollosians, Thesprotes. Himara is, was and will always be Albanian in every way possible.--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Souliotes

I believe this article should be protected again as it was 2 months ago. Alexikoua and Megistias keep messing with the lead where it's clearly stated and backed up by 18 sources that the ethnic origin of Souliotes is Albanian, by adding POV material such as Souliotes were a mixed population of Hellenized Albanians and Greeks. Yet again another example of their nationalistic POV pushing which has as its aim to make wikipedia into greekipedia and promote their nationalistic agenda.--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please behave on a civilized way. Your statements about Albanian purity have no place in wiki. Be pantient and read the sources about the Souliotes' origin, which was mixed according to a number of academic shollars. By the way the 18 sources you mention are not specific about the origin. See origins section in Souliotes discussion page.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


hehe the uncivilized greek nationalist is telling me how to act civilized. Isn't that ironic?! Who mentioned Albanian purity here? You can't change the facts just because you don't like them. Which scholars? Pro greek nationalistic scholars? Those 18 sources are very specific and I have read the discussion. --I Pakapshem (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And by the way you have three reverts in one day in this article.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Souliotes&action=history If that's not edit warring Ed, then I don't know what is. --I Pakapshem (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached on this sentence some months now [[79]]. You have to present real counter-arguments not just accusing without reasons claiming about national purity. Moreover, the ethnically 'mixed' version is the most appropriate according to the npov standarts with present 'rs' works.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No consesus has been reached. They can't be mixed whey then descend from Cham Albanians. Chams are not Greek.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Ed, Alexikoua besides edit warring and adding nationalistic material to the article goes and deletes my comments on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Souliotes&diff=315974589&oldid=315968495 This is clear, he is not interested in having a civilized discussion and in coming to a compromise. He deletes my comments, edit warrs and keeps pushing his nationalistic agenda. Some kind of action has to be taken to protect the article and against him.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I_Pakapshem. Why are you trying to create a battleground in Souliotes too? What you are writing there isn't really appropriate and far unencyclopedic. Well you give me no other choice, I will initiate an rfc case.Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Initiate whatever you want, the only one creating a battleground is somebody who edit warrs and deletes other people's comments on the talk page of the article. The only one being inappropriate and unencyclopedic is you here, and the proof is above.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a battleground call [[80]], if you are really proud for this, leave it that way. My policy is to avoid extremeties from both sides.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments are completely fine. You deleted them because they are proof againts your nationalistic edit warring. Your policy is to push extreme greek nationalism in making things greek even when they clearly are not.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I say they were mixed Albanian-Greeks as they are appropriately sourced, it's not me that insist on racial purity scenarios among peoples.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You can say they came from Mars as far as you're concerned, the point is there are 18 sources that clearly show that they are Cham Albanians. This is not an insistence on anything, but a fact that is completely accepted even by the reasonable greek academia. You keep on going with your nationalistic POV pushing.--I Pakapshem (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed, are you going to do anything about this? Now Alexikoua has canvassed and brought users like Factuarius and Guldenrich to edit warr in Souliotes and re add the nationalistic info.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Disruptive_user_I_Pakapshem. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(I was just about to do this myself--Michael X the White (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

My opinion

I wrote my opinion on the talk page of Souliotes and User:Alexikoua, removed it[81]!!!!!Are users allowed to do that?I don't think so--Kreshnik25 (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

His action was puzzling. I see you have properly restored the comment, and that you have the ability to find references for articles. Each person must build their own reputation, but it might help if you would let us know how you became aware of the dispute on these articles. That's how you got your start on editing here. You've also chosen to reveal very little on your user page about your background and interests. Not to belabor the point, but a non-empty user page with practically no useful information is sometimes associated with socks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
got it. make more things known about my interests, be more polite. I am interested in Albanian-related topics, and that's why I edit them. Souliotes are one of the important parts of Albanian-related articles. What is a "meatpuppet"?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
A concern may arise that one of the current participants in the Albanian-Greek controversy recruited you off-wiki to join this discussion. If you were recruited, you can say so, and it may add more credibility to your mysterious sudden appearance in a hot issue. See WP:MEAT for details. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

got it. no, I wasn't "recruited", although I must admit I had talked online a few months ago with this user User:Balkanian' s word about stuff not related to wikipedia. That was months ago, does it really matter? --Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He removed my replies again![82]. Is this legit in wikipedia?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

correct me if I'm wrong, but after being reverted someone who wants to add info on an article, must discuss not call someone else to revert for him. [83]. So Alexikoua, should discuss, and not call others to revert for him!.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kres: You are good on accusing. About the concensus see origin section in Souliotes talk page. Suppose you were not wiki-active that time. I deleted your comments because you make just empty accusations provoking edit-wars, just unconstructive edits, but if you are proud with what you write, I can't insist. Alexikoua (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All I know is couple of days ago, it said "ethnically Ablanian", and then suddenly it said "mixed". So, I have every right to support my thesis, against nationalist beliefs. If you think I am this "meatpuppet" thing, PROVE it. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That is an honest statement, you admit you are here just to support edit-wars. No contribution at all.Alexikoua (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Alexikoua, I expect you will stop removing comments. If there is a fight over the Souliotes article, I suggest opening up an WP:Request for comment. This forces clarification of the issue, since somebody must make a topic for the RfC. Obviously a situation where people are a hybrid between Albanian and Greek makes difficulties for the nationalists on both sides. This is to be resolved using sources like any other problem on Wikipedia. If the sources disagree, quote both of them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but your last edits in the discussion page is simply called trolling . Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Look at that [84] EdJohnston. Just because he doesn't like the origin of the name, he removed my source saying that it could be Turkish. Really? There are a thousand ways he could check its validity, but he chose to "defend" the "Greekness"(as he perceives it). --Kreshnik25 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So after deleting my comments after saying I'm a "meatpuppet", now he says "ignore trolling". Is anyone really allowed to say things like that for other users ?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He should stop removing your comments. Even so, when someone who comes out of nowhere starts arguing in a hot conflict it is reminiscent of what socks do. By saying a bit more about yourself, you would help to remove doubts. We do not have any shortage of plain-vanilla Greek nationalists and Albanian nationalists. Maybe you could surprise us by becoming more useful with content contributions and references. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
If Greek nationalists stoped promoting nationalism, then I would "surprise" you. It's not up to me. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Alexikoua gathered his "buddies" to treat his version as "consensus" but if yo uread the talkpage, it isn't a consensus!!!! If that ain't manipulating, then you tell what manipulating is.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

First Article

If a person is in many google books, then he is eligible for a wikipedia article?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If he is in many Google books, that is a positive sign. You can present your ideas for an article over at WP:Drawing board and people will give you feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I can do it on my own. When I finish will you take a look? --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning + help needed!

Thanks for getting involved. Though I also got warned I appreciate your contribution! In this and other similar issue, calling for third opinion seems to give the idea that the other user has a point. In this case, his references were non-verifiable, from a forum, or from a biased (Serbian) author, so I considered I would be backed by an administrator. I believe I will not make the same miscalculation again. However, could I count on you to come and resolve/verify/check such issues, before calling for third opinion? —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not supposed to decide content matters. If you plan to contribute to other Balkan articles, you should be aware that they are contentious, so you should start to get familiar with WP:Dispute resolution, including WP:Requests for comment. If you think a source can't be relied on, open a question at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The cited source about Serbian epic poetry seems fragile, and I don't see the urgency of providing even tenuous alternatives to how Prizren's name could have arisen. But that's just my opinion, and won't decide how future disputes on this article should be resolved. The lack of a working URL is clearly a concern. Editors who show by their behavior that they can't edit Balkan articles neutrally may wind up being sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC, but we are certainly not at that point yet, for either you or Tadija. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
My primary interest in Wikipedia was to contribute mainly on culture and art. But I was really surprised with the lack of objectivity in Albanian-related articles. (As I am an Albanian). I mean, look at this page Albanian nationalism, this guy User:Megistias claims that there is a Government nationalistic system in Albania - HE has a claim. Even after a third party intervened, and warned him, this guy does not stop. So I am hooked to Albanian related articles, until a little balance is reached. As, Albanian editors (mainly from Task Force Albania) seem to be really unexperienced at finding facts and following other procedures in WP. Something I also fall short of at the moment, but other mainly Greek editors seem to have mastered. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I know I am bothering again, but this Prizren, Talk:Prizren issue seems to be out of control. Though you raised a question, User:Tadija is not keen on showing a bit of interest in any discussion. An he insist on his version through war-editing. (I asked for my name to be changed - it is in process) —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing Edit War

After you protected Souliotes they changed it back to the NON-consensus lead [85], trying to pass it as a consensus!!! But it isn't a consensus!!! You read the talkpage, and you know it! Please do something about it. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proclaimed edit-war

It seems that User:Kreshnik25 was right, he honestly admited yeasterday that he came in wiki just for edit-warring. Today's contribution was a nationalistic concert and in two specific instances the removals are considered vandalism in compination with personal attacks:

  • [[86]], saying that every Greek source is unreliable... Also, saying that the term 'Albanian's captives' is pov but modern bibliography seems to agree that the Albanian regime of the 60' was a european equivalent of North Korea ([[87]] p. 3, [[88]] p. 190 even by pro-Albanian authors [[89]] Vickers&Petiffer),
  • He deleted government data about the number of ethnic Albanian immigrants in Greece [[90]], saying that 'no one is interested in my personal opinions'.

The pattern is usual, it seems we have a new active member of the LRK team:Sarandioti-I_Pakapshem here.Alexikoua (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again this meatpuppet theory? PROVE it. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Is it THAT difficult for YOU to use a source written by a NON-Greek author?

If what you claim is right, then you should have no problem finding one similar source. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You say I edit war, but I didn't delete your comments. That was you. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I asking for TOO much? All I'm saying is "bring sources from non-Greek authors, as in these articles Greek(as Albanian) authors are NOT neutral. A Greek source that claims that the Greek minority was a "captive of Albania" is NOT reliable. Is that DIFFICULT for you to understand that? --Kreshnik25 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It was a 1965 work, I explained why they were considered captives (the book deals in general with all the Albanian population not just the Greek minority) that time. You are violating wiki policy as per wp:rs with this. The author was American citizen, by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way I didn' t say he was a Greek citizen, I just said Greek. I am not violating any policy, unless there is a policy that says "x Greek author is a reliable source.". I am just stating the obvious. That Greek(or Albanian) authors should not be used in Albanian-Greek articles. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The wp:rs criteria do not state something like that, but if you believe that 'Albania's Captives' isn't ok, it's a deal. I can add M.V. Sakelariou, an internationally recognized work, which states exactly the same.Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't use Greek sources on Albanian-Greek articles. I'm not saying anything unreasonable. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
"Don't use Greek sources on Albanian-Greek articles" is (a) highly unreasonable, and (b) who do you think you are? Wikipedia has rules, such as WP:RS and WP:V regarding sources. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with them. You don't get to make the rules. --Athenean (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It was proved that even the English author source of ALexikoua was based on a Greek source. So now there are no reliable sources to support his thesis. EdJohnston can you restore the normal lead?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Spam Barnstar

The Anti-Spam Barnstar
Many thanks for your efforts on the "At Thy will South Africa" case. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of you!--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

some advice

I am requesting advice, not offering.

You recently gave me a warning in response to the 3RR report that I made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:gu1dry_reported_by_User:119.173.81.176_.28Result:_Both_parties_warned.29

I have put the cites supporting my edits on the article talk page and I have also left a message on the other editor's talk page - however as yet, no response.

Perhaps it is because it is the weekend and the other editor has a better social life than me? the skeptic in me thinks that it is no coincidence that he has made no edits since I made the 3RR report and is currently lying low.

But anyway, I would prefer to get a response from the other editor before I even considered reverting again, but if there is no response, how long should I wait?

119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not continue to revert about the transmission unless you can find someone else who supports your position. The other guy has not edited since 25 September, and he probably has a life outside Wikipedia. If you often edit car articles, you must know of some places where you can ask for other views. If not, consider making a request at WP:Third opinion. Otherwise, since this is surely not a burning issue, why not wait a few days to see if the other guy comes back. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I put a message on the article talk page, in the hope that someone else would give their opinion - but you are right, it isn't time critical and I certainly can wait a few days to see what happens. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Ignore all of the above, it seems he read what I put on the talk page and added the information himself. Problem solved. Thanks. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

These pages need semi-prot, Elockid has so far had to break 3RR on two of these pages to keep Nangparbat's edits down. I have asked two other admins, but they don't seem to have got the message yet

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know

I want to propose my first article for "newest articles Did You Know". Can you please help me propose it after I finish it?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS 10

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Here comes the 15th (or is it 16th) sock!! It is called User:Nji089 (contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nji089 - so far i don't think it has been disruptive, but it will), just to let you know.

Have a nice weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for filing at SPI. Did you see any bad edits? If his changes are not reverted, does that mean they are good? Is your only evidence the fact that he is interested in Portuguese football and his name is typical of Pararubbas socks? EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for replying my friend. Answering your questions in order: No (so far), not necessarily and yes (but i am sure it is him, and ALL the checkusers previous have shown just that); additionally, could you now enlighten me on the meaning of the message in pink background in the main account's user page (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pararubbas)? The "...regardless of the merits of the edits themselves." immediately strikes out, but maybe it's me that is not quite getting the meaning of the wiki-rule in question.

Thanks for everything, keep it up,

VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are sure this is Pararubbas, even though the edits are not bad, I hope you will make that point at SPI. Since it is now endorsed for checkuser, that should settle the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad anon

It looks like User:84.109.74.77 whom you blocked on 3RR (really 8RR) for inserting the same WP:BLP violation on Slavoj Zizek with every edit, has returned immediately post-block to doing solely the exact same edit. If you can maybe do something about this to avoid the need to go through the same 3RR complaint again, that would be great.

Another block would seem appropriate. Or perhaps a semi-protect on the underlying article, which would at least keep the anon away from doing the same thing. As far as I know, no anonymous account has ever contributed anything useful to that particular article, in any case, so semi seems like a good state. Or something else in the infinite wisdom of your admindom. LotLE×talk 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The offending IP has been reblocked. If he returns under a different IP, semiprotection would be the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. LotLE×talk 18:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock-puppet

Please take a look at this guy. Blatant sock-puppet of an IP you recently banned here. Note the incivility in the edit summary. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DUCK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Userpage Vandalizing

User:Tadija vandalized my userpage. [98]. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Again [99].--Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
And Again [100]--Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
And Again [101]--Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Can you help me? is there possibility to check these users for sockpuppetry?

There must be some relationship between them. All edits are identical, and Kreshnik25 is new account, as AnnaFabiano, and they are deep into discussion already, as they are there for days.

Many thanks, i wait for your answer. Tadija (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because people don't agree with you, that doesn't mean they're the same person. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if it is relevant or if it will help, but I just remind you that there has been a recent incident of sockpuppetry of an Albanian editor.[102].--Michael X the White (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I left a response to Tadija at this link. He has cleared his Talk page for some reason. Here was the answer I left there:
Don't keep putting the sock templates on Kreshnik25's pages. If you file a WP:SPI request, admins can take care of any templates that turn out to be needed. Your evidence seems weak. In national disputes, many people agree with each other without being socks. Brand-new editors who have few edits on Wikipedia may sometimes not be taken as seriously as others. If you keep putting templates on Kreshnik you may be blocked for 3RR.
@Michael IX: I am quite familiar with the Sarandioti/Alarichus case. If you have real evidence of socking, it will always be considered. Mere coincidence of viewpoints is not enough. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Prizren

Hi, Ed. I saw that you participated in the discussion. Please help me solve the problem of the origin of the name "Prizren". According to what i found, sources from User: Tadija are more true, and User:Kreshnik25 tried to add wrong sources that are not verifiable. But it seems that they are in strife, so i asked you to give your final word. Thank you in advance, I don want anymore to engage in their discussions. Pagliaccioknows (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tadija' s sources are written by Serb researchers, while the preexisting data was written by Eric Hamp. Now if you think that Serb reasearchers are more reliable that Eric Hamp a well-known linguist that's another issue.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you join the discussion?

An unbiased opinion would be welcomed here [103]. Until now Tadija has no real opinion other than accusing Annafabiano and me of "trying to erase the Serbian heritage of Kosovo", and this other guy Athenean, jsut joined the discussion to say "this is ridiculous" and "no one refers to it as Gjakove", although 1,3milion results exist for Gjakove and only 355,000 for Dakovica. Is this wikipedia? "bring your friends over to win the game". Join in, you would really be helpful. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're past warning with Tadija, since he can't prove I'm AnnaFabiano's sock, now he's adding edit warring templates in my talkpage. [104]. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And again [105] Can't you do something to stop him?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of the Bible

Perhaps a 1-month ban from Wikipedia would be better? PiCo (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

MessiniaGreece

Hi, I'm afraid MessiniaGreece (talk · contribs), who you blocked yesterday, may need a bit more action. He's apparently block-evading through IP 62.38.121.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), again stubbornly repeating the same edits. Note that this is the same range as 62.38.117.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was active on the same article immediately before MessiniaGreece took over, so the identity seems pretty obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's better to make step by step moves on articles of high importance, and especially on controversial historical issues. However the article needs real cleanup to meet at least B class standarts of a wiki country article.

I 've noticed that User:I_Pakapshem 'forgets' to warn the user he reports, although the report noticeboard states it clear that such a warning should be done (also acted the same way against Athenean, Megistias). It's not the first time he makes it 'silent', suppose he wants to avoid being traced the right time by the user he reports, in order not to post his explanation in the 3rr noticeboard...Alexikoua (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ferizaj

Why can't this article be edited?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your account is too new. You are not yet autoconfirmed. So either wait a day, or ask at WP:RFPP for the article's semiprotection to be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
okay.--Kreshnik25 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Hello EdJohnston, would it be OK, if I ask you to give your evaluation on this issue? Thank you in advance. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarandioti sock

Hiya Ed,

I am notifying you of an SPI I have filed here [106]. To me, this new user, Kreshnik, has "Sarandioti" written all over him. Considering your experience in dealing with both, I thought you might be interested. Regards. --Athenean (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing information from Albania article

Could you please just come to Albania#Religion and see this un-discussed deletion of information. That is really basic religion info that should not be deleted (not without discussion at least), as it shows that Albanians were Christian before being Muslim and Atheist. —Anna Comnena (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked User:Megistias to stop reverting the article. I'm also considering the wisdom of a 1RR per day restriction at Albania, which would apply to all editors. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I will revert it to the previous version now. —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to revert it again but my edits were not on the statistics like the previous edit warring in the article(i think that was the edit warring there, i didnt take part in that).But you mean in general edit warring.diff,diff The thing is that despite an Main article on religion in the region existing there are two irregular paragraphs in that place.The whole thing goes from modern time 1912-1950 to the antiquity and the middle ages and then in Communism and the now.Its out of place and by the time christianity got there the region of Albania was Roman Macedon, specifically Epirus nova.Writing of Illyrian paganism is also irrelevant and out of place.The Illyrian gods article is pretty clear.My deletion of information was a regular cleanup.Megistias (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. You should be aware that fast-moving edits at Albania have the potential to upset people, especially when ethnic controversy is possible. The comment you added here is much longer than anything you had to say on the subject of religion at Talk:Albania. Persuading the editors there is surely worth a try. 'Cleanup' is good only when everyone perceives it as well-intentioned. It seems that others did not pick up on your good intentions, even though they were present. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that this irrelevant part has been readded diff.A source has been falsified to support Illyrian paganism source which actually discusses Albanian nationalism myths and the particular part talks of Albanian nationalism myths on Illyrians including their mythology.There is no link whatsover with the Albanians and Illyrian religion, this is Weaseling or a big mistake.A main article exists and those two paragraphs seem out of place.Megistias (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the connection between the Albanians and Illyrian religion may not be easy to prove. I actually don't see the support in the quoted book for the claim that Christianity "..had to compete up to the Middle Ages with native Illyrian paganism" Do you agree that the book itself is reputable? EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you refering to Anna or me? Probably to Anna.There is no link whatsoever between Albanians and Illyrian religion.Megistias (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The essence is that 1.Albanians appear in history in 11th centuryAD as christians 2.Illyrian religion has an article as does religion in Albania.Megistias (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_14&oldid=1213601115"